ocholsteroc
Regular Member
+1
-
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.
-
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.
Does this statement libel VCDL?
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
No problem. I just don't want to get lumped in with Lori. Bad enough that she speaks to me:lol:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Hee, hee. Maybe we can get Lori to do free advertising for us! Just feed her the lines we want her to broadcast!
Laws don't prevent crime.
Laws provide a framework by which to punish those who choose to ignore them.
The law-abiding have (generally) chosen they are not willing to accept the risk of having the punishment applied to them, so indirectly the law has deterred the crime. It has not prevented a crime.
jmelvin
Founder's Club Member
BillHoo
Regular Member
She sounds mis-informed.
Has anyone offered to call her up and say, "Hey Lori, I'd like you to come with me to a VCDL meeting and see what we're about. We'll be doing a holiday pot-luck and we'd really like to have you over."
Maybe you can turn an antagonist into an ally?
Last edited:
Yes we have and no, there's not a chance.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I sometimes wonder whether some of those people have so much emotionally invested that it is impossible for them to consider alternatives.
For example, I met an MMMer on Lobby Day a few years ago. She griped out one of our "delegation", then marched off holding up a small 3 x 4 photo. Really "in your face" with the photo. As though to say "See! This child is dead because of you!"
That got me to wondering. Was it her kid? Ahhhhhh. Now, that opens the door to something. Meaning, a mother would potentially have a tremendous amount of potention guilty feelings, a tremendous resistance to having any responsibility for the death. Think about it for a second. Why was the child killed? Where was the mother? Why did she leave the kid unprotected? Etc, etc, etc. Those would be very, very hard questions for a mother to face if any of the answers pointed back to her as having some responsibility for any failure. Such a mother could fight very hard to blame us if she cannot bear the thought of having even a slight degree responsibility.
Similar possibility for Colin Goddard. For example, certain questions might be too much to bear because they would ultimately make him partially responsible for what happened to him: what was he doing there unarmed? why did he accept that the school would keep him safe? why didn't he rush forward and grab the gun? did someone else rush for the gun and he held back in fear rather than help them? etc, etc, etc. Possibly adding up to him being completely unwilling to accept any degree of responsibility whatsoever, translating into blaming others.
You understand, I am not attacking the MMMer or Goddard. I am merely posing questions to illustrate what types of failures might contribute to their anti-self defense attitudes.
So, sometimes I wonder. It is too irrational to render people defenseless, making them prey to criminals and government. Therefore, there must be something irrational going on. Something powerful emotionally. Sometimes I just want to get in their face and demand answers until they break down crying or fly into a rage and cough up their real reason.
Of course, I don't advocate doing this. It wouldn't be pretty. You could get away with it with a family member or good friend; but, not with a stranger, not in public, not at a protest or something.
Last edited:
AtackDuck
Regular Member
OOOO!!! more ammo!
This is very good insight into the anti's minds and it gives me ideas on how to turn the tables and perhaps play off of their fears and guilt during a debate/verbal throw-down! This could get satisfyingly nasty!
This is very good insight into the anti's minds and it gives me ideas on how to turn the tables and perhaps play off of their fears and guilt during a debate/verbal throw-down! This could get satisfyingly nasty!
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Heh, heh, heh.
You just have to remember that it only applies if shifting the blame is the real reason. It could just be that the individual you are facing is a destructive personality bent on getting as many innocent people as possible killed, raped, or injured. Also known as sociopaths. Get in a sociopath's face with the right question, and I have a feeling you might end up unleashing a rage that results in physical attack on your person. Not good. Another reason to not actually try it unless the setting is right and you're willing to risk being assaulted.
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
Guilt
Yes, I believe that guilt can play a very big roll in issues of a social nature. Many people have been lied to in a decision-making process, and then later, when facts are learned that expose those lies, the true consequences are finally realized. At that point, they must choose to admit the truth, or... continue to live the lie, unable to accept what admitting the truth would mean.
These folks are often living in torment with two equally untenable options.
TFred
Yes, I believe that guilt can play a very big roll in issues of a social nature. Many people have been lied to in a decision-making process, and then later, when facts are learned that expose those lies, the true consequences are finally realized. At that point, they must choose to admit the truth, or... continue to live the lie, unable to accept what admitting the truth would mean.
These folks are often living in torment with two equally untenable options.
TFred
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
You did notice that I said I didn't advocate doing it, right?
Family or close friend, you might succeed. A stranger, a public setting, a 2A rally--these are situations where the image might be more important than converting a single anti-self-defense person.
Also, you wouldn't do it for satisfaction. You'd do it to force the person to look at his irrational thinking, with a view to him changing his own mind--for his own benefit, as well as your own. If you want nasty, you are going to be supremely disappointed if they convert.
And, you have to understand there may be other reasons. The person you are facing might just be a sociopath--a destructive personality bent on harm. The guilt angle is probably useless on them. So, then what? You're sitting there hammering a point that isn't going to work.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
+100
Ric in Richmond
Regular Member
Make sure you study up on projection as well.
All those antis crowing about lax gun laws shooting people in bars and in traffic? THAT IS PROJECTION my friends!! They see it happening because they consider it possible and project their thoughts on everyone.
We are confused as to why they could be so crazy because we don't see that as a possibility and therefore project our rational on them.
Truly an oversimplification of projection, but I am not that far off base.
All those antis crowing about lax gun laws shooting people in bars and in traffic? THAT IS PROJECTION my friends!! They see it happening because they consider it possible and project their thoughts on everyone.
We are confused as to why they could be so crazy because we don't see that as a possibility and therefore project our rational on them.
Truly an oversimplification of projection, but I am not that far off base.
TFred
Regular Member
Very true. I've always said that the "anti's" in society are the people who really should not be allowed to own guns!
TFred