2A as a Civil Liberty...let's change the rhetoric!

Bottom line up front: new gun control initiatives are an infringement on the certain inalienable rights guaranteed--NOT "granted"--by the Second Amendment. If we frame it in different language, maybe the people pushing this from the left will understand us better.

We're all mad as hell about renewed threats to the things we care about, but if we want to have our voices heard then we need to speak "their" language. After a newspaper released names and addresses of a bunch of weapons permit holders in New York, I realized that this "meaningful conversation" we supposedly need to have following Sandy Hook is turning into a witch hunt. Read the Feinstein bill, and you know that we are all about to become criminals by the stroke of a pen. Media and interest groups are stoking fears by portraying us all as an uneducated fringe-mob of trigger-happy, psychopathic boogeymen driving around with big black guns and rocket launchers, bent on murdering schoolchildren. Does anyone else feel like they are being unfairly portrayed, stereotyped, and attacked?

Seriously...these are the same people who fight so hard for equality; who seek the most liberal interpretation of every other civil right; who never miss an opportunity to call something "unfair" no matter how ridiculous it may be. Yet they want to put a big red line through the Second Amendment? From a liberal policy perspective, that doesn't even make sense.

Bloomberg flat out called us crazy. Yeah, he is an idiot, but they are licking his hands like he is the messiah of a world without any need for guns. Like it or not, people are listening to him. Senator Feinstein herself carried a pistol "for protection" when she got the first ban through, and Bloomberg is a rich white guy protected by gun-toting bodyguards (paid for with New Yorkers' tax dollars, by the way). Yet they are attacking us and their agenda is worse than wrong, worse than unfair, and worse than ignorant: it is a VIOLATION of our CIVIL RIGHTS!

And gun control is racism. I am a gun owner, but I am not some angry white guy who runs around in a bedsheet burning crosses. When certain people can enjoy the safety of an armed guard while those in the most dangerous cities (those with "strong" gun control) cannot themselves have legal access to firearms (such as those who are commonly used by criminals) for self protection, that is discrimination. And most of the innocent people who most need that civil liberty are minorities. So how do they get away with equating the NRA to the KKK? The real discrimination and repression is on the part of gun control advocates.

I know, I am covering old ground here; we all know that the gun control argument does not make sense. But if we are going to reach the entrenched masses that are being brainwashed by the well-funded media bias, we need to patiently explain WHY it doesn't make sense. If we can do that using arguments that make sense to liberals (again, bear with me here...) then we have a better chance of actually having the "meaningful conversation" they keep talking about.

Just my two cents.

Leftists equate the NRA to the KKK because leftists are the traditional KKK. It's classic misdirection propaganda. Muddy the water and confuse the ignorant masses by claiming that down is up and forwards is backwards. Traditionally, leftists aspire to authoritarianism, which is what fuels their desire to outlaw gun ownership. They view inalienable natural rights as obstacles to be surmounted and discarded as they seek total control.

Liberals don't make ideological decisions based in logic. They act on emotion. We are losing the debate on gun control because we have an overriding need to make sense; those who appeal to the sensitivities of the Liberal do not suffer this problem nor should they in order to garner support from their target audience.

We need to appeal to the emotions of the Liberal in order to turn the tide our way. How do we do this? I have no idea, I try to make sense when attempting to persuade someone to my line of thinking.

Yes!

I'm as guilty as any, trying to use facts and logic. Keeping quiet when I'm not sure and being overly sensitive to the emotions and ignorance of some antis.

A friend suggested when they try their emotional plea, we should go along with them but with one twist; we point out that the tragedy is that the teachers/staff were also victimized by laws that prohibited them from being able to protect themselves with a gun. If we can save even one life, removing these no guns in school laws will be worth it.

Insane people who are hell-bent on murder are not deterred by a prison sentence or sign that reads "gun free zone". The only people that are deterred are the good people that are forced to try to stop an armed mad man with their bare hands.

Guns deter violence and save lives. Why is this so difficult to understand?


"I want to take this time to talk about the incredible acts of heroism that transpired yesterday that ultimately saved so many lives even though tragically so many lives were lost," Newtown Public Schools superintendent Janet Robinson said Saturday. "The principal of the school was running toward the shooter in order to protect her students, as was the school psychologist."
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...n-in-sandy-hook-school-has-family-in-colorado

Of course because of the LAW the principal and psychologist were empty handed. I always like to point out how these laws tie decent peoples hands behind them for the criminals. Especially with women I ask what they would/could do faced with an intruder/attacker? I explain how firearms properly handled are as safe as anything else and with a little training/practice could make them equal/superior to most any attacker. Anti men for the most part are beneath contempt or consideration so I especially with my PG friends point out how they support Jim Crow laws so I guess they were right and their complete and utter ignorance of history. Of course then there is the history lesson of every other societies arms collections followed by despotism and slaughter. They always say that would never happen here. To which I say that's what they all said.

Facts and logic will never work with many of them. I dealt with it for years firsthand. Hate is one of their dominant emotions. Using reason to overcome hate, particularly unbridled, wide-eyed hate, is like using a bucket of water to try to put out a forest fire. It's pointless. They will rage on without blinking. I'm not convinced that appealing on an emotional level works either. It might work for a short time, until the smallest thing sends them flying into another rage. What will work is to keep them distracted. Distractions that can or will work is a lengthy discussion, since such distractions are best organized on a large scale.

Boom Boom said:

Facts and logic will never work with many of them. I dealt with it for years firsthand. Hate is one of their dominant emotions. Using reason to overcome hate, particularly unbridled, wide-eyed hate, is like using a bucket of water to try to put out a forest fire. It's pointless. They will rage on without blinking. I'm not convinced that appealing on an emotional level works either. It might work for a short time, until the smallest thing sends them flying into another rage. What will work is to keep them distracted. Distractions that can or will work is a lengthy discussion, since such distractions are best organized on a large scale.

Click to expand...

I'd say the politicians are doing a fantastic job of keeping them distracted... Maybe we should start taking notes.

If a law is illegal or unconstitutional, do you feel like you are required to follow it? Food for thought.

sig63 said:

Bottom line up front: new gun control initiatives are an infringement on the certain inalienable rights guaranteed--NOT "granted"--by the Second Amendment. If we frame it in different language, maybe the people pushing this from the left will understand us better.
.

Click to expand...

I keep saying this over and over for years and it doesn't sink in for many even on our side of the fight. We need to stop treating antis like we owe them a good argument. It is pointless and irrelavant. You can present them any facts and they will judge them based on their own fears. They can't comprehend the meaning of the Bill of Rights as you have stated them. They need to be told to F off, not bargained with. They need to be verbally attacked and ridiculed for their stupidity, not coddled.

montoya32 said:

If a law is illegal or unconstitutional, do you feel like you are required to follow it? Food for thought.

Click to expand...

Hell no. Man's law is not God's law. It's just a matter of where the illegal line is drawn, and right now they are trying to draw it with most of us on the wrong side of it.

All valid points, but there are a lot of people who are in the middle...even just to the left of the center. They don't understand what a "clip" is vs. a "magazine" or that "semiautomatic" and "assault weapons" are just misleading terms used by the gun control folks to make things scary.
I guess I was referring to the folks we can still reach, those who don't really understand and who accept what the liberal media says about it. We can still make them understand that the idea of a ban is just idiotic.

Minuteman said:

A friend suggested when they try their emotional plea, we should go along with them but with one twist; we point out that the tragedy is that the teachers/staff were also victimized by laws that prohibited them from being able to protect themselves with a gun. If we can save even one life, removing these no guns in school laws will be worth it.

Click to expand...

My wife is a teacher; when Sandy Hook went down I flashed to red because she can't be armed to prevent something like that from happening and she is effectively another potential target. I think that a lot of moms are understandably apprehensive at the idea of schools (places of wonder and innocence) being turned into "armed camps." But if we can explain to them what training and CCW permits for teachers and administrators really means (think of them like Air Marshals; they are there, but nobody knows who they really are) then they would agree that it is a better idea and more workable than a sign that criminals would ignore or use as motivation.

Silverlode said:

I keep saying this over and over for years and it doesn't sink in for many even on our side of the fight. We need to stop treating antis like we owe them a good argument. It is pointless and irrelavant. You can present them any facts and they will judge them based on their own fears. They can't comprehend the meaning of the Bill of Rights as you have stated them. They need to be told to F off, not bargained with. They need to be verbally attacked and ridiculed for their stupidity, not coddled.

Click to expand...

The radicals who do not listen to reason and are willfully ignorant, yes. The fence-sitters who are just woefully misinformed, no. We don't owe them an argument, but we should still present them with facts and reason and give them a chance to at least think on it. If the idiot in question is a repeat offender, however, ridicule away.

sig63 said:

All valid points, but there are a lot of people who are in the middle...even just to the left of the center. They don't understand what a "clip" is vs. a "magazine" or that "semiautomatic" and "assault weapons" are just misleading terms used by the gun control folks to make things scary.
I guess I was referring to the folks we can still reach, those who don't really understand and who accept what the liberal media says about it. We can still make them understand that the idea of a ban is just idiotic.

Click to expand...

Haides said:

The radicals who do not listen to reason and are willfully ignorant, yes. The fence-sitters who are just woefully misinformed, no. We don't owe them an argument, but we should still present them with facts and reason and give them a chance to at least think on it. If the idiot in question is a repeat offender, however, ridicule away.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

montoya32 said:

If a law is illegal or unconstitutional, do you feel like you are required to follow it? Food for thought.

Click to expand...

Bill Whittle sums that up on The Firewall - Natural Law.



paraphrasing ...

"If the House of Reps passed a bill with 100% yay vote and the Senate did the same, and the POTUS signed said bill, but the law said that the 1st Amendment (or the 2nd, or any of the rights guaranteed The People in The Bill of Rights) was overturned ... even though it was lawfully and unanimously passed, that law would still be illegitimate ... and The People would be out in the streets with our rifles to make sure that this procedurally correct, unanimously passed law would not take effect."

sig63 said:

Yet they are attacking us and their agenda is worse than wrong, worse than unfair, and worse than ignorant: it is a VIOLATION of our CIVIL RIGHTS!

Click to expand...

Agreed. I was just thinking about this today. When someone asks me why I need xyz firearm, I'm going to say "why do you need freedom of speech? I don't need to explain/defend my civil rights".

I saw my first Bill Whittle video yesterday. That dude is awesome.

md123 said:

Agreed. I was just thinking about this today. When someone asks me why I need xyz firearm, I'm going to say "why do you need freedom of speech? I don't need to explain/defend my civil rights".

Click to expand...

Yeah, or (going back to the fact that car accidents kill 3 to 1 more people than firearms) "Why do you need that big/fast/expensive killing machine you drive around in?"