Icanhazcheezburger as an activism tool.
- Thread starter rd5589
- Start date
- Status
MikePGS
Member
How about this one?
Bartkowski
Member
Are you serious with this one? You are as bad as anti's when it comes to facts. Lets see what other things you can make up...
nrgetik
Member
Hopefully I can offer some insight here.
It seems to me that, in general (after skimming this thread and some of the others in this forum), you guys extend the political divisiveness of the issue from the actual politicians on either side of the aisle out onto the general public. I think this is the wrong approach.
If you want laws to change you need public support. It isn't that there is anything inherent about liberal ideology that make those who would call themselves liberal pro-regulation; they're (mostly) merely victims of fear mongering regarding the issue - much in the same way some conservatives are victims of fear mongering regarding sophisticated global terrorist networks. We could go on for days about fear mongering and misinformation, and all sides are guilty, but this is mostly irrelevant.
I'm a recent college graduate living in a fairly densely populated area in the South. I have some friends that are very, very conservative and some others that are incredibly liberal. There isn't anything specific about my liberal friends that would turn them off to firearms, in fact one of them has developed a strong interest in owning a firearm but his current living and financial situation prohibits it. He is a card-carrying, marijuana-smoking, environment-loving, no-meat-eating liberal (he does not identify himself as a Democrat as he is disillusioned with both major parties in U.S. government, and the two-party system in general). I took him to a gun range one time, rented a fully-automatic SMG and he loved it. So far every person I've ever known, regardless of their party affiliation, political ideology or family background, once they used a firearm for the first time and were properly instructed on how to safely do so loved it.
Stop making it a party/political issue. If you stop associating loose firearm laws with hardcore conservatism, you'll probably start to attract a lot more people from the middle and even some from the complete opposite end to your cause. All of my liberal friends come to conclusions based upon the principles of logic and fact, if you fight your PR war with honesty, information and credibility, then you should see results. The occasional goofy picture with a caption is just fine (if it is good it will find its way to computer nerd liberals), but it must also be poignant and have some kind of callout on it to enable the viewer to locate further information.
You also must understand that a lot of liberals reside in densely populated urban areas. The environment you find yourself in affects your mind and your views in more ways than most people will admit to. Sometimes it makes sense to restrict firearms in areas where people from many different cultures and backgrounds are all trying to live within the same (relatively small) area. I agree that it is unfair for a would-be responsible gun owner not to be able to procure his firearm of choice if he happened to find himself in that same area - but that is one of the problems that would need to be addressed. In order for a lot of these weapons to be recreationally viable in these areas, facilities must be built. I live in a quasi-metropolitan area and if I wanted to go shoot my rifle further than 25 yards in some ****ty indoor range, I would probably have to drive at least 1.5 hours. So naturally authorities would be suspicious of individuals buying much more than handguns and shotguns in areas where there's nowhere to recreationally shoot such firearms - especially in areas where there is high anonymity. I could post up on a roof somewhere for 10 minutes with a rifle and be able to kill a considerable amount of people and have a reasonable expectation to make a clean getaway if I played my cards right. All of these things are factors.
For the first time in history, more people live in urban centers than in rural areas. You guys are going to have start changing your game plan and approach the argument from the OTHER guy's point of view if you want to get anything done. The best way to do this, I think, is to remove the political component from the issue completely and start talking to people about the differences in the way they live their lives, in contrast to yours. Tell them that you understand where they are coming from, but that they must consider the way you choose to live as well.
/rant
It seems to me that, in general (after skimming this thread and some of the others in this forum), you guys extend the political divisiveness of the issue from the actual politicians on either side of the aisle out onto the general public. I think this is the wrong approach.
If you want laws to change you need public support. It isn't that there is anything inherent about liberal ideology that make those who would call themselves liberal pro-regulation; they're (mostly) merely victims of fear mongering regarding the issue - much in the same way some conservatives are victims of fear mongering regarding sophisticated global terrorist networks. We could go on for days about fear mongering and misinformation, and all sides are guilty, but this is mostly irrelevant.
I'm a recent college graduate living in a fairly densely populated area in the South. I have some friends that are very, very conservative and some others that are incredibly liberal. There isn't anything specific about my liberal friends that would turn them off to firearms, in fact one of them has developed a strong interest in owning a firearm but his current living and financial situation prohibits it. He is a card-carrying, marijuana-smoking, environment-loving, no-meat-eating liberal (he does not identify himself as a Democrat as he is disillusioned with both major parties in U.S. government, and the two-party system in general). I took him to a gun range one time, rented a fully-automatic SMG and he loved it. So far every person I've ever known, regardless of their party affiliation, political ideology or family background, once they used a firearm for the first time and were properly instructed on how to safely do so loved it.
Stop making it a party/political issue. If you stop associating loose firearm laws with hardcore conservatism, you'll probably start to attract a lot more people from the middle and even some from the complete opposite end to your cause. All of my liberal friends come to conclusions based upon the principles of logic and fact, if you fight your PR war with honesty, information and credibility, then you should see results. The occasional goofy picture with a caption is just fine (if it is good it will find its way to computer nerd liberals), but it must also be poignant and have some kind of callout on it to enable the viewer to locate further information.
You also must understand that a lot of liberals reside in densely populated urban areas. The environment you find yourself in affects your mind and your views in more ways than most people will admit to. Sometimes it makes sense to restrict firearms in areas where people from many different cultures and backgrounds are all trying to live within the same (relatively small) area. I agree that it is unfair for a would-be responsible gun owner not to be able to procure his firearm of choice if he happened to find himself in that same area - but that is one of the problems that would need to be addressed. In order for a lot of these weapons to be recreationally viable in these areas, facilities must be built. I live in a quasi-metropolitan area and if I wanted to go shoot my rifle further than 25 yards in some ****ty indoor range, I would probably have to drive at least 1.5 hours. So naturally authorities would be suspicious of individuals buying much more than handguns and shotguns in areas where there's nowhere to recreationally shoot such firearms - especially in areas where there is high anonymity. I could post up on a roof somewhere for 10 minutes with a rifle and be able to kill a considerable amount of people and have a reasonable expectation to make a clean getaway if I played my cards right. All of these things are factors.
For the first time in history, more people live in urban centers than in rural areas. You guys are going to have start changing your game plan and approach the argument from the OTHER guy's point of view if you want to get anything done. The best way to do this, I think, is to remove the political component from the issue completely and start talking to people about the differences in the way they live their lives, in contrast to yours. Tell them that you understand where they are coming from, but that they must consider the way you choose to live as well.
/rant
JImbothefiveth
Member
Since when has the U.S. been firebombing Iraqi children? That poster is disrespectful of our troops!
Why? I should still be able to defend myself regardless of who I live next to.
Urban areas have higher crime rates, so we should focus on the ability to defend oneself, and how guns lower crime rates.
That's usually a bad thing.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Kludge, I like that one.
But I'd never heard of the baby-talking cat website before, nor do I think that I (or most people) will ever encounter it again, so it's gonna be of really limited usefulness to the mainstream non-baby-talking public.
But I'd never heard of the baby-talking cat website before, nor do I think that I (or most people) will ever encounter it again, so it's gonna be of really limited usefulness to the mainstream non-baby-talking public.
nrgetik
Member
I never mentioned the complete banning of firearms, there is no situation that I can think of where that would be a positive thing. Controls on who can buy and what they can own is mostly what I was referring to, and these things DO make sense in certain circumstances, in certain areas, from a specific perspective, until a more reasonable and permanent solution can be implemented.
In this situation, a representative of the "enemy" would tell you that you don't need an AR-15 (or insert your particular dream firearm here which has little practical use in a home self-defense scenario) to adequately defend yourself, and they'd be right. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to own one? In my opinion no, but you must understand why the law varies so greatly depending on where you are. Gun control might make sense within certain communities, again until something that can sufficiently satisfy both sides can be devised. (Essentially talking about education here - I won't elaborate but perhaps in another thread sometime)
The person in question is a particularly responsible individual, and MJ is no exception with him. He's been admitted to the best (not exaggerating) graduate school for his field of study in the nation, which is absolutely no easy task, especially considering that he is in engineering. I was trying to drive the point home that liberals can like guns too, they just need someone to go shooting with, and a hard lining conservative isn't about to invite them to the range sometime. This is why I'm suggesting to you people that you de-politicize the issue as much as you possibly can, that is if you want to gain support across party lines.
Of course, if you guys want to continue using the same close minded tactics that have gotten you essentially nowhere in the past then that is your prerogative. In general I am against firearms control, but I do not see this as my battle to fight, I was merely trying to offer some ideas, insight, from a younger generation's perspective on the issue. I thought it may have been useful.
All I want is for someone to answer me this: are you better equipped to convince a man of something after having walked a mile in his shoes than you would be if you never even considered the removal of your own as a possibility?
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,709
You were doing okay until about the fifth paragraph, when your credibility began being stretched. Then you totally derailed yourself with this:
This mindset gives rise to the so-called "reasonable" gun restrictions that antis are so fond of. It is so easy to start down that slippery slope that you don't even notice how fast you're accelerating...until you go off the cliff.
Fact is, I owned three bolt-action Remington M-700s in different calibers until recently, and I had not fired any of them in nearly 10 years. Add a Mini-14 to that list. Those rifles lived in my safe through three moves to/from three large metro areas in three states (two of which are frequently referred to as Socialist Republiks).
However, none of them has ever killed anything but paper (or perhaps a deer in the hands of their new owners) and there is no reason why I should not be able to replace them in the future, should I so desire, authorities "natural suspicions" notwithstanding.
At the present time, the mere ownership of a legal, inanimate object is not a crime, whether or not others deem it "practical". You sound like a thoughtful type. Stick around a while, keep an open mind, and keep reading.
I'll answer it. You know, that's a great line, but how can I "walk a mile in the shoes" of someone (and I'm not talking about you, but you knew that) who uses rhetoric over logic, emotion over reason, vitriol over legitimate argument? I can't. Try going over to DU or HuffPo or DailyKos and discussing this issue, or anything RKBA-related. You will not get a reasoned reply--you will get shouted down, cussed out, threatened anonymously, and banned from the forums. BTDT.
This mindset gives rise to the so-called "reasonable" gun restrictions that antis are so fond of. It is so easy to start down that slippery slope that you don't even notice how fast you're accelerating...until you go off the cliff.
Fact is, I owned three bolt-action Remington M-700s in different calibers until recently, and I had not fired any of them in nearly 10 years. Add a Mini-14 to that list. Those rifles lived in my safe through three moves to/from three large metro areas in three states (two of which are frequently referred to as Socialist Republiks).
However, none of them has ever killed anything but paper (or perhaps a deer in the hands of their new owners) and there is no reason why I should not be able to replace them in the future, should I so desire, authorities "natural suspicions" notwithstanding.
At the present time, the mere ownership of a legal, inanimate object is not a crime, whether or not others deem it "practical". You sound like a thoughtful type. Stick around a while, keep an open mind, and keep reading.
I'll answer it. You know, that's a great line, but how can I "walk a mile in the shoes" of someone (and I'm not talking about you, but you knew that) who uses rhetoric over logic, emotion over reason, vitriol over legitimate argument? I can't. Try going over to DU or HuffPo or DailyKos and discussing this issue, or anything RKBA-related. You will not get a reasoned reply--you will get shouted down, cussed out, threatened anonymously, and banned from the forums. BTDT.
JImbothefiveth
Member
I beg to differ.
An AR-15 is a good home defense weapon for the weak and elderly in particular, since it is light, and fires a low-recoil round, and has high capacity.
And what about rifles for hunting?
TimboKhan
Member
I can see your point to a certain degree, but where this argument falls apart is in the implementation, and there are several reasons for this. First, the certain circumstances, areas and perspectives that you speak of can all describe Washington DC, and all are pretty much what Heller fought and won against.
Second, what your suggesting would amount to profiling people by socio-economic or racial characteristics. I am not trying to paint you as a racist or anything, but it isn't any particular secret that most urban high-crime areas are generally minority communities and generally low-income. People of any color or economic standing deserve the same rights as the rest of us, regardless of whether or not they live in Crapville, USA or Beverly Hills. (Some would argue this is the same place, lol)
Third, who is going to judge these characteristics and make the call? I would feel extremely uncomfortable with some politician waving his hand and saying "this area needs no guns". That is too much power, and frankly, horrifically unfair.
That being said, there are some incredibly stupid people out there that have no business being around guns. A point that I have always made is that while we have the right, we also are obliged to uphold the responsibility. Some people, regardless of color, economic standing, geographic location or criminal record, simply do not have the basic skills necessary to uphold that responsibility. Unfortunately, stupidity doesn't exempt one from the basic rights of an American Citizen.
I think what nrgetik is saying is that understanding the terrain as well as the motivation and capabilities of the opposition is important if you want to win. A law from an urban center that makes no sense to a third of the state's population living in semi-rural areas isn't going to be effectively opposed without understanding the cultural/social context that the folks in the urban areas share that allows them to be convinced to support the law. Understand the target market, shape the message for them, sell them on the idea. You can't sell them on the idea if the message is shaped to a different demographic. IOW, you can't sell nearly as many working pickup trucks, overalls and mud boots in the city as you can in the country regardless of how many ads you run if they're focused on your traditional market.
We're very guilty of being insular and self-righteous when we need to be shaping our message for the people doing the voting.
We're very guilty of being insular and self-righteous when we need to be shaping our message for the people doing the voting.
JImbothefiveth
Member
That walrus has his finger on the trigger. Just sayin'.
nrgetik
Member
Actually, I beg to differ. The slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy and does not hold water within the context of a formal debate (which this is not, but I attempt, at least, to hold myself to high standards when discussing something that is at least somewhat important to me). Here's an easy explanation of what is sometimes known as the "Camel's Nose" fallacy:
1) If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C, ..., X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
2) Z should not happen.
3) Therefore, A should not happen, either.
This is obviously fallacious.
(http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html)
There's also a Wikipedia entry which uses this subject as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Examples
All good reading.
If you can provide me of an example where you can show that some seemingly benign or reasonable legislation A was enacted that led to an undesirable social result Z later in history (and can enumerate each step in the process by which B was introduced because of A, C was introduced because of B, etc), then I will stand corrected, but I'm 99% sure you won't be able to. Forget about the slippery slope, it is ultimately useless in determining what action should or should not be taken, therefore a waste of time.
The snippet that you quoted from me was my attempt at painting a picture from an authority figure's point of view. Say, the police chief in [insert urban area here] dealing with high violent crime rates. Such a law would make sense for him because he is the one that has to answer to the public when people get killed. Sure, if everyone had a gun and were educated on how to use it then the problem would fix itself, but let's face it, law-abiding citizens in urban areas already have such a negative view toward firearms (because the only time they see a firearm is either on a gangster or a policeman [which, sometimes can be one in the same], both of whom they probably resent), that they don't even want to hear it. And you have to ask yourself if you would think the same way if you lived their life.
That is because you are a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has the proper respect for firearms. But the police would not know that until they talked to you first, and if anyone knows a policeman (or woman), then they know that in that line of work you must ALWAYS assume the worst, otherwise you get killed. So, to that cop, you're just another potential shooter (since it makes little sense for you to own such a firearm for recreational purposes in that area, and the cop will go through this same line of reasoning I guarantee it) until you can prove otherwise.
Pick a website with some outlet for discussion of your choice, and a basic premise to argue and I will bet you that none of those things will happen to me. If any of them do, I will make a thread formally apologizing for my ignorance.
Better?
A) While those are all valid points about the AR, the argument can EASILY be made that a simple handgun or shotgun is plenty for a home defense situation. Have you ever bought an AR-15 for the explicit purpose of defending your home? Your home in this case would be a small 1-2 bedroom apartment in the city, or perhaps even a studio.
B) There isn't anything to hunt in cities, except people and the occasional stray domestic animal.
I completely, completely agree. The rest of your post was pretty much spot-on as well, I'm not really trying to champion one thing or the other, I'm merely trying to make people consider perspectives that they potentially never have before, thus (hopefully) making them better capable at convincing those that would normally oppose their views on firearms to embrace them.
That is precisely, 100% what I am saying. Thank you for this eloquent and poignant summary.
Check S&T and you'll find that there is plenty of evidence that an AR-15 is as reasonable a home defense firearm as a handgun or shotgun in most circumstances.
Just as we need to understand our opponents, we also need to understand that most of our opponents may be parroting gun myths because they're ignorant of the facts surrounding firearms (and that some of them are willfully ignorant or willfully twisting them), like an AR is less suitable for Home Defense than a 1911.
nrgetik said:
How about:
Patriot act -> warrantless wiretaps
Legislation giving the gov't extended surveillance powers led to the gov't taking it further and illegally and unconstitutionally surveiling US citizens.
And what about the legislation removing accountability for tleecom companies for illegally providing the gov't information on customers? That was an ex post facto law, and as such 100% unconstitutional.
Definitely seems like a slippery-slope situation to me. Now that more people are aware of what the government has been doing hopefully the slide will be halted and turned back.
Now as for gun rights, certainly everyone agrees that somewhere between single-shot hunting rifle and tactical nuke there is a line, beyond which individual arms ownership should not be allowed. The more restrictive gun control becomes, the more the norm moves toward smaller and fewer (or no) guns. As the norm moves, the extreme becomes less "extreme", and it becomes feasible to ban more innocuous guns.
Don't get me wrong. At a high level I very much agree with you and think its a mistake to mis-understand and mis-characterize the opposition (and I've spent AL LOT of time talking about gun control with antis). Though while I don't think restrictions on some weapons will lead to some sort of total ban, I do think there is a real slippery slope effect.
nrgetik said:
Also agree.
nrgetik
Member
Neither of these examples really apply IMO; I'll explain.
The Patriot Act never really had widespread public support, and neither, I suspect, did the legislation you refer to regarding unlawful govt/telco collaboration. Neither of these were situations where the public approved of some legislation and said "ok, let's do it, what is the worst that could happen?", which "opened the door" to change the "status quo" a number of times before whammo, police state (or whatever).
Both of these are just examples of our Government's abuse of power that were either not fully comprehended by the public and/or congress (Patriot Act | side note: if memory serves, not a single congressperson even read the Patriot Act past the first few pages before voting on it), or largely went undetected by the public until later (govt/telco as well as the warrantless wiretaps and abuses of the Patriot Act).
At best you're proving that the slippery slope prophecy is not something that can be observed within society; at worst you're comparing apples to oranges.
I've only been concerned about gun rights starting within, say, the last 5 years, so I am mostly ignorant regarding the history of the issue in the United States, but can you tell me in good confidence that 2nd Amendment rights have slowly eroded since, say, the NFA in 34? There was the GCA in 68 which seemed partially unfair, but it seems the FOPA in 86 fixed most of that. Then we had the AWB in 94, which was allowed to expire in 04.
If you are right you wouldn't have to "think" that there is a slippery slope effect, you'd be able to observe it throughout history. If you or anybody else is willing to take the stance that 2nd Amendment rights have indeed significantly eroded since 34 (for the sake of argument), then by all means, because if you prove that argument then I will probably rebel.
jrhines
Member
Sacromento CA City council...
a few years back passed some nonsense gun bill (7 day wait or 1 gun/month or the like), even after the chairwomen said that the law would not do any good. There was testimony from at least 2 LEOs agreeing with her. An anti stood up and said "but if we pass this, it will be easier to pass more restrictive laws!" So they passed it. California is now awaiting step N I think, maybe it's step P, I lost count awhile back.
I'll go see if I can find the Youtube clip and be back. Don't look now, but your on the slope you say doesn't exist.
Oh, I remember, it was 24 hours to tell the cops your gun was stolen, (pretty sure).
a few years back passed some nonsense gun bill (7 day wait or 1 gun/month or the like), even after the chairwomen said that the law would not do any good. There was testimony from at least 2 LEOs agreeing with her. An anti stood up and said "but if we pass this, it will be easier to pass more restrictive laws!" So they passed it. California is now awaiting step N I think, maybe it's step P, I lost count awhile back.
I'll go see if I can find the Youtube clip and be back. Don't look now, but your on the slope you say doesn't exist.
Oh, I remember, it was 24 hours to tell the cops your gun was stolen, (pretty sure).
My contention is that it is the passage of accordant legislation which emboldened further rights violations. I don't think I'm comparing apples and oranges, though I understand where you're coming from.
I'm not nearly educated enough on the matter to pick up this argument.
Yes.
Federally, import bans removing firearms from the public market. These are as effective as bans. Reclassification of evil looking shotguns as destructive devices.
Individual states and localities restricting or outright banning possession of whole classes (Cali AWB, Chicago handgun) of firearms. Or "guns per month" legislation that hinders collectors and enthusiasts. None of which actually address the basic causes of crime, but uses regulation of firearms as a substitute.
Then the whole hodgepodge of state carry laws where a permit holder in KY can sit down in a tavern with a buddy in IN while both carry, but the guy from IN can't visit his friend in KY and the two of them sit in a tavern on the KY side of the border (or a guy from TN can join them in IN, but not in KY).
nrgetik
Member
That's California, and since it was a city council the law can only apply within the city limits of Sacramento.
You can also legally purchase and use marijuana in California. California is neither a good nor valid example of anything that we are discussing here - there will always be "extremes" and at the moment, California is one of them.
And I'm not on any slope, I live in Florida. The only "slope" I'd ever be concerned about would have to be on a federal level, because you and I know damn well that there's no way in hell every state would pass similar restrictive gun laws independently of each other. If it doesn't happen on a federal level, it doesn't concern me. City statutes and state law can be changed much more rapidly then on the federal level.
And my contention is that since it was not something that they were ultimately able to "get away with" (thus furthering the slip on the slope), then it isn't really a slippery slope. They're coming back into check as we speak. Govt abuse is a fact of life, but that doesn't mean it can only travel in one direction.
Me either, but I'd like to hear from someone who is because I think we might be making some progress here.
If you could concentrate on one example, preferably the one you consider to be the most egregious, and give or direct me to:
1) Some sort of timeline
2) Specifics
3) Supporting documentation/legitimate sources
Then we will have something. And I will go through all of it, guaranteed.
Last edited:
toivo
Member
I for one believe in the "slippery slope." The reason I do is that there are groups that are on record as opposing all civilian ownership of firearms who are also actively working to promote "reasonable restrictions." I have no reason to believe that their definition of "reasonable" is anything like mine, and I'm convinced they will work to move the goalposts back with each successful restriction until they have achieved their ultimate goal.
Just for perspective, I am what most would consider a liberal on many social issues. What I see in extreme gun-ban advocates is a streak of totalitarianism that has no place in a free society.
Just for perspective, I am what most would consider a liberal on many social issues. What I see in extreme gun-ban advocates is a streak of totalitarianism that has no place in a free society.
nrgetik
Member
Well I mean, that's all fine and good toivo but ultimately I don't know if what you're telling me about these groups is true or not. Where exactly are you getting this information? Was it from any of the major news corporations, or one of their many small subsidiaries? Because I would immediately question the accuracy of anything of that nature.
- Status
