Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Who proposes that?
Read some posts
Who argues it?
Read and watch Wayne and Dana's latest
Read some posts
Who argues it?
Read and watch Wayne and Dana's latest
Glenn E Meyer said:"Saying you don't want to convince folks or move opinion"
Who proposes that?
Read some posts
Glenn E Meyer said:kindergarten teacher can make you kid into a SOCIALIST!
Who argues it?
Read and watch Wayne and Dana's latest
That's the center of the argument.
When folks say that they don't care anymore and are sick of arguing and the rhetoric turns out the choir, that's the problem.
I don't think gun rights can be defended just by riling up the choir with arguments that turn off anyone who was trying to discern a reasonable take on the truth.
It's attractive to buy into group polarization and live in your own opinion bubble. I disagree with that and maybe am too optimistic that better messaging might work.
Tailgator said:zukiphile, go back to last month's American Rifleman and read LaPierre's column. Dr. Meyer's comments are only slight exaggerations.
Tailgator said:LaPierre rants about socialism and education, is overtly partisan, and comments on Obamacare and financing university education. (I don't have it hand to give you quotes.) Those are not the issues of the NRA. We should be a single-issue organization.
Tailgator said:As for partisanship, polls usually show something on the order of 1/3 of registered voters disagreeing with their party's line about gun control. Why would we want to alienate 1/3 of either party who agrees with us? That is something on the order of 50 million people whose support we reject by the rhetoric that is presented.
Tailgator said:Is the goal firing up the base? Fund raising? Or changing minds by calmly presenting well-reasoned arguments for the protection of gun rights?
Which of those goals stands the greatest hope of preserving gun rights for another generation?
rickyrick said:Yep, there are more powerful options out there, but a little bullet going super fast is nothing to discount. Especially at close ranges.
Tailgator said:I think, zukiphile, that we are going to continue to disagree on this. The point I am trying to make is that, with the country roughly evenly split between two major parties, and only around 2/3 of a favored party opposing increased gun control, we are starting with a minority. If we alienate voters who may agree with us on gun issues, either by calling them idiots for their registration, or by bringing up other issues upon which to demand their allegiance, we will not achieve a majority. We need votes more than we need rhetoric, in my opinion.
Tailgator said:I think you and I can agree without being disagreeable - we are, I think, doing that right now in this thread. The current rhetoric of the NRA does not allow anyone to do that.
Thallub said:Read Wayne La Pierre's Our Colleges Are Breeding Grounds For Socialists Who Will Take Our Guns in the April issue of The American Rifleman.
The article is a rant in the style of Alex Jones. IMO: Wayne La Pierre is pandering to the ignorant and uninformed.
If you've attended a private liberal arts college in the last couple of decades, you know that the article, while unsubtle and written in broad strokes, is also largely true.
thallub said:La Pierre's article is made up trash.
i began college in 1984 at age 45. Got my bachelors in 1988, my MBA in 1997. i know numerous college professors, many are my friends. Except for some who teach politics, they seldom mention politics in class.
After amassing just over 260 credit hours i encountered two professors who were classical "liberals". One was an undergrad professor of speech. The other was a published professor who taught American government. The man very seldom revealed his personal politics in class.