buy next gun somewhere else "The only reason to openly carry is that you’re too lazy"

I agree - but focusing mainly on the store is missing the big picture.

This newspaper has a full fledged extensive ongoing editorial campaign against guns.

They will jump on any ignorant comments they can find. Fellow gun owners may be ignorant sometimes but they can learn and become allies. Anti gunners on the other hand hate your guts and wake up every morning wanting you extinct at any cost.

IMHO we need to focus on the paper more than the shop - this propaganda campaign needs to be balanced.

Our views need to be represented in mainstream local news. It's influential in policy and culture despite the drop in readership.

HP995 said:

I agree - but focusing mainly on the store is missing the big picture.

This newspaper has a full fledged extensive ongoing editorial campaign against guns.

They will jump on any ignorant comments they can find. Fellow gun owners may be ignorant sometimes but they can learn and become allies. Anti gunners on the other hand hate your guts and wake up every morning wanting you extinct at any cost.

IMHO we need to focus on the paper more than the shop - this propaganda campaign needs to be balanced.

Our views need to be represented in mainstream local news. It's influential in policy and culture despite the drop in readership.

Click to expand...

What would be your plan of action to achieve what you have stated above?

HP995 said:

I agree - but focusing mainly on the store is missing the big picture.

IMHO we need to focus on the paper more than the shop - this propaganda campaign needs to be balanced.

Our views need to be represented in mainstream local news. It's influential in policy and culture despite the drop in readership.

Click to expand...

I 100% disagree respectfully.

The only way you are going to see folks stop saying stupid things is by calling every single one of them out that does it. This shop owner is NOT your ally and it was not a slip up, it was 100% a blatent attack on OC'ers more specificly anyone who carries a gun who does not hand her dollars for state welfare classes that are forced upon the people by misguided laws.

They have already spent a lot of time trying to spin it without flat out lying about it and have abandon the effort because they know it is true not only that she said it, but that she believes it. To think that simply because they PROFIT by selling guns and classes makes them less of an anti-gunner is a bad mistake. They think guns are good for who THEY think it is ok for, they are NOT 2a advocates by any stretch of the word. Closer to Imperialist I would offer.

As for getting the propoganda balenced, well that violates free speech in my book so I am not in favor despite wanting to see the reality of what you are talking about. You always have to allow free speech so you can identify the stupid people.

While some might say you can change Pam's mind, I would offer that is not likely but calling her out on it without a doubt will prevent her from uttering it to the press again, but I imagine on a private level she will continue to bash those who OC, after all, they likely do not hand her dollars.

Plan of action - letters, guest editorial, interview or news items.

Violates free speech - how? Papers like this try to present only one side. All we have to do is speak up.

Calling her out - again I agree, that's fine, but while you focus on this one incident, the paper will have 5 or 6 more anti gun stories. They have a campaign and that statement was just one little bullet. The paper is out to influence public opinion and policy for KC and MO and they will continually present new stuff in that agenda.

Focus not on the paper, they can choose to not print "our version of the story", being private property, but focusing on the source of their version of the story.

Reasonable citizens will know via word of mouth. I speak to anyone who will listen and request that they do likewise. The citizenry usually figures out what "the deal" is and more times than not come to the correct conclusion.

The media usually is far behind on the "mood" of the citizenry.

HP995 said:

Plan of action - letters, guest editorial, interview or news items.

Violates free speech - how? Papers like this try to present only one side. All we have to do is speak up.

Calling her out - again I agree, that's fine, but while you focus on this one incident, the paper will have 5 or 6 more anti gun stories. They have a campaign and that statement was just one little bullet. The paper is out to influence public opinion and policy for KC and MO and they will continually present new stuff in that agenda.

Click to expand...

The days of newspaper being UNBIASED and reporting actual news, has been extinct for many, many, years. Newspaper reporters USED to have integrity and be credible and get the facts RIGHT, BEFORE, they reported any story..... that also is extinct. The papers are controlled by the anti-gun administration and only publishes what they approve or want them to report on. Look at all the scandals there are in our current administration and see WHO is holding ANYBODIES feet to the fire...... or actual reporting the FACTS as they actually are, NOT as they are twisted or fabricated. Good luck getting ANY TRUE support from the government controlled media on ANYTHING they oppose.

They're anti-gun activists with a campaign in full swing, of course they are biased! And unfair. But you're making their job a breeze. They do publish some opposing views. They prefer that to be a small percentage, with very few good submissions received, and they get exactly what they want when we stay out of the game.

No time for a media lesson right now - preach only to the crowd if you want to maintain a difficult political climate where a big segment have only heard one side of the story. The original post was about a story from this newspaper, and that one story is part of a large ongoing anti-gun campaign. If that means nothing to you tactically, then I'll leave it at that.

"preach only to the choir" i meant to say

Your comments about focusing on the store vs the paper indicate you felt that instead of the comments being directed at the store they should have been directed at the paper, that is how I read it.

It seemed like you were saying the paper should be forced to give a balanced perspective and I do not agree, I believe the paper has the right to free speech whether I like it or not and I do not want it restricted.

As far as letters to the paper go, you could sent 1000 and they never have to print a single one.

What they got was a quote from someone they pretend is some sort of authority, the owner of a gun shop so they can point and say, "look even xyz agree with us" and those right wing dolts are dangerous.

Making sure Pam Reis learned that saying anti-gun things to the paper as an authority is a bad idea is what happened and it happened in such a way that other gun authority types may think twice before following her lead so to speak.

I won't disagree that writing a letter to the paper MIGHT get published and might spread the word to some of the readers of the article but I won't wager a ten spot on it. I also do not under any circumstances believe you will see the paper try and do anything with it beyond twist it into a right wing nut job position and they might even editorialize off of it quoting several police officers and chiefs to refute it. You are trying to enter into a battle as if you believe you have a fair judge to moderate the content, that does not exist.

If you do manage to craft a well worded piece that represents very well, they will brush it off with something to the effect of "hp995 has a good point for responsible persons such as himself, unfortunately we do not live in a world of people like that and stricter laws are needed to protect us from them, unfortunately hp995 does not get that" or similar etc.

The media makes the news, we owe a great deal of thanks to Jerry Springer as he showed exactly what the media is back in the 90s and they are all the same. CNN has been caught several times if not hundreds of times completely and 100% falsely fabricating the news including staged events with actors.

When people scoff at the folks saying Sandy Hook never happened they SHOULD check themselves. It is not that I don't believe it happened, it is that I know the media has indeed faked such things in the past so any and all such things need more than casual review because you know what, it could be just like the SCUD attack on Charles Jaco when he was with CNN where he was caught laughing about how stupid people are and they would believe it.

I will stick with the hypocrites like Pam, while not likely to have changed her mind, I doubt she will spew it out there for everyone to see anymore, I believe efforts to impact the paper in the same manner would be futile.

LMTD: I'm going to make a few corrections, but I'm not going to argue this thread further after this post, unless you outright misrepresent a statement.

"Your comments about focusing on the store vs the paper indicate you felt that instead of the comments being directed at the store they should have been directed at the paper, that is how I read it."

Click to expand...

Change "the comments being directed" to "greater efforts being directed" and it's accurate. I agree about the calling out the store owner. But the bigger battle deserves the greater effort - if you want to win overall. And I hardly ever see a media effort here.

"It seemed like you were saying the paper should be forced to give a balanced perspective and I do not agree, I believe the paper has the right to free speech whether I like it or not and I do not want it restricted."

Click to expand...

It's a strange idea about suppressing free speech and it's yours not mine. Sending letters or otherwise participating in media content is not unethical in any way. It doesn't suppress speech, it is free speech. And if a paper or TV station violates journalism ethics or the public's trust, there would be nothing wrong with calling them on it.

"As far as letters to the paper go, you could sent 1000 and they never have to print a single one."

Click to expand...

That's an okay theory/assumption, I guess it's "true" that they never have to, theoretically, but the reality is that they practically have to print some of what they receive. And they do. (That is easily verifiable in black and white.)

As for the media being biased - no argument there. It's a rotten mess. It's true that media often creates news as you say. And they have lots of tactics for twisting things. I'm glad you understand how they use a shop owner as an authority. Basically a bad-guy authority in their view - like "even evil gun people think open carry is downright nuts").

But beyond calling out the shop owner, we disagree on the media solution. Mainstream media is still incredibly influential (look who's president) and I believe retreating entirely from the battle there is suicide. Alternative media and blogs didn't win the last election for example, even after people had seen his true colors 4 years in. If you really want to win you have to fight the battles everywhere they are. IMO. The media have plans to survive after the age of news print is over, so I don't think we're done with them yet. Even when you successfully pass laws you may struggle holding onto them a few years later if you don't have enough of the population on your side.

It's valid to try and limit the supply of "bad guy" authorities for them, that will help one area. But they really don't need many. They have plenty of supposedly "good guy" authorities for their spin - the mayor, the police chief, small local anti-gun orgs, big national anti-gun orgs, famous politicians, and so on. That's who they usually run with.

HP995 said:

LMTD: I'm going to make a few corrections, but I'm not going to argue this thread further after this post, unless you outright misrepresent a statement.



Change "the comments being directed" to "greater efforts being directed" and it's accurate. I agree about the calling out the store owner. But the bigger battle deserves the greater effort - if you want to win overall. And I hardly ever see a media effort here.



It's a strange idea about suppressing free speech and it's yours not mine. Sending letters or otherwise participating in media content is not unethical in any way. It doesn't suppress speech, it is free speech. And if a paper or TV station violates journalism ethics or the public's trust, there would be nothing wrong with calling them on it.
.

Click to expand...

I typically will not misrepresent a statement purposefully, though I do miss the authors intent at times.

That may be the case in your second line I quoted, it was indeed my opinion you were in some way looking to moderate the press, could be 100% my bad.

As far as using the press goes, well one fairly decent article came out in the post disgrace and while it was positive, it resulted in the city moving to outright ban OC which they did despite a strong showing at the meeting.

I don't think your idea sucks by any means, I just do not share your optimism that a positive spin is going to ever come from the libtard rags. I also do not believe that many persons pay much attention at all to the "letters to the editors" anymore since the vast majority of readers are doing it online instead of print versions. I am of the opinion that more or less the majority do not "click the tab" and those pages see 85-90% fewer views than the rest of the rag.

It is easier for the rags to find extremist on both sides of an issue and since the rags are on the anti's side in general, they are much softer on the spin than they are the progun side.

I suppose the entire point we differ on is not so hard to identify, we both think it would be great to get some pro-press, you just see the battle worth fighting and I see it as a futile effort that at the first hint of success will result in a massive push by them to crush any positive ground gained.

That said, don't think for a second I won't help in such an effort, I am just not going to redirect other efforts to take that one on, hope that makes sense.

Gotta run, Shriner Hospital needs a check presentation in a few mins and gotta meet the group.

Peace

Well said, LMTD. Thanks.

No follow-up by the paper after The Owner did a 180...forget the paper, they did their job as far as they are concerned and have moved on. Beating a dead horse at this point. Focus on the anti-liberty business owners especially the "pro-gun" anti-liberty business owners.

Great "straw horse" argument, OC for ME.