Whenever I hear of the youth approving of Socialism, I remember the Leno "on the street" interviews wherein the young college students thought Socialism had to do with social media. They all thought Socialism was wonderful and would not abandon it for any reason.Originally Posted by BCG
Last edited by FNFAN; 11-11-2018 at 05:38 PM.
-All views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of the author's employer-
That extends to a lot of other topics beyond economic ideology. People seem to assume that if you're with them on one issue, you're with them on all issues, which is of course ridiculous. Tying issues together is unwise/unhelpful, at least in my view as someone caught in the middle, politics-wise. Gun issues simply have no logical tie to religion, abortion, economics, gender identity, or any of the myriad other hot button issues of the day, and I think it becomes harder to pull people to your side on any one of them when you openly disagree with them on others, but only offer them as a package deal.
And here we arrive at the problem with the “self defense/anti tyranny” method - the customer base doesn’t buy it. As far as the uninitiated are concerned , violent evil and the ownership of a firearm are conceptually the same. Why is it the hero in action movies has a scene where they give up or dispose of their guns? In our society the grim fact is people see no difference between “firearms” and “evildoing”.
Ergo, pitching “own a gun because self defense!” is not a digestible message. It sound like 1984 speak , or a crude attempt to spin murder and violence as a social positive. Down the road as people become more socially comfortable with gun ownership these ideas of armed liberty and self defense can be explored further. However, to put it crudely we are like a Berkeley sex ed professor explaining our profession to a group of Mormon ministers- and the ministers are voting on the university budget . We are better served saving the explicit stuff for later.
Last edited by GardoneVT; 11-11-2018 at 08:26 PM.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
Well, then there is no message that is possible to preserve gun rights? We are doomed to lose them.
Let's try sports - take someone to the range!
1,692,848 people voted for the antigun initiative in WA state. Let's take them to the range!
If a mass message cannot be designed that is convincing, the continued urbanization and moral panic of each massacre will avoid support for owning the higher cap guns in many locales.
Messaging that is purely aimed at the choir for virtue signaling, fund raising for organizational financial success, isn't going to do it.
I hear this said often, by many smart people. I used to believe it, but after repeated debates with a dear friend on various political issues, I've come to realize it's only partially true.
The conclusions each of us reaches on social and political issues spring from basic, instinctual, identity-level understandings about the nature of the individual, the nature of the individual's relationships with other people, and the nature of the individual with respect to government. This trinity (three is one, one is three) of identity level understandings is the foundation and framework for all that we feel->justify->think about almost anything. Broadly similar frameworks (individual vs. collective responsibility, individual vs. collective rights, individual vs. collective action, individual striving and achievement with risk of failure vs. government {collective} guarantee) lead to broadly similar opinions on what is the "best" or "right" solution across a broad range of issues. It's our basic identity of what it means to be human that leads to the astonishingly high correlation of political opinions across a broad spectrum of topics.
Stir in some identity politics as practiced by 43 and 44, and turned up to 11 since '16, engage in an all-out cultural war where the end seems to be annihilation of the opposition, and you have a darn good mechanism for cleaning up dissent around the edges and on less-central topics.
Private use of firearms is a totem for those who lean toward individual responsibility and rights, at least partly because no other objects put those questions in such clear focus.
Private use of firearms is a target for those who lean toward collective responsibility and rights, at least partly because no other objects put those questions in such clear focus.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
Interesting to note: Last year, I offered to take someone who lives in WA to the range. She had expressed curiosity, and when I made the offer, she said yes, she was interested. I brought a .22LR pistol (taking care that it was a pretty one, with rosewood grips engraved with flowers), a revolver, and a 9mm DAO when visiting. I reviewed the four safety rules, walked her through how to clear them, demonstrated them being unloaded, etc. She observed that the pretty one was pretty, but was afraid to touch them, and I put them away for the rest of the visit.
To be fair, she saw an extended family member nearly get shot due to reckless gun handling when she was a child, and has treated gun shot wounds in her profession. She has had countless people die while she tried to save them, from all manner of injury and disease. The Gravest Extreme is far more real to her than to most of us.
In spite of that, she is thoroughly on board with the defense against tyranny basis for 2A and voted against the initiative.
I have another friend there who could probably be talked into and enjoy the sporting equipment aspect of firearms (she is an absurdly talented athlete and obtains a large portion of her identity from that), but would still favor onerous regulation and will reliably offer up the "tanks and airplanes" argument.
Last edited by OlongJohnson; 11-12-2018 at 10:37 AM.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
I don't know how many citizens actually think for themselves on this topic as opposed to marching in lockstep with either the party of their choice, or their chosen peer group.
That said, personal or family experience with violence, or the threat of violence (and loss), goes a long way toward shaping perspective...whether pro or anti.
I can respect clear rational thought which can be used to support a position...I can't respect blaming inanimate objects, or holding law abiding citizens hostage to the actions of the few.
Where it all ends up is anybody's guess.
There's nothing civil about this war.
One big problem is many in society have an aversion to utilizing violence, even in self-defense. To be fair, the word violence isn’t generally well-received because of the negative connotation. Yeah some of the same people like action movies with lots of violence but that’s because it isn’t real, so they don’t have to truly connect to it. We have to start getting people comfortable with violence before we can effectively acquaint them with its instruments (such as firearms).
Tim Larkin does a good job with this when he gives presentations on “When Violence Is The Answer”. For those who bother to listen, they learn violence isn’t some dirty word but just another tool in life. Violence is okay when you’re trying to defend yourself or loved ones. We really have to get people back to thinking like that, because society is too dependent upon others to commit violence for them (and then having the gall to whine about it).
The question is, how do we get them there? In this day and age very few want to give even a moments thought to having to use violence; it makes them uncomfortable. We’ve put ourselves in a bad place when we’re allowed to avoid stuff because it’s uncomfortable.
Overall we really need to redesign our approach for communicating why firearms, and by extension the Second Amendment, are vital to self-sufficiency and liberty. The current approaches aren’t working and at the rate things are going we could see the 2A repealed within the next century.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
Where are you seeing major bans get passed in large parts of the country? There has been limited movement in the last decade outside of the states that had existing bans, and simply made them worse. Whether or not those stick long term is yet to be seen. There were sufficient votes in Colorado to change the ban from 15 to 30 after the recall efforts were successful, but that was torpedoed by a local group. What do you think I-1639 actually does?
I don't see Americans generally favoring AW and mag bans more now than they have in the past. If anything, available polling shows less support.
I also don't understand your comment about Kavanaugh. He is on the record already saying that he does not think a ban on AWs is constitutional. Do you think he is suddenly going to rule a different way on SCOTUS? I believe most court watchers now believe there are sufficient votes on the Court to invalidate laws that don't have a strong basis in the text, history, and tradition of U.S. constitutional law. There are for the first time in the modern Court's history, five originalists on SCOTUS. Banning large categories of firearms and accessories has effectively zero historical support in the United States.
Washington
CT
Florida
Washington
NJ
NY
Minn
Rhode Island
VT
Colorado
Maryland
Massachusetts
Hawaii
Californa - that's a lot of the country
have or have passed restrictions on various weapons types, ownership, carry, etc.. Some of them are recent and it would be foolish not to think that moral panic cannot generate more. As far as polls, Hillary is President. Also, we can lose states quite easily even with overall numbers.
As far as SCOTUS and originalists - my concern is that:
1. They will go with 'precedent' and Alito and Roberts will not overturn states rights to have bans. Why does the NRA think that will change? The legal dithering about originalists and common usage might mean little when the rubber hits the road and they have to wipe out state bans.
2. Will the Court similarly make sure that the restrictions in major states that make getting shall issue type permits or even getting a handgun be clearly overturned? They haven't moved on this before. Will Kavaungh change that?
Now folks may say that they don't care what happens in NY or CA but that's really like saying you don't care if other states had bad laws on various liberty depriving issues.
I'm an empiricist and when it happens, I'll believe. The passage of so many shall issue laws was a great step forward. The risk now is state bans on weapons type and as states go purple, they might increase. Increasing urbanization doesn't speak well as urban areas aren't that gun friendly.
That's why I prefer an inclusive message that I don't see. A long term strategic view would focus on that.
Reply With Quote