Are Your Words Killing Your Gun Rights?

[jedi]

This is the same thing as calling the disabled "differently abled," the short "vertical challenged," sluts "sexually charitable," etc. Why do we play games with words and pretend that changes anything? "Yeah, I'm pro-rights: the right to ban guns!" Let's not mince words.

The same criticism applies to other terms.

By the way, I think "pro-gun" is a stupid term. I am not "for guns." These are just metal tools. How can I be for or against them? Imagine a "pro ball peen hammer" lobby or a "pro flathead screwdriver" forum.

Da Bing

Ah but you see you are playing with the logical rule book and that will NEVER WIN this war that we have with the antis! Since they are always changing the rules, will stoop to the lowest levels possible and use your own words against you and our cause. We can not, nor will we win this war against them by playing defense. We have to take the fight to them and by changing the words and using their own "game" against them that is what the article is saying to do.

You want to caught a theif, you must think like a theif.
You want to kill a monster, you must become the very monster you wish to kill. Same concept here.

Look at the tactics of Rahm Emmanual (Rahm Emanuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) I don't like his stance on the gun rights issue nor do I like his stance on many other issues but I do admire his style of fighting. He fights to win and if that means throwing the bus with everyone (including his own allies in it) so be it. He restores to the only rule in war. There are no rules! & he does it very, very good. It is that level of "fight" that we (the pro-2A movement) has not had in a long, long time.

 

[bingley]

Ah but you see you are playing with the logical rule book and that will NEVER WIN this war that we have with the antis!

If you ask me, this kind of oppositional thinking is what got us in the mess in the first place. Gun ownership should be a simple matter of self-defense and sport, not a matter of identity. Alas, what has happened is that a whole set of political positions and "personality features" evolved around "pro gun" and "anti gun":

pro gun: conservative ("pro life," against "Big Government," against taxing the rich, etc.); Christian, traditional; and, at the same time, bizarrely individualistic, even though it evolved from respect for the collective (the nation);

anti gun: liberal ("pro choice," for social services, favors equal taxation, etc.); secular, progressive; and, at the same time, bizarrely collective even though it evolved from the respect for individual rights.​

Now, you may point out that you are pro gun but not Christian, or not "pro life," etc. It doesn't matter, as I am speaking of views generally associated with the pro gun position.

These views have nothing to do with guns at their barest. You can be, say, pro choice and pro gun at the same time. These views evolved from politics, and the associations above are not natural. They don't help because they end up pitting one particular way of life against another, one culture against another, and this may just result in some sort of knock-down drag-out fight, or at the very least societal dysfunction. This is a really bad direction. What we need to do is to build a coalition across all political spectrum of people. Stay away from polarizing thinking.

Da Bing

 

[96firephoenix]

he does have a point. I'll try to use the proper wording in the future.

 

[beararms1776]

How would the term "peacekeeper " play out?

 

[mmorph55]

Am I the only one that sees this as a bad idea?

Lastly if someone sees you with your gun and they are looking at you nervous. You should approach them and tell them. "I see you are nervous about my sidearm. You hate guns don't you." When they reply, put your hand on their shoulder and tell them "It's not good to hate."

You are already dealing with someone nervous about guns and then you intimidate or maybe even assault them by putting your hands on em.

 

[ATM]

Am I the only one that sees this as a bad idea?
...
You are already dealing with someone nervous about guns and then you intimidate or maybe even assault them by putting your hands on em.

Allow me to explain a significant detail of the quoted part in blue below:

...Lastly if someone sees you with your gun and they are looking at you nervous. You should approach them and tell them. "I see you are nervous about my sidearm. You hate guns don't you." When they reply, put your hand on their shoulder and tell them "It's not good to hate." <---- See this? It's laughing. This may be used to denote that what precedes it was intended to be funny rather than realistic advice.
You may not find it funny, but again the intent to not be taken seriously is implied by using , , or possibly one of the stronger variants such as or even.
I hope this helps.

(<---not funny, just cool like dat.)

 

[jedi]

Am I the only one that sees this as a bad idea?

Lastly if someone sees you with your gun and they are looking at you nervous. You should approach them and tell them. "I see you are nervous about my sidearm. You hate guns don't you." When they reply, put your hand on their shoulder and tell them "It's not good to hate."

You are already dealing with someone nervous about guns and then you intimidate or maybe even assault them by putting your hands on em.

Allow me to explain a significant detail of the quoted part in blue below:

Thank ATM for the save. mmorph55 did you read the article? That last part came from the article near the end and the author was pointing fun at his words. Guess I did a bad job trying to show that when I typed up my short summary.