Great Article on Selling the Second Amendment

While I don't dispute that being respectful and polite and arguing our position with facts is a better approach than bombastic rhetoric, you wrote that "He explains what works." I saw nothing in the article to suggest that a respectful, fact-driven approach works any better (or any worse) than the bombastic rhetoric. Being polite may result in your not getting yourself removed from a public meeting (or arrested), but I've been using a polite, fact-driven approach for years and I haven't seen any positive results from it.

In my own home town, when I was trying to get a particularly onerous (and unenforceable) ordinance repealed or revised, I attended a meeting of the town's Ordinance Committee. I brought with me several members of the state grass roots pro-2A organization, including two women who were able to very eloquently express exactly why the law was not going to accomplish anything other than making the town unsafe for women. The committee listened to our presentation. After we were done, the chair (who happened to also be the mayor) said, "That's all very interesting ... but we don't like guns here."

And that, as they say, was that.

Footnote: The ordinance was finally revised -- after we served notice on the town that we were going to sue the town, in federal court. They didn't respect our facts. They didn't respect our respect. They didn't respect our logic. But they did respect the prospect of having to explain to the taxpayers why they spent "beaucoup bucks" on defending a law that they acknowledged wasn't enforceable, and that the chief of police had told them was unenforceable.
 
I’d submit that the reason they could show that disrespect is because they calculated they could get reelected despite, or even because, of it.

The strategy described doesn’t guarantee conversion; but on a long term basis over a general population, I still believe it is the most effective. And if on a long term basis with the general population it is effective, it will grab the attention of the people you mentioned - whether they like it or not. Though I’m certainly intrigued to hear alternate strategies.
 
Bart, I have a lot of respect for you as an advocate, and a lot of the position described in the article is the pattern we live. We meet people with different positions, discuss those positions with courtesy and clarity and hope ours is more persuasive. It's the best way in many contexts, but not all.

I do take issue with the author's implication that "You can have my rifle when you take it from my cold, dead hands" signals disrespect.

There is more than one way to persuade, and they aren't all cerebral in practice. Stigmatization of contrary views is involved in the big shifts of the last half century. A small example would be the issue of the federal estate tax; calling it a "death tax" communicates its ugliness better than an hour with Arthur Laffer. Political criticism of Roe has somewhat effectively been stigmatized as backward, small minded, and misogynistic. Obergefell reflected a very rapid social change that required some underlying philosophical shifts, but was mostly accomplished by accusing non-believers of the position of being religious nuts or people with a phobic reaction. On both issues, dissent was often met not with respect and reasoned discussion, but disbelief that any thinking person could possibly disagree with the ascendant position, social ostracism with financial consequences for some.

I see some of this same pattern with people under 30 and the term "hate speech".

So, as much as reasoned discourse is the sweet spot for many of us, "Come and take it" has a clarity that the many people immune to reason can understand.
 
Batholomew Roberts said:
The strategy described doesn’t guarantee conversion; but on a long term basis over a general population, I still believe it is the most effective.
Click to expand...
As a popular song from my youth quoted from the Bible, "To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under Heaven."

Your statement in the opening post, regarding the article, was, "He explains what works." Yet you acknowledge that "The strategy described doesn’t guarantee conversion; ..." In other words, it doesn't always work. Teddy Roosevelt advised, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Saying that, "He explains what works" implies that this approach is the only effective approach, and that simply isn't true.
 
I don't really see much of "what works" in the article, more like how just shouting slogans doesn't work.

My experience is that being polite, civil, well mannered and rational doe not make the people who hate us, dislike us any less.

It does, however have an effect on those who have not already closed their minds. You come off as a rational adult, they come off as petulant children.

I think it was Churchill who said something like "a fanatic is someone who won't change their mind, and can't change the subject"...

No amount of "respect" will change the mind of a true believer. But not taking their bait, remaining civil, even polite (though they often don't deserve it) does show everyone who is the adult in the room.

There are two old sayings one should keep in mind when dealing with these people,

Never wrestle with a pig. All you get is dirty, and the pig, likes it!

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.
 
It's adorable that people think we can negotiate with gun-control advocates in good faith. Their minds are made up. They adopted their dogma a long time ago, it makes them feel righteous, and there's no way they're going to give it up.

I'm not suggesting to be nasty or uncivil, but I'm not going to engage with them. Nowadays, protecting the RKBA is about convincing politicians it's not in their best interests to infringe on it, but that's about it.
 
Tom Servo said:
Nowadays, protecting the RKBA is about convincing politicians it's not in their best interests to infringe on it, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
And filing beneficial lawsuits, if in a jurisdiction that has honest (meaning not idealogically-driven) judges. In the case of my town's ordinance, it wasn't reasoned discussion that won the day, it was the threat of a lawsuit. And I live in a state where ALL the judges are liberal, social justice warriors. That should give you some idea of just how badly flawed the ordinance was -- the town administration was afraid of losing even though they would have been guaranteed a sympathetic judge.
 
Good article.

There are a lot of people who aren't activists one way or the other. We won't likely convince a card carrying member of the Brady Campaign that our view is correct but we can influence many of the folks who aren't activists.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The author makes some really good points on what we need to do to advance the Second Amendment. He explains what works. I’ll be the first to tell you I’m long past the point where I can be effective in that role; but he’s right all the same.
Click to expand...

Being a member on several popular gun forums for many years, I have to agree with the author in the link. Seems like every time the topic of gun control comes up on these forums, members get all defensive and start calling names and become condescending. Folks talk about lies and incorrect statements and slanted facts/statistics. Things is, I see just as much of that from our side. While folks are quick to scream, "stupid" and "idiot" , they are slow to respond with any legitimate answers or solutions. Yet, because they are preaching to the choir so to speak, they are applauded and hailed as being somehow superior.

Want to convince folks of something gun control related or anything else, you need to know your facts and present them in a way that folks will understand and are willing to listen to. Name calling and belittling doesn't get us anywhere. My Grandma told me 6 decades ago that sugar catches more flies than vinegar. That is just as true today as it was back then. If one is incapable of it, then they should keep their mouth shut and stay outta it.
 
Do the Dance

Many years ago I asked a question of a history professor about an event in the past. It had to do with the Byzantine social contract. Emperors were lynched on occasion. He replied I could not understand the answer. What?:eek: We, he continued, were taught a reasoning system the does not allow us to understand things that are crazy.

We are talking about a power and control struggle. It's not about the discussion it's about dominance. A more common term is bullied:eek:

Being overbearing using quotes our of context while being sarcastic:rolleyes: is a warning sign of being attacked by a true believer.

Frequent attempts to siphon the topic. Siphoning is a method of moving the discussion or changing the direction when it is getting too hot in the kitchen.

Using analogies to move the discussion to the analogies. It starts thusly. This topic is like a goat stampede in Volnavia. The discussion will move on to the danger of getting radiation poisoning from you crock pot.

Also subtle and not so subtle attacks could be sprinkled in the mix. Usually the attacks having to do with ignorance or stupid (they are different). Toward the top of the list is that you do not have the "Secret Knowledge." Also, name dropping can be used"...when I was going steady with Lynda Carter."

Next when the going get tough start using information from Wikipedia or some highly biased source. Also, you may get slammed with long list of quotes taken out of context to prove a dubious point. It's also possible to introduce some fake news for excitement. In extreme example there will be long numbered list of these quotes.

Also, you need to answer my questions. The questions are really disguised statements. There is usually a rehearsed dance that includes all of the stuff listed above. You may have to deal with a chorus of :mad:zealots at this turn.

Bottom line is arguing with these people confuses:confused: others and the bystanders cannot tell who is the nutball and who is not (sarcastic subtle personal attack.) Rant over.

Addendum: Wonder if one of the worst offenders has already posted on this thread?
 
Last edited:
toodamnoldforthis said:
Good article.

There are a lot of people who aren't activists one way or the other. We won't likely convince a card carrying member of the Brady Campaign that our view is correct but we can influence many of the folks who aren't activists.
Click to expand...

One way to persuade that doesn't involve much rhetoric is to change the body of a person's experience with firearms. For most people, their primary experience with firearms is seeing cowboys on television shoot one another, or watching a Rambo or Chuck Norris character de-populate Vietnam in a film.

Taking a person out to a quiet rural or suburban setting with a 22lr to experience the very basics of safe handling and marksmanship provides a benign experience that helps dissolve some of the stigma underlying the "I just don't like guns" barrier to reasoned analysis. I've never had anyone walk away from that experience with a more negative view of firearms than they had before the experience.
 
Last edited:
Actually, most anti's that I know are terrified of guns. For real, I have had a staunch anti come ask about handgun classes. Be civil.

Also, in some regions in America getting ultra polite in the middle of a tense discussion can be followed by physical violence. Also, what passes for a normal exchange one place are fighting words in another. Be mindful of where you are at, You'll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top