DanM
Regular Member
From this closed thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?86756-Your-manners-questioned
The following quotes are from the closed thread, but they and my response are not on the specific topic that closed the thread.
The "two sides" James refers to are gun owners who have a view that some exercises of the RKBA, although legal and peaceable, aren't good "manners", "common sense", "wise" or whatever and gun owners who have the view that what is legal and peaceable is always appropriate.
These two sides crop up, for example, as:
CC'ers who could care less for OC.
Gun owners who could care less about pushing for any carry rights.
Hunters who could care less for black rifles.
Long gun owners who could care less about the availability of handguns.
Do NOT talk about long-gun versus handgun open carry! Administrator, I've given this warning and would like to keep this thread open. Can you please delete offending comments or ban offending commenters from this thread, instead?
I always see one side discussing issues and responding point-by-point and the other side not taking up those points and continually falling back on the subjective rhetoric of "manners", "common sense", "it will set us back", etc. Yes, in that situation two sides will talk right past each other, but that doesn't mean nobody wins the debate. My vote for the winner of a debate goes to the guy who talks and rebuts point-by-point, if his opponent continually does not defend the points and rebuttals coming his way and continually falls back on non-specific, subjective rhetoric.
We do not do our allies any favors if we allow them to persist in saying patently wrong specific things and do not attempt to give them specific correction on specific wrong statements they make.
Those gun owners who have been attempted to be engaged in specific discussion about the specific wrong things they say against the RKBA, and who do not re-examine their position but merely dig in, deserve to be called "Fudd".
My goal is the defense and expansion of the RKBA. As much as I can do that in a pleasant manner, I will. However, when faced with entrenched Fudd or anti-gun mentality, I will call it as it is. Patrick Swayze said it perfectly: "Be nice until it's time to not be nice." We've had to employ that guidance here in Michigan, and a few times we've had to become not so nice, particularly with Fudds and anti-gun folks holding positions in municipal authority or supportive of anti-gun municipalities. Your statement that changing minds and hearts is our goal is false. It may be a means (and the first means of choice) to the goal, but it is not the goal.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?86756-Your-manners-questioned
The following quotes are from the closed thread, but they and my response are not on the specific topic that closed the thread.
The "two sides" James refers to are gun owners who have a view that some exercises of the RKBA, although legal and peaceable, aren't good "manners", "common sense", "wise" or whatever and gun owners who have the view that what is legal and peaceable is always appropriate.
These two sides crop up, for example, as:
CC'ers who could care less for OC.
Gun owners who could care less about pushing for any carry rights.
Hunters who could care less for black rifles.
Long gun owners who could care less about the availability of handguns.
Do NOT talk about long-gun versus handgun open carry! Administrator, I've given this warning and would like to keep this thread open. Can you please delete offending comments or ban offending commenters from this thread, instead?
JamesIan said:I see two sides arguing right past one another
I always see one side discussing issues and responding point-by-point and the other side not taking up those points and continually falling back on the subjective rhetoric of "manners", "common sense", "it will set us back", etc. Yes, in that situation two sides will talk right past each other, but that doesn't mean nobody wins the debate. My vote for the winner of a debate goes to the guy who talks and rebuts point-by-point, if his opponent continually does not defend the points and rebuttals coming his way and continually falls back on non-specific, subjective rhetoric.
JamesIan said:We do not do anyone any favors when we demagogue against people who are otherwise our allies.
We do not do our allies any favors if we allow them to persist in saying patently wrong specific things and do not attempt to give them specific correction on specific wrong statements they make.
JamesIan said:Labels like "Fudd" do not cause the labelled to re-examine their position. The labelled merely dig in further.
Those gun owners who have been attempted to be engaged in specific discussion about the specific wrong things they say against the RKBA, and who do not re-examine their position but merely dig in, deserve to be called "Fudd".
JamesIan said:Our purpose is not to smash our opponents in the face. Our goal is change minds and hearts, so that all of this ridiculous legislation is removed.
My goal is the defense and expansion of the RKBA. As much as I can do that in a pleasant manner, I will. However, when faced with entrenched Fudd or anti-gun mentality, I will call it as it is. Patrick Swayze said it perfectly: "Be nice until it's time to not be nice." We've had to employ that guidance here in Michigan, and a few times we've had to become not so nice, particularly with Fudds and anti-gun folks holding positions in municipal authority or supportive of anti-gun municipalities. Your statement that changing minds and hearts is our goal is false. It may be a means (and the first means of choice) to the goal, but it is not the goal.
Last edited: