2A fence sitters.

[Pizzapinochle]

jhco50, your second post makes a lot more sense. The balance of power between executive/legislative/judicial branches is constantly changing and shifting, and it goes through cycles. The most egregious abuse of executive power (in my opinion) was during the 1940s. There have been ups and downs since the founding.

I just reacted to you throwing out "dictatorship."

Things dictators don't do:

Voluntarily step down from power, as every US president has done (with slight debate regarding FDR)
Ask a legislative body for permission to assign ppl i their own gov't (Dept. of Labor Head and EPA were held up for months)
Put up with any sort of interference from any sort of legislative body at all (like, congress, for example)
Put up with any sort of interference from a judicial branch (like the SCOTUS)


Point is... Ys, you can make the argument that the balance of power has shifted too far toward the executive branch. But the current systme is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO far away from anything resembling a dictatorship that throwing the term out there is like saying "the end of the world is coming!!" because the sun will explode in a billion years (ok... That was a little hyperbole on my part.... But you get the point).

 

[princessmantik]

I speak very openly about how important legal gun ownership is here in NYC. It causes quite a bit of opposition from some of my acquaintances. I couldn't care less. My parents live in South Ga with quite a bit of land around them. Intruders could easily harm or kill people that live in these areas , if they were not armed. My father, grandfather, and all my relatives owned firearms. I felt safe knowing this as a child . I'm tired of people who are insulated in high rise buildings, and gated communities trying to tell everyone how they should live. People that live in New York ,and other big cities need to hear the truth. I feel that it is important to speak the truth, even if that means I am not as well liked by some people. I really believe in self defense through the 2nd ammendment.

 

[hso]

Lets stay on focus here and not get off on other political topics since they'll just be removed.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

HSO,

Sorry, i should have connected that to the original topic, it was in my head, not on the screen.

If you want to influence/talk to ppl on the fence, don't use hyperbolic language like "The US is becoming a dictatorship!" Because we are not and every knows it. If you look at the NRA facebook page it is full of people spewing that Obama is a criminal tyrant overlord with a hidden UN-Islamic army that is going to invade the US and make Obama dictator.

THAT is why pro-gun folks end up with a bad rap as conspiracy theorist loons. Soccer moms, as someone mentioned earlier, are not going to respond to that kind of over blown, shock value rhetoric that is more doomsday fantasy than fact.

You CAN talk about the executive branch gaining too much power and the need for our locally elected representatives to maintain influence in the gov't. But, once the word "dictator" or other dramatic hyperbole comes out, a lot of people will tune you out.

 

[Officers'Wife]

We must find ways to influence the fence sitters in being concerned about 2A issues enough that they at least notice them and take them into consideration when voting on issues or for candidates.

The neutral voters so outnumber us it isn't funny, and both sides need them desperately. Right now many anti gun politicians are swaying them with promises of goodies or half truths on 2A issues. If we can educate more people about 2A issues we have a better chance of them baulking when these politicians feed them a line of BS.

How exactly to do this is a main reason for the activism forum, and where we can come up with not only solid ideas, but a sound plan to carry it out.

We face a tough battle, and when we alienate one side or the other we make it even tougher. Go after antis, no matter which side of the isle they are on.

One problem is, after many years of surfing and posting on "gun" boards, seeing the behaviors, suspicions and downright hostility of a few of the so called pro-gun people I've come to the conclusion that firearm ownership should be controlled by a test of mental stability. Persons that leap on a premise and sprawl to conclusion then vehemently demand that conclusion be respected on the anti side is far less threatening to the safety of my children than those on the pro side that also imply they will "protect" themselves on the basis of those rushed conclusions with deadly violence.

Keep in mind that I believe in a strict 18th century interpretation of the Constitution yet having observed the personalities have reached that conclusion. How would the mother who has had the 'government knows best' kool-aid react? The pro-gun advocates are their own worst enemy.

 

[TRX]

Coming up with a "test of mental stability" would be quite a trick.

If I'm testing, everyone who disagrees with me is unstable...

 

[Officers'Wife]

Coming up with a "test of mental stability" would be quite a trick.

If I'm testing, everyone who disagrees with me is unstable...

While I agree in principle, the attitudes found on four different gun boards have convinced me free access without a lot more oversight than at present is less than desirable.

 

[X-Rap]

I've come to the conclusion that firearm ownership should be controlled by a test of mental stability.

Keep in mind that I believe in a strict 18th century interpretation of the Constitution yet having observed the personalities have reached that conclusion.

While I agree in principle, the attitudes found on four different gun boards have convinced me free access without a lot more oversight than at present is less than desirable.

Fence sitter

 

[Sam1911]

While I agree in principle, the attitudes found on four different gun boards have convinced me free access without a lot more oversight than at present is less than desirable.

Everyone's entitled by the very freedoms recognized in the founding of our nation to:

1) Hold whatever beliefs and opinions they desire.
2) Express those opinions and beliefs publicly.
3) Own and bear arms.

Whatever dangers you, or any of us, may feel are represented by these rights, the very wise and incredibly well learned men who developed our Constitution knew that those dangers pale in importance compared to the necessity of free citizens having those rights.

It is important to think about what that really means, in all of its fullness, and to keep that understanding in the forefront of our minds when we consider dictating, dreaming about, or proposing public policies.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Fence sitter

Realist, there are those that could mount a heavy machine gun in the bed of their pick up and I wouldn't give them a second look. There are others I get nervous when they pick of a butter knife. The latter should be culled.

 

[Sam1911]

The latter should be culled.

OMG. Did you mean to say that?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Realist, there are those that could mount a heavy machine gun in the bed of their pick up and I wouldn't give them a second look. There are others I get nervous when they pick of a butter knife. The latter should be culled.

I am the only one on this forum Pro-Fessional enuff.... BOOM.

You're either pro rights or you're pro control

 

[Officers'Wife]

I stayed on the farm too long.


According to Rousseau the only office of government is to maintain a peaceful society. Those who's first and preferred method of dealing with problems is violence cannot be allowed tools of violence if that society is to be maintained. Keep in mind that Rousseau's "Social Contract" was one of the bases of philosophy used to design the Constitution.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I agree that there are people that I would be gravely concerned about if I saw them with a gun (the guy from my thread for instance) but as soon as you start setting the bar it’s a short step to the bar being set so high no one gets to have a gun.
I’m OK with removing by due process of law the rights of those who have demonstrated a criminal misuse of firearms but that’s punishing a specific behavior not an entire class (people I don’t think are qualified)

 

[HoosierQ]

It is so true that so many of these fence sitters (middle of the roaders with regard to RKBA) will vote for a candidate because of other planks in their platform. However I think we can assume that many of the folks in this category would vote for the right side of the aisle type of candidate.

What seems to me to be wonky today is how gun control became a right or left issue! There have been anti-gun people for the entire 20th century. Some of them live today. But it seems to me that in the early and middle of the 20th century these anti-gun sentiments would have been entirely independent of party affiliation...because let's face it, one really needs to be affiliated with one of the two parties to get elected. Somehow RKBA has gotten alligned with all the other "right wing" issues. Anti-RKBA alligned with the left. Now of course that's not 100% even today.

In my last election, all my candidate except one were dead-even on RKBA. My governors were both NRA=A. My Senators were both NRA=A. My Presidents, despite the endorsements, were both NRA=F. But this is Indiana.

It seems to me that somehow, we need to find a way to win over some real for sure hard core lefties to RKBA. So not the middle roaders at all. Some of these lefties (surely) are just going along on RKBA with their fellows. Now remember, I said lefties, NOT anti-gunners. The hard core anti gunners are out of reach. But the lefty type folks the really care about this or that or the other thing...but not the gun thing. Some of these folks are about freedom of this or that. Well a gun is a good way to preserve freedom. Some of these folks are against totalitarian police states (yes them too)...a gun is a good remedy for that. Some of these lefties are against violence against this or that group...well effective self defense is just that...and you really need a gun for that! Presumably not all of these lefties are adherents to Ghandi...and would protect themselves and their families against whatever threats they perceive.

It seems to me that while we do need to get all the less-than-enthused-about-guns people to vote for the default position (the 2nd), we really need to get some otherwise leftie folks to divorce RKBA from the other lefty issues.

 

[Officers'Wife]

It is so true that so many of these fence sitters (middle of the roaders with regard to RKBA) will vote for a candidate because of other planks in their platform. However I think we can assume that many of the folks in this category would vote for the right side of the aisle type of candidate.

What seems to me to be wonky today is how gun control became a right or left issue! There have been anti-gun people for the entire 20th century. Some of them live today. But it seems to me that in the early and middle of the 20th century these anti-gun sentiments would have been entirely independent of party affiliation...because let's face it, one really needs to be affiliated with one of the two parties to get elected. Somehow RKBA has gotten alligned with all the other "right wing" issues. Anti-RKBA alligned with the left. Now of course that's not 100% even today.

In my last election, all my candidate except one were dead-even on RKBA. My governors were both NRA=A. My Senators were both NRA=A. My Presidents, despite the endorsements, were both NRA=F. But this is Indiana.

It seems to me that somehow, we need to find a way to win over some real for sure hard core lefties to RKBA. So not the middle roaders at all. Some of these lefties (surely) are just going along on RKBA with their fellows. Now remember, I said lefties, NOT anti-gunners. The hard core anti gunners are out of reach. But the lefty type folks the really care about this or that or the other thing...but not the gun thing. Some of these folks are about freedom of this or that. Well a gun is a good way to preserve freedom. Some of these folks are against totalitarian police states (yes them too)...a gun is a good remedy for that. Some of these lefties are against violence against this or that group...well effective self defense is just that...and you really need a gun for that! Presumably not all of these lefties are adherents to Ghandi...and would protect themselves and their families against whatever threats they perceive.

It seems to me that while we do need to get all the less-than-enthused-about-guns people to vote for the default position (the 2nd), we really need to get some otherwise leftie folks to divorce RKBA from the other lefty issues.

Hi Hoosier,

It wasn't gun control that gained Donnelly a Senate seat. Which has been the Republican's Achilles's heel since ancient times. Politics aside, everytime there is an 'event' the pro side goes into defense mode that quickly turns aggressive the moment the first cry for more control comes up. After the last school shooting there was some of the most idiotic statements made on a New England board by the pro side that I've ever had the misfortune to read. The anti - gun side has general plans for after a shooting, I sometimes wonder if they are rehearsed. The pro side just responds with the same old arguments that make that planning all the more easier. If not for Gottlieb and the SAF I honestly believe we would have had another 'assault weapons' ban.

Bottom line, one side is proposing an answer to a very real problem. Not a good answer but an answer. All the other side is offering demands of rights that are quickly turned around as perpetuating the problem.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Bottom line, one side is proposing an answer to a very real problem. Not a good answer but an answer. All the other side is offering demands of rights that are quickly turned around as perpetuating the problem.

Angela Giron couldn't have said it any better

 

[X-Rap]

So here we have the fence sitter problem. A person who actually considers themselves pro 2a but yet proposes or at least accommodates the notion of strict controls on a personal freedom that is granted by our creator.
I personally fear some people with the right to vote as much as a crazed gunman.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Let me see, on one gun board we have a guy that when told his private messages aren't appreciated he immediately gets hostile with a "are you threatening me?" PM despite knowing such messages are not wanted.

On a second board we have a guy that in response to a quiet pass by a homosexual advises to 'shoot the pervert."

On a third board, in response to an fifteen or sixteen year old (not Travon) being shot for 'dissing' the shooter claims it's a shame both weren't killed to spare the expense of a trial.

Last, because of these and other examples a reader is convinced that perhaps not all alleged adults are responsible enough to have firearms it is implied she is somehow defective in her thinking.

It's ok, I have strong shoulders, I'll accept the blame for my response to these people's irresponsibility. I will also think of these people when measures that will keep these people from harming others are put in front of the legits.

All posturing aside, petty slams beget greater slams. I was once ask by a moderator on a board why more women didn't post. I don't recall my answer at the time but a large part of it when a concern is raised that is outside the "consensus of opinion" it's met with at best condescension and at the norm outright hostility. An internet friend of mine, a self avowed liberal shooting enthusiast, told me it wasn't just women and that men get far worse treatment. Like it or not, a verbal kick in the fanny is not going to forward your cause.

 

[Walkalong]

One problem is,

What? You don't agree we need the fence sitter votes? You don't agree we need to go after anti gun politicians on both sides of the isle? You don't agree we alienate liberals if we equate liberal to anti gun, or Democrat to anti gun, instead of understanding and appreciating all the liberals and Democrats on the prop gun side?

What part of my post had anything to do with...

after many years of surfing and posting on "gun" boards, seeing the behaviors, suspicions and downright hostility of a few of the so called pro-gun people I've come to the conclusion that firearm ownership should be controlled by a test of mental stability. Persons that leap on a premise and sprawl to conclusion then vehemently demand that conclusion be respected on the anti side is far less threatening to the safety of my children than those on the pro side that also imply they will "protect" themselves on the basis of those rushed conclusions with deadly violence.

 

[X-Rap]

It always gets down to the simple questions of what is reasonable and who gets to decide.
I know of no instance in which this has turned out well and good people are granted more freedom than they had before any regulation or laws were passed.
That is the inherent flaw of the fence sitter, they believe that there is a regulatory answer to the problem of sick individuals that somehow trumps the individuals freedom. The two are like oil and water and do not mix.
Either we believe and understand that freedom has inherent dangers and live with that or we submit ourselves to the do gooders that have given us all the laws and regulation that always seem to fall just one step short of keeping us safe.
We all know of the thousands upon thousands of gun laws that have been enacted in the name of saving just one life and how far that has put us away from the freedoms Americans once enjoyed.

 

[Officers'Wife]

What? You don't agree we need the fence sitter votes? You don't agree we need to go after anti gun politicians on both sides of the isle? You don't agree we alienate liberals if we equate liberal to anti gun, or Democrat to anti gun, instead of understanding and appreciating all the liberals and Democrats on the prop gun side?

What part of my post had anything to do with...

What part is that even though the "fence sitters" are needed, nothing is done to attract them and much to alienate them. I posted that to illustrate that instead of addressing the concerns of the fence sitters on the subject, people seem intent on going out of there way to demonstrate they are in favor of the actions causing the concerns.

People have issues that concern them, some concerns are important some minor some neutral. In the case of RKBA coming off like a mild version of the mall ninja gazette is going to push people off neutral but not the direction you want. Concern about gaining support of the fence sitters? Consider answers to their concerns.

 

[Walkalong]

nothing is done to attract them and much to alienate them.

If I read you correctly, you agree we need fence sitters but accuse the pro gun side of treating them poorly instead of being smart trying to win them over.

So, yes we do, but we suck at it?

OK, I certainly understand that some "pro gun" people absolutely drive fence sitters away, but I do not think we are to complain about those people, but to determine a plan to educate the folks like that, as well as the average gun owner and better attract fence sitters.

What's the plan?

Part A. Stop being stupid in how we (Some) talk to and approach fence sitters.

Part B. Care to take a stab at it?

 

[hso]

Officer's Wife,

Perhaps the better approach than conceding to emotional propaganda that people have swallowed is to respectfully debunk the lies they've been told with real studies and statistics instead. Many people are frightened into believing there's a problem that studies and data show the opposite, declining violent/gun crime in the face of increasing firearms ownership and shall issue carry.

There will always be posturing bombasts on interenet forums that color people's impression of the group just as the loud beligerant at gatherings have always colored people's impression of those groups. The problem with internet forums is the bombast's words linger on long after the echo of the loudmouth in the groups words have rung to silence.

 

[Officers'Wife]

1.) everyone has different priorities and differing ways of looking at any one situation. Explain your POV, don't condescend with something like 'you don't know because you haven't been there.'

2.) Don't treat those with differing opinions as the enemy. We all come to our own conclusions with the evidence and experiences we have gained.

3.) Probably most important are two little snippets that Sister Beatrice made me write in longhand over and over again. "As you reap, also shall you sow. " and "If you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all."

Item last.) Don't get your point across by stabbing someone with it, especially on the internet where the nuances of body language and tone cannot be transmitted. I've survived the old Yahoo boards so I'm used to statements that come off as hostile that aren't meant that way. Many newcomers, don't know the "culture" of the board and may come away with not only negative impression of the board but of the side of the question in general.

As I have said before, I've seen enough posturing on the boards I lurk and post to believe some gun control to be a positive thing. You never know how someone is going to take things posted. I would give examples from people I've chatted with but that would be counter productive.