March for our lives too ?

[mack59]

OMG, the panic and defeatism - do so many not have a grasp on even recent history?

1. Sandy Hook revived the gun control movement along with hundreds of millions of dollars from Michael Bloomberg.

2. After Sandy Hook there was a push with Obama as president to pass a semi-auto/assault weapons ban.

3. That resulted in massive spontaneous demonstrations by gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters against it.

4. Nothing passed nationally.

5. The revived gun control movement however began planning state by state and national campaigns to amongst other things:

a. demonize the NRA
b. demonize "assault weapons"
c. demonize "high capacity magazines"
d. plan a very specific PR and Media campaign to capitalize on the next mass school shooting - as they failed to do on Sandy Hook
e. began doing research to develop carefully worded laws that could be passed based on polling and research and public support
f. started campaigns in various purple or blue states to pass more state by state gun control
g. began building divest and pressure campaigns to push corporations come out against guns and gun ownership and sales.

Thus we are currently on the receiving end of hundreds of millions of dollars of spending, organization, carefully planned propaganda all timed to kick off with the next Sandy Hook i.e. Parkland.

Given three other recent horrific shootings (Florida nightclub 50 dead, Las Vegas more than 50 dead and hundreds wounded, the Texas church shooting, and now Parkland) we are really not doing that bad.

We have to keep up the push with friends and family and on social media to confront and inform in the face of propaganda and ignorance. And we need to take more people to the range. And we need to call legislators, write letters, join pro-gun groups (if we haven't), organize, protest and march, and we will once again through logic and perseverance win back lost public support just as we did after Sandy Hook.

I've been actively fighting for gun rights and against gun control for over 30 years - you never win in the end and you only lose if you give up and quit - you keep fighting for your rights and freedoms everyday.

 

[TheGunGeek]

I said this elsewhere, but yes we need our own "Liberty Marches", since liberty is want we are essentially fighting for. The existing infrastructure already funded (GOA, NRA, and SAF) should be leveraged for the organizing.

Make the voice loud enough and it will be hard to ignore; and yes we need to do a better job at educating the kids on the history of their country, and why these rights are important.

 

[K_Mac]

There was a time when I was as arrogant, profane, unknowing and outspoken as the kids basking in the glow of the current spotlight. Of course they are being manipulated and used by those with a bigger agenda; it has always been a tactic of those seeking power to use those who believe there are easy answers to very complex problems.

I don't blame the kids for being angry that they are being targeted and little is being done to stop it. I don't even blame them for buying the lies of those who tell them that with enough control they can protect them from such things. The kids are not the problem.

The problem as I see it, are those in positions of power who believe they know what is best for the unenlightened masses and can provide for our every need while giving us life, liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness. We understand that a government that gives can also take, and our form of government is built on the foundation of freedom from tyranny. It is those who would control us who are the enemy of liberty. Using naive kids as pawns to do the work of power has a long history.

I think applying pressure on our legislators is a good start. I think the best way for most of us to make a difference is to be able to intelligently and passionately make our case without acrimony, and to do so when given the opportunity. Howling at the moon may make us feel better, but it won't change anything.

 

[rickyrick]

They’ve moved way past “no one is gonna take your guns”

The last few times that’s what they(antis) would say kinda poking fun at us like it was a tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

They still stay it but it means “no one is going to take your single shot firearms”

They’ll make ground at getting them this time, they’ll probably get another “STEP in the right direction”

Look out West Coast, more is coming. Other states will follow.

I see very little on the federal level. State level will be something different.

 

[Lohman446]

I said this elsewhere, but yes we need our own "Liberty Marches", since liberty is want we are essentially fighting for

I do not think we can win with marches because of how they will be reported. Remember that Winston Churchill once noted that history would be kind to him because he intended to write it. In this case we would not be writing the reporting of the marches and it would not be kind to us. Frankly somehow we are going to be written up as those who oppose making schools safer and as such portrayed as heartless lunatics.

Our message is a little more nuanced. We want to make schools safer but we don't see the way towards that goal as banning the manufacture of certain firearms. Further we are unwilling to give up freedom in the name of safety.

We also need to figure out a way to get our message across. We are not one issue voters. Remember those who opposed the travel ban as they were unwilling to sacrifice the freedom of individuals to travel to gain some safety... those individuals should be our allies in these issues and we must find a way to engage them as individuals respectfully and not come off as monsters. Marches are simply not going to help us.

On the other hand we do need to make it known that we remember when we enter our polling places. I think that we, as a whole, have been pretty good at this in the past.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This thread is just spinning in circles.

I'll say several things as I try to take a rational, evaluative view of things.

1. Of course, the march was organized to promote a position a portion of gun owners disagree with. Now, if progun rich folks and adults organized, paid for, printed banners, arranged transportation for 200,000 pro gun kids - most folks here would think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. So the NRA is out thought and out fought in PR tactics. That's a surprise.

2. How to respond. This is from NRA TV outlet:

The clip, which featured NRA TV host “Colion Noir” (a pseudonym for Collins Iyare Idehen Jr.), had first been shared on YouTube on Thursday with the title “A March For Their Lies.”

“From where I’m standing, it looks like a march to burn the Constitution and rewrite the parts that they don’t like in crayon,” Noir said, referring to the young activists leading the rally.

In another NRA TV clip posted Thursday, Noir had harangued the Parkland survivors, saying “no one would know your names” if someone with a gun had stopped the shooting at their school.

That's going to convince folks that the kids don't have a legitimate fear and concern? I'm as progun as anyone and that is flat out stupid messaging.

3. The Constitutional issue is clear to us. It certainly isn't clear to educated, legal scholars on the other side of the issue. Look at the recent SCOTUS decisions and fallout from Scalia's words in Heller at the lower court level.

It may be that the issue will fade over time as happened in the past. It might not as the forces that led to the original AWB and recent state laws.

However, conspiracy theories based on better political organizational abilities is just a bunch of moaning and groaning. Rhetoric about crayons and money bombs - not going to cut it.

 

[Lohman446]

Glenn you have kind of hit on part of what I was saying. There is no good way for "us" to engage the marches as a whole. Even those who collect large amounts of money to try to put forward a voice for us in a reasonable political discourse seem to be attempting to preach to the base and not actually engage the issue (see Noir's comments). Those haven't helped any and if anything hurt us.

This is not about convincing "us". Its not even about convincing the vocal minority behind the "them" Its about the majority of people in the middle, some of them participating in these marches. Right now it seems our best engagement is one on one and showing how some of the views of those "radical right wing gun owners" (because face it we are often all grouped there) may actually be formulated and might align with some ideas that are not always on the "right" side of the political spectrum.

We are losing something here and somehow we have to find a way to engage people in ways that might actually be useful. In regards to the marches I don't see how. Keep reminding people that safer schools should be a goal we all share but point out that restrictive laws are not likely to be as effective as we all want.

 

[zukiphile]

That's going to convince folks that the kids don't have a legitimate fear and concern?

When did the issue become whether the kids have a legitimate fear or concern?

Whether someone who spent Christmas focused on SATs and passing his driver's test is an oracle of sound public policy is a fair question.

3. The Constitutional issue is clear to us. It certainly isn't clear to educated, legal scholars on the other side of the issue. Look at the recent SCOTUS decisions and fallout from Scalia's words in Heller at the lower court level.

I believe that observation mistakes opposition for confusion, at least in part.

Do you really think the state court in Caetano was just not clear on what the right covered?

 

[5whiskey]

Yeah I saw Colion Noir's video. I like Colion and enjoy listening to him, but I do believe his comments referencing these kids... well lacked couth. I do believe we should be careful in how we try to paint others, lest we make cannon fodder for the antis to use against us.

 

[zukiphile]

This is not about convincing "us".

How certain of that are you?

This board has writers who are vigilant (hypervigilant?) about any infringement as well as writers who see substantial additional restrictions as the correct answer. I'm not discounting the utility of relatively broad images as well, just noting the heterogeneity of positions even here.

We are losing something here and somehow we have to find a way to engage people in ways that might actually be useful. In regards to the marches I don't see how. Keep reminding people that safer schools should be a goal we all share but point out that restrictive laws are not likely to be as effective as we all want.

Or those laws may create new dangers. I understand not wanting to engage someone else's traumatized child in an argument; it may be both kinder and smarter to allow them to play out the episode as political human shields.

That doesn't mean you can't engage the adults who use them as political human shields though.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Whether someone who spent Christmas focused on SATs and passing his driver's test is an oracle of sound public policy is a fair question.

It may be a fair question, but it's one which entirely misses the point Glenn is making: this is not a fight over whose public policy ideas are "sounder," it's a fight in which the primary weapon is emotional messaging, and we are losing it -- thanks in large part to the idiotic tactics of the NRA, which Glenn accurately described as "flat out stupid messaging."

Attacking kids is beyond stupid. We need to figure out how to pivot to a different, equally engaging emotional message -- and our default in that department, gibbering about "liberty" and "rights," just comes across as selfish.

What should the message be? I have no idea at this point. We keep shooting ourselves in the foot and have less and less to stand on -- emotionally speaking.

 

[zukiphile]

It may be a fair question, but it's one which entirely misses the point Glenn is making: this is not a fight over whose public policy ideas are "sounder," ...

That's a problem. It's a problem if it's true, because even a victory puts the next total defeat only one emotion away.

It's also a problem if it isn't true and people are discouraged from making true observations as less than optimal emotional signaling. I am not familiar with this Colin Nior fellow, but I've seen Lapierre and Loesch make emotional arguments, at which point the critique shifts and Lapierre and Loesch are taken to task for making too broad an appeal that might not resonate with people who don't like the sentiments they express.

Loesch's observation about media and crying white mothers at CPAC certainly carried some emotional weight. LaPierre's post Newtown comment about a "good guy with a gun..." found much criticism here, but that seemed tailored to an appeal to the good, a simple emotional appeal.

I don't enjoy their emotional arguments, but they may not be made for me to enjoy.

...it's a fight in which the primary weapon is emotional messaging, and we are losing it ...

How do we know we are losing it? Is the metric whether Jake Tapper can get a panel to assert that things will change, or what shows up on Facebook? Is it possible that media reflect attitudes quite imperfectly?

Attacking kids is beyond stupid.

I agree, though I've seen very little of that.

We need to figure out how to pivot to a different, equally engaging emotional message -- and our default in that department, gibbering about "liberty" and "rights," just comes across as selfish.

You should pivot to emotional messaging if you think that communicates your position. I find that approach explicitly manipulative and not a little cynical (though I won't go so far as to call it unduly cynical), but don't deny that it can be employed to good effect. My prejudice is that unless it is real, it shouldn't be attempted.

I find a greater authenticity in describing constitutional rights in terms of "rights". I'm stuck for how that can be selfish, but that may bring us back around to the soundness of different polices.

 

[stonewall50]

So why are we not aligning ourselves with the March to live ideology?

The media has made us the enemy and what little we do, we defend our side as if we are the enemy further demonstrating that we are in the way.





The media paints us as:

bloodthirsty

uneducated

prefer our black toys on the week end to children's lives

They are fighting the NRA



So are we going to allow them to continue branding us or re-brand us for what we are:

as concerned for children's lives as anyone is, maybe more

interested in self-defense against violence

educated

interested in protecting all the constitution not just the 2nd A.



Kids are being brainwashed. Their idols, hollywood and sports teams are helping.

We must do more than stand by or rally a march that looks like we are a part of the problem.

One of the biggest issues is that most gun owners and republicans aren’t the protesting injustice type that the media eats up. We really need to organize. I’ve heard of people looking to rally here in Florida. I’d gladly go to a demonstration as long as it features concealed carriers. There also needs to be a walkout organized for kids who disagree with the walkout. Ultimately our side is fighting very organized propagandists who use things like their teacher’s union to screw around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stonewall50]

Attacking and seeking to vilify the student marchers is a failed strategy.

The students are not being ‘brainwashed’ – they are not ‘dupes’ of Democrats/liberals, nor are they ‘crisis actors’; to make such claims is a failed strategy.

Blaming ‘the media’ is a failed strategy.

Accusing the students of being ‘against’ the Second Amendment is a failed strategy.

And if one wishes to protect the Constitution and Second Amendment he must acknowledge the fact the measures the students advocate for are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and in no manner un-Constitutional.

The best course of action is to stop doing the above.

I disagree with the final point. We need to argue that it is NOT in line. They have decided in Florida that they can deprive 18-20 year olds of the right to purchase arms. That should be challenged in court. I agree about the crisis actor stupidity.

But we need to be hitting back. And it needs to be a campaign of short Shareable YouTube videos. It needs to target children in terms of teaching them that they are being lied to by the left. We as gun owners need to highlight that the problem is a human one.

Ultimately? We need to highlight the naive childish mentality that blames guns instead of solving the problem.

Edit:

As a side note I am organizing a YouTube channel that will be approaching the topic in a planned and careful fashion that undermines left wing hack talking points...but more importantly...focuses on the actual causes of murder. My goal is to keep the videos at 2 minutes or less. I will share them here once I finish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K_Mac]

Attacking kids is beyond stupid. We need to figure out how to pivot to a different, equally engaging emotional message -- and our default in that department, gibbering about "liberty" and "rights," just comes across as selfish.

What should the message be? I have no idea at this point. We keep shooting ourselves in the foot and have less and less to stand on -- emotionally speaking.

I am one "gibbering" about liberty. I fail to see how passionately advocating liberty is a failed and unemotional argument. I think it may be the best, and maybe the only argument we have. It is liberty that is framed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and liberty that defines us as a people. Our right to defend ourselves is fundamental. That is the message, in my not so humble opinion.

Yes, we have to figure out how to secure schools, and enforce the laws related to criminals and firearms. Identifying and treating those with mental illness is also necessary. We will not do either by infringing the rights of law abiding citizens

Evan I think this thread illustrates that even among those of us who are in close agreement we don't speak with one voice. It is far easier for the other side to beat the anti-gun drum "for the children." If we can't win this battle using liberty as our rallying position, how do we compete with that?

I certainly don't believe that my position is selfish, but maybe I'm too narcissistic to see it!

 

[Evan Thomas]

K_Mac, the problem is that we're dealing with two very different worldviews and sets of values. One can't preach liberty as the supreme good to people who put a higher value on security, and that's true of most of the people who end up in the anti-gun camp. It's just not an argument that's going to reach them. It works really well if you're preaching to the converted, when you want to fire up people who are already believers, but for people who think the world ought to be made safe by government regulation, it is never going to resonate.

Children grow up, if they're lucky, with the expectation -- not an unreasonable one -- that adults will keep them safe. Some people grow out of that, but others don't; they still think somebody must be powerful enough to protect them, and in their minds, the government is who there is.

So, yes, when they hear you saying that your liberty is more important than their safety -- and trust me, that is what they hear -- that comes across to them as selfish. It doesn't matter how many times you say you also care about their liberty, because they don't think about it the same way you do.

 

[zukiphile]

It doesn't matter how many times you say you also care about their liberty, because they don't think about it the same way you do.

Changing that is at least one point of argument and persuasion. It need not be a given.

K_Mac, the problem is that we're dealing with two very different worldviews and sets of values. One can't preach liberty as the supreme good to people who put a higher value on security, and that's true of most of the people who end up in the anti-gun camp. It's just not an argument that's going to reach them. It works really well if you're preaching to the converted, when you want to fire up people who are already believers, but for people who think the world ought to be made safe by government regulation, it is never going to resonate.

In order to have a chance at winning over people who will never believe in rights, we should stop explaining the basis of our rights in favor of some new but as yet undetermined emotional appeal?

If that isn't what you are asserting, I offer my apology and ask for clarification. It's the intermediate bolded step above that seems the worst of it. Different speakers taking different approaches to an approximately similar end can be effective. Discouraging mention or assertion of the right itself because some people don't currently understand rights would be perverse.

 

[DaleA]

Please KEEP ON explaining the basis of our rights!

I think the point being made is that the true anti-gun person will never be persuaded but I think (at least I hope) there is a large middle ground that can be influenced. And even if not, I appreciate hearing it.

 

[DaleA]

Pushback to the "March For Our Lives"

Pushback to the "March For Our Lives".

Here's some criticism of the students from Heavy Metal artist Jesse Hughes who went through a mass killing situation in Paris in 2015.
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/jesse-hughes-march-of-our-lives-comment/
and
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...etal-s-jesse-hughes-1522095499-htmlstory.html

Also Rick Santorum gave some pushback too.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rick-santorum-students-should-learn-cpr-not-seek-gun-laws/

Well I don't know if these are going to help or hurt the gun rights movement but it does show not everyone is on board with the protests.

 

[zukiphile]

I think the point being made is that the true anti-gun person will never be persuaded but I think (at least I hope) there is a large middle ground that can be influenced.

Influenced to do what?

Depending on who one asks, we aren't to explain the right because people who don't believe in rights read that as selfishness. We aren't to appeal to political and cultural allies and constituents because people who value the 2d Am. but aren't amongst those allies and constituents then won't support the right. We aren't to note hostility toward the right in media; apparently that's a losing strategy. We aren't to note the use of traumatized children as spokesmen; that could make someone uncomfortable. The only effective way to reach the middle is an appeal to emotion other than the ones already used.

That large middle population won't know what hit it.