Time to reconsider our approach?

Scott Free said:
There was no offense intended. My point was the current state of affairs, responding to people with statements like "Shall not be infringed" do nothing. Miscommunication is one of the biggest fire-starters in conflict, and a lackluster "'Murica" response doesn't educate anyone, and educating the "others" is the ONLY way progress can be made.
Click to expand...
Talk is cheap.
Talk is what has gotten us in the quagmire we find ourself stuck in today.

If you think you can sweet talk anyone truly set on killing our constitutionly guaranteed right, then I have nothing for you.
 
Scott Free said:
I'll rephrase...

I can't think of a single individual who has fought for Freedom in the United States of America since WW2.
Click to expand...

I have got to get some clarification on this...so you don't believe that anyone we have had deployed overseas hunting and killing AQ and Daesh members are protecting your freedom and liberty?

Would you rather we just pull everyone back and let them come here...would fighting Daesh in American cities be more appealing?

A lot of our wars (most) have been industrial based misadventures, to include OIF...but killing Daesh and AQ, and every other religious or ideological zealot that threatens our way of life is about our freedom and liberty. Do not belittle the sacrifices that have been made.

I am no fan of our current government...I am far less a fan of the religious zealots that would gut our nation and citizens like a Saturday night goat fest in the desert.

I might be misinterpreting what you are saying, but this is rubbing me hard in the wrong direction.
 
MLK, Harvey Milk fought for some pretty major freedoms.
GRNC fought pretty darn hard to get restrictions on firearms in NC removed.
Pretty sure the marines who went into Grenada to rescue students were fighting for someones freedom.
Despite common thought, kicking Iraq out of Kuwait was fighting for freedom.
Taliban being ousted was a pretty big "freedom" moment.
First elections in years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The problem you may be having is that our founding fathers gave us a big ol massive heap of freedoms. For the most part, the battles stateside has not been for "more freedoms" it has been to stop socialists and statists from taking the freedoms tat were originally outlined.
 
Scott Free said:
There was no offense intended. My point was the current state of affairs, responding to people with statements like "Shall not be infringed" do nothing. Miscommunication is one of the biggest fire-starters in conflict, and a lackluster "'Murica" response doesn't educate anyone, and educating the "others" is the ONLY way progress can be made.
Click to expand...

The liberals aren't trying to educate me but they still seem to be gaining ground with their gun control movement.
 
GeorgeBush said:
To respond to the post above my last... we will see how Independents are swayed this summer if house democrats push something more extreme than the already silly proposed AWB (likely the point of Trump's recent meeting that made Feinstein giddy).

If they are unmoved I doubt "molon labe" has anything to do with it.

Also please explain how quoting the Constitution is extremist? Maybe some uninformed people don't know what it says? Or maybe more explanation is simply unnecessary at this point (see above: who has the majority of power at both federal and state levels)?

We are the ones with the ability to actually move the needle right now (regardless what the media says). Same media had Hillary at 95% until 8pm on election night.
Click to expand...

I hope they dig their hole deep and wide and wear out a couple shovels doing it. And boy are they trying hard with the semi auto bans. Forget AR's, some of them are swinging for the fences. And to do that you have to drop any semblance of wanting to compromise, be pro 2A (yeah, I know), or have any respect for gun owners. And to a point that plays to our favor, except in the states where they are close to the majority. Just look at FL, they tossed some things on the table and folded quick.

I would prefer to build on the silent majority, not just sit on it. The Constitution is the basis, but if it's all you have no one is really listening anymore. Hate to say it, but if what's going on currently does not show that I'm not sure what does. You have to dig deeper and do better than just "shall not be infringed."


Tailhunter said:
Oh thanks. Thats my favorite response.

Shall not be infringed.

Its all I need. :p
Click to expand...

I like it too. But if you think that's all that needs to be said here, I think you are very wrong. Some folks are so absolutely wrong about the 2A that the phrase is almost meaningless to them. And just shouting "shall not be infringed" just makes you come off as a lunatic. Like I said here, or the other thread, it plays great here. It plays far less well in other places.

I had a discussion with a guy that's been a member of the gun club I'm in for decades last weekend. He actually thinks we should ban AR's. Me and another guy took him to task some, actually trying hard not to be a jerk about it. And it was difficult. But if I had yelled "shall not be infringed" or called him a FUDD do you think he would have even considered anything I had to say? To play into the stereotype in their head is probably the best way to get them to completely tune you out.

Personally, I would rather argue the points now than have to fight for them later. If it comes to that, so be it. But I'm going to do everything I can to keep that from happening. I have not romantic notions about what a fight like that would look like. And it's not pretty.
 
GeorgeBush said:
Aren't enlisted men overwhelmingly Trump supporters while officers are not? Isn't trust between those two at an all time low?
.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you heard that but it’s really incorrect

Of course ANY bad leader will foster distrust amongst subordinates, no matter the rank.

Sure you have troops who support one candidate or ideology versus another but it’s not like some old school British version of the Army where officers come from rich families and their commissions are bought and largely political and the enlisted soldiers are scraggly mouth breathers who managed a coherent thought long enough to sign the forms
 
When he was running, Ron Paul was right popular with our military. IIRC, he received more campaign donations from our folks in uniform than any other candidate.
 
wsfiredude said:
When he was running, Ron Paul was right popular with our military. IIRC, he received more campaign donations from our folks in uniform than any other candidate.
Click to expand...
It's unbelievable how many folks hadn't heard of him, and didn't know who he was, didn't even know that there was a viable candidate other than the R and D flavor. This was by intentional design and he was denied media coverage and exposure.

As a communications professor repeatedly said, the first thing that a totalitarian regime does is take control of the media. The media in the US is most certainly being controlled. Not entirely by govco, at least directly, but if you start following the money you'll see the connections between business and government. The term inverted totalitarianism applies.
 
SPST said:
The liberals aren't trying to educate me but they still seem to be gaining ground with their gun control movement.
Click to expand...
Gun-banners are not trying to "educate" you and they would be stupid to try. That would be just as useless as you trying to change the minds of gun-banners.

Some gun-banners get excited and express their true feelings and goals, but most of them are disciplined enough to stick to a script that sounds reasonable to the masses of uninformed citizens. And the uninformed masses are the ones who have to be swayed.

There are not enough dedicated and highly involved gun-banners to do more than spread their message. And there are not enough dedicated and highly involved gun owners to do any more for our side. The direction of gun rights -or gun control- in our country ultimately depends on which group does a better job of persuading the people in the middle.
 
I'm pretty much a nice guy to everyone in my daily travels. Well spoken and polite.
I also wear a gun type hat, S&W, Glock, Beretta, Sig...everyday.
I have a Glock tag on the front of my work van. First thing people see when I pull up.
I sit down to lunch in the restaurant and flip open my latest copy of GUNS magazine.

You can't look at me or my vehicle and not know where I stand.

I never talk guns to anyone that doesn't start the conversation, and those folks are 99% of the time gun guys too. I don't get in anyone's face about guns or politics. Know what? 99% of people treat me nice too. And that includes folks that are obviously quite different than me.

But then...you get the 1%. They wanna ask why I need a gun or certain type of gun. I tell them right away, sometimes 'eloquently', sometimes not;
I haven't got time for you. You can take your indignance or your psych eval or your simply inquisitive nature somewhere else. I absolutely do not care what you think of me. I have no desire to explain anything to you.
I owe you nothing. I don't care if you just wanna 'have a conversation'. I don't care if you go away thinking all gun owners are asses or I'm an ass. I really don't. I'm well educated, skilled, well traveled and secure in my being. I don't I feel any responsibility to defend anything or any decision I may do, or not do. Those conversations have no attraction to me.
Find someone else. Seriously. Find someone else.

You can ponder why I should not want to engage in a 'meaningful' conversation. That's for you to figure out, or not. I don't care. I'll go on living my life just fine, and enjoying the 99% of folks I've had the pleasure of meeting in my travels.
And if you just have to take offense, I'll leave you with this one thought;
It ain't the rest of the world that's got the problem.
 
To Scott free...

Liberty can be fought for in other ways than armed conflict. Consider the 4 boxes... Soap box, Ballot box, Jury box, and finally, Cartridge box. They should be used in that order.

Let me break it down Barney-style for you:
Advocate a position to our elected officials... = Soap box
Elect officials who support our position... = Ballot box
File lawsuits to oppose infringement of rights (think Heller vs DC)... = Jury box
Armed opposition would be the absolute last resort... = Cartridge box.

Anyone who thinks the last is a good idea needs to rethink that. We have been making progress using the first three; pray that continues and the fourth option NEVER becomes necessary. Watch the movie "The Patriot" and then imagine it with modern weaponry. Anyone who wants that is messed up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom