Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: The Pro-Gun Argument

  1. #1
    New Member BLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Left seat in a Super Viking

    The Pro-Gun Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara View Post
    That meme is entrenched in the minds of a generation or two, Bill, and I don't believe you can reason someone out of a position they didn't reason their way into in the first place.

    Modern liberal political thought as practiced in most of the western world states that, in order to maintain civilisation and society, individuals cede the legitimate use of force to the state, rather than "taking the law into their own hands", lest everything collapse into a Somaliland of vendettas and vigilantes.

    The Second Amendment is a relic of an earlier time that only applies these days to sportsmen hunting in the tradition of our forefathers. The National Guard is our "well-regulated militia".

    If you can't put yourself in your opponent's headspace, you can't make an effective argument to them, and there's a serious doubt that you can make an effective argument that strikes at the root of their beliefs. Some of this stuff is so bedrock for her that it is like arguing Creation v. Evolution.
    Refining my question/argument -

    We need to change the argument from "legitimate hunters" to self defense of "weaker" people. Meaning in this instance the fairer sex and children. From my perspective (I warrant it no further than what I believe), to me, this is 50% of the argument for the 2ndA: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332513 . And this should be driven down Michael Moores cavernous throat. I think the other portion is where we loose ground - me, a single white male between 25 and 55, cannot argue effectively to the population at large that I need my Thunder Ranch Rifle and a store-n-lock full of 30 rounders to guard against jackbooted brownshirts. However, a well funded organization of women could. We need to change the perception of gun owners from American Gun/John Kerry shooting a round of sporting clays, to this:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/23...nger-siblings/

    I don't believe that any man can deliver that argument with the gravitas needed. I do believe an organization of Pro-gun women can.

    Haraise - to speak to the "how," take a page from the Brady Campaign. Use their business model. I'm not saying it would need to be you and Tam specifically, but we need, IMO, strong, articulate and fast thinking women at the forefront. Every time Feinstie or Piersie opens their mouth, they would intellectually embarrass them and leave with the final words of "why would you want 'this woman' to have been raped/beaten/whatever?" Brady even has the stats for us - what was it, 80,000 justified uses of handguns every year? A woman fighting off an attacker here in Dayton hardly even makes the news. That needs to change. And the message needs to be driven home to the politicians. That's what Brady does. That is their audience as far as I can tell.

    Anyway, those are my thoughts jotted down quickly why wading through a proposal right now. The point being - I believe firmly such an organization could change the dynamic of the debate, and provide a more effective argument for gun rights.

  2. #2
    Biil do you honestly believe women can effectively muster on this issue? Women are a BIG reason BO is still in office.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Riehl View Post
    Refining my question/argument -

    We need to change the argument from "legitimate hunters" to self defense of "weaker" people. Meaning in this instance the fairer sex and children. From my perspective (I warrant it no further than what I believe), to me, this is 50% of the argument for the 2ndA: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332513 . And this should be driven down Michael Moores cavernous throat. I think the other portion is where we loose ground - me, a single white male between 25 and 55, cannot argue effectively to the population at large that I need my Thunder Ranch Rifle and a store-n-lock full of 30 rounders to guard against jackbooted brownshirts. However, a well funded organization of women could. We need to change the perception of gun owners from American Gun/John Kerry shooting a round of sporting clays, to this:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/23...nger-siblings/

    I don't believe that any man can deliver that argument with the gravitas needed. I do believe an organization of Pro-gun women can.

    Haraise - to speak to the "how," take a page from the Brady Campaign. Use their business model. I'm not saying it would need to be you and Tam specifically, but we need, IMO, strong, articulate and fast thinking women at the forefront. Every time Feinstie or Piersie opens their mouth, they would intellectually embarrass them and leave with the final words of "why would you want 'this woman' to have been raped/beaten/whatever?" Brady even has the stats for us - what was it, 80,000 justified uses of handguns every year? A woman fighting off an attacker here in Dayton hardly even makes the news. That needs to change. And the message needs to be driven home to the politicians. That's what Brady does. That is their audience as far as I can tell.

    Anyway, those are my thoughts jotted down quickly why wading through a proposal right now. The point being - I believe firmly such an organization could change the dynamic of the debate, and provide a more effective argument for gun rights.
    Strong, well spoken, good arguments mean little when Piers is more than willing to keep talking over a person and use their position on a show to make sure that he gets the last word and more airtime.

    Debate television is simply a trap, I'm not sure what can be done 'in the lion's den' so to speak.

    I'll pull up a recent post of mine....

    "Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.

    * Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

    This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives."

    Quoted, of course. I could memorize and quote and talk over and yell and lean in with the best of them, but I'm not sure that television is an effective medium.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthNarc View Post
    Biil do you honestly believe women can effectively muster on this issue? Women are a BIG reason BO is still in office.
    That's also a good point. Not only is there sociological pressure to not-think about politics, but about security in general. A lot of women I know voted for Obama because they 'liked his voice, thought it sounded strong and safe.'

    This is a historical issue. Just like any other repressed minority that has since been given a double standard as recompense, they'll value the wrong things. Being for the first time, in a long time 'equal' to men, while expecting doors opened, bills paid for, decisions made, allowance of emotional control... all the trappings of the old ownership system of women but with an equality label pasted over it in big letters... is not going to lead, in general to a population of self reliant individuals that take responsibility for their own decisions.

    There's a possibility it could work, but a very high probability one could spend their life and create nothing more than a very marginalized fringe organization.
    Last edited by Haraise; 12-28-2012 at 04:26 PM.

  4. #4
    New Member BLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Left seat in a Super Viking
    I certainly hope you both are very wrong.

    I fear you are not.

    ETA - I'm not saying not to engage in a little guerrilla warfare too, with the likes of Moore and Piers though. Addressing the general public with a well thought out and logical argument though.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Haraise View Post

    A lot of women I know voted for Obama because they 'liked his voice, thought it sounded strong and safe.'


    Right here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

  6. #6
    New Member BLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Left seat in a Super Viking
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthNarc View Post
    Are you two trying to take away all my hope?

  7. #7
    Site Supporter Tamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In free-range, non-GMO, organic, fair trade Broad Ripple, IN
    I thought it was the other team that practiced identity politics, dividing voters up into blocs by age, gender, ethnicity, income bracket, and whatnot.

    I see that so-called "conservatives" aren't much into individualism anymore, either. Guess everyone's bought into the narrative, now.

    Oh, well... I got mine, kids.
    Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.

    I can explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara View Post
    I thought it was the other team that practiced identity politics, dividing voters up into blocs by age, gender, ethnicity, income bracket, and whatnot.
    I thought everybody did that.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter MDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Terroir de terror
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthNarc View Post
    I thought everybody did that.
    Nah, it's only white middle-age martial-arts-nuts Southerners who think that.

    The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that we need a "Liberty Conservation" campaign. Whenever a resource - clean air, water, wolves, bald eagles, whatever - is thought of as basically infinite, that leads to mismanagement and eventually the resource dies out....unless some conservation campaign generates the intense emotional fervor that's needed for sweeping legislation. Short of sending folks on extended candid tours to places like Cuba, China, etc, I can't think of a meaningful way to present Liberty as important to someone who doesn't already see it that way...
    The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. The mind cannot foresee its own advance. --FA Hayek Specialization is for insects.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara View Post
    I thought it was the other team that practiced identity politics, dividing voters up into blocs by age, gender, ethnicity, income bracket, and whatnot.

    I see that so-called "conservatives" aren't much into individualism anymore, either. Guess everyone's bought into the narrative, now.

    Oh, well... I got mine, kids.
    Identity politics? Never heard that term before. It's pretty essential in business, just called 'target demographic.'

    Still, if it's news to you for the conservatives to be doing this, check out google. There are thousands of specialized conservative groups for everything from women to location.

    Which has lead to them all being rather marginalized, as I said above would likely happen.

    The successful groups revolve around a singular idea. You can change that idea, you can completely flip your position over time, but to be popular, a group needs to have one clear ideology to start with. Brady, NRA, MADD, whatever you can think of, started on one clear idea...

    ...and MADD sticks out there as a women's group, but it has a hook. Mothers with dead kids? Really motivated.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •