BLR
12-28-2012, 02:08 PM
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/phoenix-boy-14-shoots-armed-intruder-while-watching-three-younger-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.
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/phoenix-boy-14-shoots-armed-intruder-while-watching-three-younger-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.