• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun Control - public enemy or public safety?

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Crimefree,

It appears that you are suggesting that we use the media to get our message out. Do I have to remind you that the MSM IS NOT on our side. In fact it is as about as biased as it can get against gun owners and the 2A.

It doesn't matter how many letters we write to the media organization, most end up in file 13. Many online publications that allow comments to articles are monitor to delete pro-gun postings. I was banned from posting comments most likely because I presented too many facts and logical arguments in defense of gun ownership and carry for self defense, while the anti-gun crowd was allowed to keep posting their venomous tripe and vulgar name calling and insults.

Have you not seen how the National MSM have covered incidents that occur in this country? Every time a mass shooting happens it gets weeks of front line coverage. But do they cover any of the events where a Law abiding citizen is able to stop a violent crime with their own firearm? Hell no!!!! It barely gets local coverage.

A good example of this.

We saw weeks of coverage about the various mass shootings across the nation. Questions were raised as to why current gun control measures failed to prevent these incidents. The MSM gave the anti-gun groups plenty of platform to plead for MORE gun control

But when an off duty law enforcement officer (LEO) in Colorado stopped a shooter at his second target for the day, the MSM attempted to vilify HER, as ifSHE had done something wrong. They even questioned the church she defended concerning why they even had someone there, ARMED,for security.

Now, let's take a hypothetical look at how the MSM might cover an event. What if the Virginia Tech shooter had been stopped by armed staff or students before he could get off more than a few shots? Would the MSM praise the armed citizens for their prompt action to defend everyone from the crazy guy with intent to murder innocent people? Highly unlikely. In fact, I doubt that the MSM would even mention the event happened at all. I believe most everyone on this forum would agree.

And you think we should rely on the media for support? Wouldn't that be like the gazelle turning to apride of lions for help?

We, every last one of us gun owners/carriers,have to be our own media and messenger. We all have to be active in countering the anti-gun propaganda. The best way I see of getting the general public over it's nervousness at the sight of firearms is to carry our handguns openly on our hips so that they canSEE them. It's the only way that they can see that law abiding citizens CAN carry arms in public without shoot-outs in the streets occurring, as has been falsely prophesied by the anti-gun organizations.

Concealed carry does nothing in this respect. It doesn't help the cause if gun owners hide their guns from the eyes of the public. "Out of sight- out of mind" does not help in convincing the general public that having an armed society IS a benefit to public safety. Sure, CC in "Shall Issue" states does reduce crime as a collective, but the public doesn't always understand this. They don't see the guns that are around them, causing criminals toback off of some of their activities because they don't know whose armed,if they are concealed.

There is nothing in the Constitution that protects an individuals assumedright not to be nervous or uncomfortable. If we were to set outto ban everything that might cause somebody discomfort or uneasiness, there wouldn't be much left for people to do. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe world. Thatis an Utopian notion.

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Law Enforcement is under no obligation to provide security foreach individual citizen. Recent events, in which LEO have been gunned down while on duty, suggests that they can't even provide for their own safety all the time.

Those of us that have chosen to be responsible for our own safety, carry a tool (a handgun) for that purpose. Those of us that carry openly are actively promoting personal self defense in a passive manner. Some of us have actually been thanked, by individuals that aremembers of the general public, for taking responsibility for arming ourselves.Some people do see it as a meansfor the betterment of public safety and not a threat to it.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Crimefree wrote:Entirely too verbose for this forum, IMHO - more suitable for a classroom environment with a captive audience. Most are not going to wade through checking and counter checking your data nor respond to the myriad points you attempt to make.

Sensory/numerical overload does not a compelling argument make. In the vernacular - give them too much to eat and they will develop a belly ache.

I agree that public relations is a battle that well should incorporate the use of those practiced in the art. There is much that is being done right and more that can be done without a doubt.

I do not forecast a losing war for our rights by staying on our present course - you would seem to do so.

Yata hey
 

TehGruu

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
277
Location
, Texas, USA
imported post

Well, I have read this thread and good points are being made by several people. I too, now feel compelled to add my opinion. I support our constitutional rights. Though I am not an activist nor as fervent in that as many on this board, I feel that it is one of our duties as Citizens to make sure our rights are not eroded.

For the average person, spewing rhetoric for either side, sounds like you are doing exactly that. Now granted, some of the pro gun sayings are awesome. "If it don't start with 4, don't go to war" is one of my personal favorites. However, strapping on your shootin' iron and letting loose the clever witticisms doesn't do much to help the cause. Normalization is the best course of action. Now when I say this I'm not envisioning a group of armed citizens rallying together to show they present no threat. Now granted, such outings do have their place to raise awareness in a positive light, I don't personally think that's the best method to make exercising a birth right that many find strange and archaic seem normal to most people that find it strange.

Like most of you, I would love to live in a society where part of your preparation for a night on the town would involve determining which holster, pistol, and blade would best match your attire for the night. Now, I realize for some of you this is an option, and I am envious of you and hope that Texas does change it's laws in my lifetime. I mean I wish the MAJORITY of persons did so. Where you might stick out if you were unarmed. That is what I would like to see. How do we get there?

In my opinion, I think just talking with those in your life. I'll use a friend of mine as an example. Now, he wasn't anti-gun per se. He did (and still does) view me as a gun nut. What I did initially was raz him and throw in clever one liners that favored gun ownership and self-defense. That didn't work. He would still come over and occasionally comments would be made about the pistols that I had within reach at my home. If he looked at one, I would offer to let him examine it. If he wanted to look at it, I would unload it, and hand it to him. When he made a comment about it being loaded, I explained my reason. I didn't break out my soapbox for any gesturing or grandstanding. I just simply told him matter of factlythat should I need it, I will probably need it very quickly and probably wouldn't have time to load a magazine and rack the slide. You know what? With no holier than thou tones, speaking in plain English as one man to another, he understood. Nothing else was said.

Eventually I invited him to the range. Needless to say he was a little nervous at first. Heck, he managed to make my Sig jam. How that's possible, I'll never know. At the end of the day he was thinking out load as to how he mighttalk his wife, read the boss, into getting one for range use. I discovered this website via the Texas Open Carry on line petition during this time. I was excited when I found out there was a movement and perplexed when I learned that open carry was legal in some form in most states. When I talked to him about this he questioned in a condescending tone as to why I would want to wear a gun publicly when we have concealed carry. Again, I spouted off the standardrhetoric. I eventually just dropped it and realized we would have to agree to disagree.

Now my friend used to ask why I kept a loaded gun in the car when I found out it was legal. I again used quotes from others as my justification to him. Of course that didn't work. See, that's part of the problem. A lot of the time we are put on the spot and others try to compel us to list our reasons for doing so. We don't need to justify anything to anyone. The way he finally accepted my view was that I just kept my firearm in the car and didn't bring it up.

My friend handles a lot of money during the week for his job. I tried to talk him into getting a gun, but he always had a reason not too. I dropped it. Then one day, we were talking and he mentioned that he was thinking about getting his CHL just to have a way to defend himself when he was picking up and depositing the cash. It was all I could do to contain my excitement. I of course supported his idea, but told him to make sure that was what he wanted to do. He asked me again on the law about having a handgun in your vehicle without a license. I explained the conditions you had to meet and offered to loan him one of mine. He accepted my offer along with my condition that he would have to fire it and show he was comfortable with it.

Now, I know this anecdote was a little long winded, but I feel it helps to illustrate my point. To normalize open carry and to allay fears of weapons carried in public in general, we need to do just that, be normal. If open carry is legal in your state, then carry everywhere you can. Make no big deal of it, especially to those close to you. If you have an open carry event. Make no special mention of your sidearm. While you are out in a group, make sure to smile at and shake hands with as many people as possible. Make sure to let them ask you questions.

Above all though, the most effective way, in the opinion of this particular Joe Six pack at least, is to educate those closest to you. Take your friends to the range. Teach them about firearms safety and all the neat pistols that are out there. Chances are, they'll pass it along. Personally, I think this is the best way to help our cause. This is just my opinion. It's worth exactly what you're paying for it.




-Gruu
 

Crimefree

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

Thanks for the reply.


I accept that you have the best intentions in mind and do not for one moment think that you are incorrect in what you so passionately believe is a solution. I ask only that you open your mind to other ideas that may very well have a huge potential to help.


Anything that challenges beliefs is confrontational but try to see past that. It is also the reason firearm owners are adopting the wrong methods by directly challenging the beliefs of those who would restrict ownership - the public. This simply leads to conflict in which both sides dig in their heels even harder and refuse to budge. You have to find common ground in which both sides agree. By both sides I mean firearm owners and the public.


Admitting defeat before you really start is hardly the way to win. Finding excuses which simply imply justification for what failed for this admission is rationalisation. The media was not convinced that a sufficiently large enough portion of the public wanted any change of marketing direction. That to do so would be endangering market share and profits. Yes you have personal bias to over come but money talks louder.


Firearm owners do this because their only aim and goal is to increase firearm ownership and absolutely nothing else is of any consequence or importance.

Imagine if gun control did this how far that would have got them. No matter how many defeats gun control has it will never stop. While gun control may change its direction as it has recently done in Switzerland and the USA it will never change its methods, promotion of fear and hate by the public.


Gun control’s stated objective is to increase public safety and until public safety is increased the way gun control deliberately choose to do this gun control will continue. The fact that it cannot be increased is irrelevant to those who control gun control because that is not the objective of those who control gun control..

The USA and world is a good example if and only if you take the time and trouble to look and correctly evaluate on social psychology based reasoning and learn from historical mistakes the same errors will be repeated for exactly the same reasons they were made in the fist place..


Observe gun controls modes of operation and fight using the intelligence you obtain. Deny gun control its objective of influencing the public to fear and hate firearms by removing fear and hate and showing the public that their safety will be improved by allowing firearm ownership. It is impossible to do this by promoting the object the public fear and hate.

That alone makes firearm enthusiasts who have no useful background and knowledge of the problem totally unsuitable to lead, guide or advise this fight.

Let us say for argument that firearm owners "solutions" are wrong in every aspect proposed, what would that say of the attitude and willingness to examine information and correctly apply it to the problem? What would it say for any real chance of success?


It appears that you are suggesting that we use the media to get our message out. Do I have to remind you that the MSM IS NOT on our side. In fact it is as about as biased as it can get against gun owners and the 2A.

The media is well aware that only 12% of the US population support fewer restrictions and that is their market opinion. The media would be stupid beyond belief to ignore that.

The media is biased because firearm owners and organisations have sat on their behinds and done nothing about that because they have always thought there is no reason to do anything about it.

It doesn't matter how many letters we write to the media organization, most end up in file 13. Many online publications that allow comments to articles are monitor to delete pro-gun postings. I was banned from posting comments most likely because I presented too many facts and logical arguments in defense of gun ownership and carry for self defense, while the anti-gun crowd was allowed to keep posting their venomous tripe and vulgar name calling and insults.
Is this a total lack of understanding of the problem and a rationalisation to what accords with your way of thinking? .

Those of us that have chosen to be responsible for our own safety, carry a tool (a handgun) for that purpose. Those of us that carry openly are actively promoting personal self defense in a passive manner. Some of us have actually been thanked, by individuals that aremembers of the general public, for taking responsibility for arming ourselves.Some people do see it as a meansfor the betterment of public safety and not a threat to it.

The public say different and their voice is the only voice that counts.

This ploy you describe has done absolutely nothing for the public image of firearm ownership and possibly changed the attitude of only a few who more than likely required little reason to do so.

When you have changed the mind of the women who you first gave as an example then you may claim success. When you have changed the mind of 78% of the US public who support some restrictions on firearm ownership then you will have succeeded.

Please explain how your methods and those adopted almost universally by firearm owners will change the mind of those who fear and hate firearms enough to want to restrict in some way ownership.

You have at present just 12% of US citizens who support less restrictive laws (a current high). Think very hard on what you and others are doing wrong. Do not be so foolish as to ascribe success to anything you wish to believe is the reason for change. Obtain your information from surveys conducted by independent research. Now that is faultless logic and reason. Will that convince you?


Image

Your image is the first thing others see. It is what others will judge you by and think of you.

The image of a group of people is no different. It is what others will judge that group by and how they will think and view them as a group. It will influence attitude, trust, disposition and any relationship.

When a group or person is large enough, important enough or requires public participation and needs to be noticed by the public, the public will judge that group on its image as that is all and the only information they have available. It is the first impression and probably the only impression anyone will have.

Surveys give some insight to the image of firearm owners. The public response to that image is often surveyed because government and gun control want to know how successful their publicity and advertising has been.

Why do government and gun control want to know what the image of firearm owners is?
Both try very hard to influence that public image to gauge public reaction to whatever they wish to do. Many would call this a “marketing survey”.

How do government, gun control, businesses and organisations influence the public?
With the use of advertising and publicity (propaganda).

All advertising and publicity that seeks to entice, “popularise” or influence a product, person, event, organisation, plan or idea is “propaganda” that relies on the study and use of social psychology. Many would call this marketing or advertising.

What is the image of firearm organisations that the public and firearm owners judge them by? A gauge of that image is membership, participation in the organisation activities and public support.
What is the image of firearm owners? How do the public judge firearm owners? Legislation is a gauge of that image as are public surveys. Legislation is often the result of public surveys.

Is it not time that firearm owners and organisations took great care of their image and ensured public acceptance of firearm ownership?

Promoting firearm ownership simply means you want to sell more firearms to a market that accepts and embraces firearm ownership. What happens when that market is hostile to some degree to this advertising and product? Do you simply just increase your advertising of the product and totally neglect the hostility? That is what firearm enthusiasts do almost without exception because they do not know why their promotion is failing and will continue to fail while gun control seeks only to increase market (public) hostility by any means they can.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

TehGruu wrote:
snip.....
To normalize open carry and to allay fears of weapons carried in public in general, we need to do just that, be normal. If open carry is legal in your state, then carry everywhere you can. Make no big deal of it, especially to those close to you. If you have an open carry event. Make no special mention of your sidearm. While you are out in a group, make sure to smile at and shake hands with as many people as possible. Make sure to let them ask you questions.

Above all though, the most effective way, in the opinion of this particular Joe Six pack at least, is to educate those closest to you. Take your friends to the range. Teach them about firearms safety and all the neat pistols that are out there. Chances are, they'll pass it along. Personally, I think this is the best way to help our cause. This is just my opinion. It's worth exactly what you're paying for it.


-Gruu
That is actually worth a lot, lot more than most will ever pay for it Gruu.
It is a way of life - living and teaching by example and it should never be discounted.

There are other methods to be sure, but if you don't accept this one as your personal standard then how will you expect others whom we encourage to deport themselves?

Yata hey
 

TehGruu

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
277
Location
, Texas, USA
imported post

Grapeshot, sir, I appreciate your words. I have never met you in person, but I have a feeling that you are indeed a man that leads and tries to live his life as an example. If only more people would start doing the same.





-Gruu
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Crimefree wrote:
Thanks for the reply.


I accept that you have the best intentions in mind and do not for one moment think that you are incorrect in what you so passionately believe is a solution. I ask only that you open your mind to other ideas that may very well have a huge potential to help. He never said he didn't have an open mind.


Anything that challenges beliefs is confrontational but try to see past that. It is also the reason firearm owners are adopting the wrong methods by directly challenging the beliefs of those who would restrict ownership - the public. This simply leads to conflict in which both sides dig in their heels even harder and refuse to budge. You have to find common ground in which both sides agree. By both sides I mean firearm owners and the public. We each have opinions - is that wrong, in your opinion. Your ideologies are less known (less historical contact with you) therefore, you are not simply accepted as an expert in what we should or should not do.


Admitting defeat before you really start is hardly the way to win. Finding excuses which simply imply justification for what failed for this admission is rationalisation. The media was not convinced that a sufficiently large enough portion of the public wanted any change of marketing direction. That to do so would be endangering market share and profits. Yes you have personal bias to over come but money talks louder. No one is "admitting defeat," no one is making "excuses." To speak so is IMO condescending and not a little bit insulting.


Firearm owners do this because their only aim and goal is to increase firearm ownership and absolutely nothing else is of any consequence or importance.
I being a "firearms owner" and you purport to tell me that my only goal is to increase firearms ownership and that nothing else is of importance ?


Imagine if gun control did this how far that would have got them. No matter how many defeats gun control has it will never stop. While gun control may change its direction as it has recently done in Switzerland and the USA it will never change its methods, promotion of fear and hate by the public. Gun control is slipping, rapidly - and all of the signs are that the 2nd Amendment advocates are making huge gains in most states.

Gun control’s stated objective is to increase public safety and until public safety is increased the way gun control deliberately choose to do this gun control will continue. The fact that it cannot be increased is irrelevant to those who control gun control because that is not the objective of those who control gun control.
And here I thought all they wanted was my pistol and they'd be happy - surely they don't want total control.

The USA and world is a good example if and only if you take the time and trouble to look and correctly evaluate on social psychology based reasoning and learn from historical mistakes the same errors will be repeated for exactly the same reasons they were made in the fist place.. My major was in Industrial Psychology (heavy on the social curriculum) - does that place me on the level or only if I accept your thought process as the only legitimate one?

Observe gun controls modes of operation and fight using the intelligence you obtain. Deny gun control its objective of influencing the public to fear and hate firearms by removing fear and hate and showing the public that their safety will be improved by allowing firearm ownership. It is impossible to do this by promoting the object the public fear and hate. Sorry no bonus points again - you still speak down to your audience - implying they lack intelligence wasn't even subtly done.

That alone makes firearm enthusiasts who have no useful background and knowledge of the problem totally unsuitable to lead, guide or advise this fight.
Now firearms enthusiasts who do not agree with you are not suitable to lead?

Let us say for argument that firearm owners "solutions" are wrong in every aspect proposed, what would that say of the attitude and willingness to examine information and correctly apply it to the problem? What would it say for any real chance of success? The question attempts to force the desired answer. Perhaps I might reverse it and say that what if the "solutions" were right - what chance of success then?


It appears that you are suggesting that we use the media to get our message out. Do I have to remind you that the MSM IS NOT on our side. In fact it is as about as biased as it can get against gun owners and the 2A.

The media is well aware that only 12% of the US population support fewer restrictions and that is their market opinion. The media would be stupid beyond belief to ignore that. Or have an AGENDA. Your data is flawed also, but I will NOT debate that here - it is pointless.

The media is biased because firearm owners and organisations have sat on their behinds and done nothing about that because they have always thought there is no reason to do anything about it. Misdirection again - based on untruth.

It doesn't matter how many letters we write to the media organization, most end up in file 13. Many online publications that allow comments to articles are monitor to delete pro-gun postings. I was banned from posting comments most likely because I presented too many facts and logical arguments in defense of gun ownership and carry for self defense, while the anti-gun crowd was allowed to keep posting their venomous tripe and vulgar name calling and insults.
Is this a total lack of understanding of the problem and a rationalisation to what accords with your way of thinking? . Will you never cease to insult so graciously?

Those of us that have chosen to be responsible for our own safety, carry a tool (a handgun) for that purpose. Those of us that carry openly are actively promoting personal self defense in a passive manner. Some of us have actually been thanked, by individuals that aremembers of the general public, for taking responsibility for arming ourselves.Some people do see it as a meansfor the betterment of public safety and not a threat to it.

The public say different and their voice is the only voice that counts. Depends on who and what you define as the "public" does it not? From where I sit, the people are getting the message, starting to loud and clear in many cases.

This ploy you describe has done absolutely nothing for the public image of firearm ownership and possibly changed the attitude of only a few who more than likely required little reason to do so. Ploy? Excellent use of misdirection and leading the witness - did you really think perhaps he would feel guilty for using truth and logic?

When you have changed the mind of the women who you first gave as an example then you may claim success. When you have changed the mind of 78% of the US public who support some restrictions on firearm ownership then you will have succeeded. Some people will never be converted - why must he do so with this woman? We do NOT have to change the minds of 78% of the people to succeed - you are not the judge of this event to set such standards. Has ever a major question ever been settled so dramatically. Indeed the Constitution and Bill of Rights would never had been written if the founding fathers had called for such a consensus of opinion.

Please explain how your methods and those adopted almost universally by firearm owners will change the mind of those who fear and hate firearms enough to want to restrict in some way ownership. A majority of the people to NOT "fear and hate firearms." I think you know that quite clearly, but choose your phraseology for its negative impact.

You have at present just 12% of US citizens who support less restrictive laws (a current high). Think very hard on what you and others are doing wrong. Do not be so foolish as to ascribe success to anything you wish to believe is the reason for change. Obtain your information from surveys conducted by independent research. Now that is faultless logic and reason. Will that convince you?
You intentionally leave out the rest of the numbers and the honest evaluation of them. I am thinking very hard on what we are doing right - it obviously has the other side frightened. We obviously put stock in different surveys and what those numbers mean. Your reasons, misapplication and misdirection will not convince me - that is correct.


Image

Your image is the first thing others see. It is what others will judge you by and think of you. First impressions - Intro. Psych 101

The image of a group of people is no different. It is what others will judge that group by and how they will think and view them as a group. It will influence attitude, trust, disposition and any relationship. And you point is what - that you should dress us and tell us what to say.

When a group or person is large enough, important enough or requires public participation and needs to be noticed by the public, the public will judge that group on its image as that is all and the only information they have available. It is the first impression and probably the only impression anyone will have. Not so - rhetoric is extremely important - should we have judged Einstein by his appearance or not judge Jane Fonda by her deeds?

Surveys give some insight to the image of firearm owners. The public response to that image is often surveyed because government and gun control want to know how successful their publicity and advertising has been. And the are never forced or manipulated surveys, not worth the copy are they?

Why do government and gun control want to know what the image of firearm owners is? Too better eat you with, said the wolf.
Both try very hard to influence that public image to gauge public reaction to whatever they wish to do. Many would call this a “marketing survey”.
Or maybe marketing strategy - even resorting to outlandish claims/lies/deception - ok we know what they do now.

How do government, gun control, businesses and organisations influence the public?
With the use of advertising and publicity (propaganda). Part right - again you imply the pro RKBA organizations are not doing this - they are.

All advertising and publicity that seeks to entice, “popularise” or influence a product, person, event, organisation, plan or idea is “propaganda” that relies on the study and use of social psychology. Many would call this marketing or advertising. Marketing should be honest and factual. Propaganda most frequently in world today relates to to untruths and/or unfairly motivated goals.

What is the image of firearm organisations that the public and firearm owners judge them by? A gauge of that image is membership, participation in the organisation activities and public support.
What is the image of firearm owners? How do the public judge firearm owners? Legislation is a gauge of that image as are public surveys. Legislation is often the result of public surveys. Aaaah on this we agree and it is there we are turning the tide - let us not forget the judicial process.

Is it not time that firearm owners and organisations took great care of their image and ensured public acceptance of firearm ownership? Total public acceptance is unattainable and has never been a goal - we only need a majority of those who vote - just like the other side.

Promoting firearm ownership simply means you want to sell more firearms to a market that accepts and embraces firearm ownership. What happens when that market is hostile to some degree to this advertising and product?
Then they are not the "market." First we increase the market base .
Do you simply just increase your advertising of the product and totally neglect the hostility? Good marketing is conversion, it is not "neglecting." That is what firearm enthusiasts do almost without exception because they do not know why their promotion is failing and will continue to fail while gun control seeks only to increase market (public) hostility by any means they can. Judgemental and inaccrurate

My remarks inserted in RED above.

Initially, I agreed that a good marketing strategy, which you seemed to endorse, was always a good thing. I concurred with you at that point.

Now, reading more and "hearing" more of what you are saying I see a strong condescending application of terms that degrade the value of our efforts and cannot but help to consider strongly that your desire is NOT to benefit the RKBA and those that support what we are doing....... and winning long before you came on the scene.

Your method of couching words in apparent truths would serve to turn them for other purposes. Not buying it. I do not feel less capable nor should others - in fact you embolden me to continue with all that I have been doing.

In short - you been outed. This I will not debate or argue - I have seen the enemy within. Oh, and I really don't think it would make any difference if you were a Life Member of the NRA.

BTW - none of this is intended as an ad hominem attack - its just your thought process and methods with which I disagree with so strongly.

Yata hey
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

Task force 16 wrote: "Tell Sarah we said hello :)"

I am not smiling. Grapeshot, you are right and I sensed this mole about two sentences into his post. Plus : Joined Jan 9, no address and two days before we had a denial of service attack?? HMMMMM....

Gun control is not "safety"; it is a "public enemy". Gun control was never about safety but rather control - control of people. As Ted Nugent once said, when you have foxes killing the farm cats behind the barn, you do not de-claw the cats as a remedy.

Safety? Are you kidding? What do we harp on in these threads more than anything else (besides the politics of firearms laws)? Hey, "Crimefree" if you had bothered to read a bit you would find out that all of us believe strongly in safety. None of us argues for stomping down the streets of the worst part of town where we have no business like Wyatt Earp or something. And a few of us do live in bad parts of town, and some of thosse towns have listened to you Brady clowns since before Sarah was even born, and our folks want their right to defend themselves recognized. It cannot be reinsstated bec ause it is there no matter what any legislature or court says.

Yet we are a law-abiding bunch, and mostly more so than non-gun owners. We recognize the value of the Rule of Law. The problem iss getting the courts, legislators, and folks like you Bradyites to recognize that the "Law" begins with the Constitution; which is in very plain English and needs no "interpretation" unless you speak Sanskrit or something.

Thank you for reminding us that we are an effective organization. Otherwise you would not have composed such a long convoluted plea to us to recognize the error of our ways. Here's a hint for you: I never fully respect any poster until I have seen him write on the tech threads ("selecting a handgun" "Holsters and accessories"). See, it is pretty easy to find out if someone is an experienced gun owner or just either a wannabe, a troll, or a mole. And we can tell whether someone has just crammed by reading a few issues of Guns and Ammo, too. I bet if I was face to face with you, you couldn't tell me who Elmer Kieth was, now could you?

Good DAY, sir.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:
snip......

you couldn't tell me who Elmer Kieth was, now could you?
He was related to Jeff Cooper wasn't he and had a grandson he called Maas, I believe. :lol:

Yata hey
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

This thread is giving me some FANTASTIC ideas for topics in my course of studies as an MFA candidate in Graphic Design...

Formulating an effective counter-propaganda campaign in multiple media (print, video, web, outdoor advertising) would make for a VERY interesting independent study, or even a Master's Thesis topic.

But I'd be almost assured to get such a thesis denied at this particular school. The administration and instructors in this particular school are so anti-gun that it practically takes a DSM-IV to describe it. We can't even get a single full time faculty member to sponsor a local branch of SCCC...

I wonder if there are any orgs out there that would give me a grant to do some sort of study on the effectiveness of such a campaign? I need to look into that. External funding might be just the ticket... ;)
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

You know, I had to look up the "Elmer Keith" reference, but now that I found who he was, I though other folks might be interested in his Wiki page--it's a REAL tasty treat of firearms history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Keith

To summarize, Keith's main claim to fame was for developing the .357 magnum and .44 magnum rounds, as well as several other firearms-related innovations.

What a guy. He had quite an interesting career...
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

Kieth's autobio is titled "Hell, I Was There!" and details the historic events he was present at among other things. There is a link in the Wiki to Kieth's famous 600 yard kill of a deer with a 4" barrel .44 Magnum. There's a story behnd that legend that I heard from a guy I met when I was a cook at the Colonial Kitchens (now Brinkley's grill and lounge) in Falls Church:

Apparently Kieth was on a hunting trip when the subject of the "600 yard kill" came up. One of the guys in the party doubted that Kieth had actually done it. The guy had a 1911 .45 and Kieth asked to borrow it.

Kieth then indicated a snowdrift about three feet long and two feet high about 400 yards distant. Then he assumed a position wherein he was sittting with his right wrist braced against his right knee. He sighted and fired for range, the bullet impacting about a foot in front of the drift. He then re-sighted and proceeded to blow the driift to smithereens.

Kieth then handed the empty 1911 back and said with a grin: "How bout you reload that for me and go out to that other drift and lay down on it?"

The dude declined.

WOW..
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Elmer Keith was a hellova pistolero - real been there, done that kinda guy - loved his wheel guns but could shoot anything held in his hands.

Definitely on my list of people I would have liked to have met and spent time with - coulda learned a lot I suspect.

Yata hey
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

I'd like to expand on TehGruu's post concerning talking to people.

Every time we have a chance to talk to a member of the general public about firearms and carry for self defense, we are being ambassadors for 2A. If our conversation with an individual enlightens that person, there is a good chance that they will spread our message to others.

I've yet to encounter an anti-gun person, yet. When it does happen I hope that there are other folks around to witness the event. Why? Because even if I don't win over the anti with facts and logical arguments, my demeanor and presentation of my arguments may sway those bystanders that are over hearing the conversation. If I they are impressed with how I handle the anti, it may cause them to do some research of their own on the subject. If the logic of my arguments strikes a chord within their own sense of reasoning, they may say to them selves, "Gee, that guy with the gun made perfect sense...that anti-gunner he wasdebatingwith was full of bull crap."

Crimefree apparently thinks that the general population lacks the ability to use critical thinking. I disagree. Granted, there is a large segment of society that is handicapped in this area, but I believe that the majority of the public (which is what we want to reach) do have cognitive reasoning skills. When we present an individual or a group of people with true facts that they can process for themselves, we are planting theseeds of conversion that we are looking for. And like any seed planted, these seedscan propagate and spread.

I suspect that this seeding is what Crimefree and the anti-gun groups fear most. OC by law abiding citizens in public under minds the efforts of the anti-gun crowd. OC in public is "in their face" proof that citizens can be armed without being a threat to public safety. That may be why most of the propaganda put out by the anti-gun groups doesn't even mention OC, maybe they think that if they don't acknowledge its existence, it will go away. OC is their worst nightmare.

Can we do more? Yes. Should we counter with our own media campaign advertising? Maybe, but we'll need funding for that. IF we do, we need to keep it simple. NO need to get all sophisticated and try to dazzle the public with literary acrobatics, like Crimefree has displayed in his postings on this thread. We do not want the public to get the idea that we are trying to appearsmarter than they are, thatwould becondescending.

We don't even have to get into a conversation with people. Simple acts of politeness while OCing in public go a long way. I always get a big smile and thankyou when ever I hold a door open for a another person, even though I may have a 6 shooter on my hip. Some of the ladies are quite taken by it, especially when I tip my hat to them as they walk past. They just get all giggly.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

What I find interesting is the name "Crimefree". Yeah, I would like to see the day, but at what cost? Crime = fallible human beings yielding to temptation. Who is that fellow human who will totally protect us and eliminate crime? And who guards the guardians? National Socialist Germany and nations under Sharia law have been said to be among the societies most historically free from street crime, but in all cases this has been because the law was/is enforced by entities above the law - the "state within a state" model be it the RSHA or the Muttawah religious police. Who then of course commit crimes of their own. Crimefree, indeed.:quirky
 

TehGruu

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
277
Location
, Texas, USA
imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:
What I find interesting is the name "Crimefree". Yeah, I would like to see the day, but at what cost? Crime = fallible human beings yielding to temptation. Who is that fellow human who will totally protect us and eliminate crime? And who guards the guardians? National Socialist Germany and nations under Sharia law have been said to be among the societies most historically free from street crime, but in all cases this has been because the law was/is enforced by entities above the law - the "state within a state" model be it the RSHA or the Muttawah religious police. Who then of course commit crimes of their own. Crimefree, indeed.:quirky

Suppossedly when Vlad Tepes was in power the villages in his dominion were so safe that one could leave a bag of gold on the road in the night and it would still be there the next day. He also liked to have lunch whilst watching people be impaled...



-Gruu
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

TehGruu wrote:
Alexcabbie wrote:
What I find interesting is the name "Crimefree". Yeah, I would like to see the day, but at what cost? Crime = fallible human beings yielding to temptation. Who is that fellow human who will totally protect us and eliminate crime? And who guards the guardians? National Socialist Germany and nations under Sharia law have been said to be among the societies most historically free from street crime, but in all cases this has been because the law was/is enforced by entities above the law - the "state within a state" model be it the RSHA or the Muttawah religious police. Who then of course commit crimes of their own. Crimefree, indeed.:quirky

Suppossedly when Vlad Tepes was in power the villages in his dominion were so safe that one could leave a bag of gold on the road in the night and it would still be there the next day. He also liked to have lunch whilst watching people be impaled...


-Gruu
Indeed, but his laws were so draculian.

Yata hey


 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Yep hopefully we can turn the tide and fight fire with fire against the minority that have slowly eroded our rights and freedoms over the years.
 
Top