TFL is not a pro-gun forum

D

Dennis

Staff Emeritus
Disclaimer: The following opinions are mine - not necessarily those of the
owner, Staff, or any member of The Firing Line.
---------------------

“TFL is not a pro-gun forum.”
That statement is inadequate and therefore controversial.

To advance responsible firearms ownership, we must secure our Right to
Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA). We must grow in numbers, unite, and
organize/increase our efforts.
-----

On TFL we tolerate some limited level of off-topic threads if they increase the
cohesiveness of the members in the RKBA effort. Because of TFL, friendships
have been formed, the feeling of being “the last American gun owner” has
been dispelled, group “Meets” have been organized, etc. All of this promotes
unity and has a place in the struggle to advance “responsible firearms
ownership”.

There seems to be little disagreement on the need for unity. We agree, for
example, that we must teach youngsters about our RKBA - these kids are our
future. But what of our other efforts?
-----

What are the membership requirements of TFL? The Forum Policies say:
- “You are welcome to come in and visit”
- “(Y)ou need only provide a name and email address.”
- You must abide by the four rules listed.

Nowhere does it say a member must be a gun owner, a fighter for our RKBA,
or hold beliefs “exactly like mine”!

Are such people welcome here? Of course, but also welcome are:
- Those who know nothing about guns or our RKBA,
- Those who like only one aspect of firearms and not others, and
- Even anti-gunners.

Anti-gunners can come here for information and debate so long as they stay
within the forum policies. They should be treated with the same respect as
any gun owner or “pro-gunner”.

But the concept that you should not waste time with an anti-gunner is facile
defeatism. How is the RKBA effort going to grow if we only work with those
who agree with us?

Some time ago, we found: www.jaspar.net
On their home page, in BIG letters is,

“Sometimes the rule is that there are no rules”

Just below that: “THE HANDBOOK RULES!”

There’s good reading on Jon Haupt’s site but, unfortunately, Jon apparently
only wants us to be mirror images of himself and each other! For example:

“DON'T MESS WITH TRUE BELIEVERS. In the time you spend trying to
convert one hard core antigun person to our side, you could have gone out
and motivated and organized 20 people who already think like you do. Go
with the flow. It's easier on your nerves, and much more effective.
Personally, I have converted several anti-rights true believers, but never
again! Lots of NRA members are not registered voters. A lot of gun owners
aren't NRA members. Even more folks have no idea of their elected officials'
positions on gun issues. Where is your time most effectively spent? Think
about this before you spend an hour writing a clever response to a silly
message you found somewhere on the internet.”

If Jon is more effective at organizing pro-gunners, let him choose to work
where he is interested and effective. Let’s get organized - no argument. If
HE doesn’t want to bother with antigunners, that his choice - bless him. I
respect him. I like his site and his writings, but:
- Jon should realize that there are many fronts and many battles to be won
in the war for our RKBA.
- Jon should realize some people have interests and talents involving
civilized confrontation with anti-gunners. Jon even admits he’s converted
some anti-gunners! How can that be a waste of time? If you convert two
anti-gunners, you just might have converted two families! Not only that, but
if just ONE of those two converts can sway two people, one of whom converts
two more, etc. etc. I would not call that a waste of time! Jon might not even
know if somewhere along the line, through his efforts, a potential Sarah
Brady will become one of the Second Amendment Sisters.

We must educate those folks who have NO interest and/or information in the
RKBA struggle. If HCI gets to them first, we may gain an enemy instead of a
friend.

We must educate the fence sitters. They have part of the story - we must
give them “The Rest of the Story” - the True Story! But many fence sitters
have little or no interest in the subject of RKBA or the debate process may
unpleasant for them. They don’t participate - they are on the sidelines and
only watch from time to time.

If all they see is the anti-freedom side of the story, they will vote against our
RKBA! Therefore, some of us enter the field of battle. Is it a waste of time?
Should I instead “organize” 20 fellow RKBA believers who Jon thinks are
UNorganized?

If I discuss RKBA with a fellow believer, how many votes have I won for our
efforts? Zero! He already was a believer! He already knows he should vote
and there are many “leaders” out there to “organize” him.

If I discuss RKBA with an anti, how many votes can I win? There is NO
LIMIT!

I may win zero votes for RKBA - God knows most anti-gunners aren’t
going to change. But what about the observers?
- If I fight with the anti-gunner and call him a bed-wetting, communist,
fascist, Nazi, socialist, thumb-sucking, twit - he wins! RKBA loses! The
bystanders figure I’m a complete whacko and our RKBA effort is diminished
because I was stroking my ego or playing to my friendly audience rather than
truly trying to win votes.
- If I debate the anti-gunner in a calm manner, stating verifiable facts, citing
referenced rebuttals to his arguments, then maybe I can make an impression
on the bystanders - the lurkers. If the anti-gunner harangues in the face of
quiet logic and facts, then the anti-gunner becomes the whacko and I have
the chance to bring even more voters into the RKBA fold.

To avoid the debate because you don’t like it, or you are no good at it, or
your talents lay elsewhere is fine. It’s your choice.

But degrading a pro-gunner in public degrades and belittles our RKBA effort.
Support or avoid the struggle for our RKBA but
don’t EVER degrade a pro-gunner’s efforts
- especially during his debate with an anti-gunner.
Doing so:
- helps the anti-gunner,
- hurts the RKBA advocate, and
- may well take your comrade out of the struggle permanently.

On TFL we have members who are living proof that a rational, calm,
courteous manner can bring an anti-gunner to “our side”. Unfortunately,
we also have proof that screaming insults at our opponents is self-defeating
and degrades our RKBA efforts.
-----

Some time ago, another TFLer and I sat in on a meeting of the Million Mom
Marchers. We sat there with clenched teeth listening to the lie that they only
wanted gun safety. We spoke for gun safety. I volunteered to put on a free
demonstration of how to secure firearms in the home. Any place, any time, I
was willing to give my little demonstration. ... No go.

Did we convert a single MMMer? Nope. Not one. Was I therefore a failure?
Did I waste my time?

Representatives from two other organizations against “gun violence” got to
see two gun owners in hostile territory. Suddenly gun owners were “real
people”! We conducted ourselves as gentlemen and convinced at least two
ladies that we are neither violent nor crazy. They went back to their
organizations and told their people how two gun owners came to help but
were tricked, lied to, and insulted so badly they had to leave. How many
people may now have heard from their own leaders that “gun violence” is an
abuse of our RKBA not a result of our RKBA? Several hundred
people may be less sure of the anti-gun lies. Two gun owners decreased
support for our local MMM and the anti-freedom tyrants.

A minor victory you might say. Really? How many people will those several
hundred people talk with? How much will they reduce their efforts against
us? How far will the effect of two gun owners spending a morning in the
enemy camp go?

That is why we should remember our mission - the discussion and
advancement of responsible firearms ownership.”

We do not require a member to own a gun or even to like guns. We do want
people to understand that the anti-gun message is false. The entire
anti-freedom movement is based upon a lie. It is the path of weakness,
subservience, and victimization. We must convert the anti-gunners when
possible but we must stick to the famous “high road” so we can properly
influence the bystanders, the lurkers, and those with whom our message has
a chance.

Therefore, in my personal opinion, TFL is not a pro-gun board. Are TFLers
“pro-gun”? Of course. But TFL is more than a mere pro-gun board.
We are a political movement! The world is watching - quite literally - what
we say here. Therefore we must support each other as we must pick the
tactics and battles where we can be most effective in the struggle to advance
“responsible gun ownership”.

And that, contrary to Mr. Haupt’s opinion, is a very personal decision.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 31, 2000).]
 
Excellent essay. I too, have trod in the enemy's camp. Once, after a debate in which I participated, I was standing talking with several "antis" when a young woman from the audience came up to me, enraged, cursed me and spit on me. (I could have made a Citizen's Arrest for battery, but didn't. I won' state here what I WANTED to do.)

I merely grinned, spoke softly and pointed out to the other antis that this woman was a standard representative of the violent zealots who intend to confiscate our firearms, and who refuse to cloud the issue with the facts.

I know that those antis who saw the incident, took note of the kind of people who are leading the anti-gun pack. Did it change minds? I don't know, but it surely made them think.

I'll discuss the issue with any anti or fence sitter out there. J.B.
 
The SAS rally in DC had some of those same types, Jay. First Freedom had a picture of one of the worst ones. Last I saw him, he was being pulled back by security.
 
Folks,

I don't post a whole lot here, spend alot of time in our fight for the RKBA. I was the other TFL'r in the MMM meeting with Dennis. I can't tell you how important it is we all do it. That we all take the opportunity to stand tall in the face of obvious hostility and take the higher ground.

I came here a long time ago, my often windy rhetoric not always leading the way to the higher moral ground. There is a time and a place for that, TFL is that time and place. MMM meetings are the time and place, you may think it's only the hardcore rights strippers watching but I assure you it is not. Just like Gun owners the antis have those who aren't so hardline they can be reached.

Some of you know me and know how I don't always remain cool when facing arguement, tainted facts, or outright lies. I had to about 500 times bite my tongue tell it bled to keep from blowing-up, if I can manage it you can to.

Dennis and my visit to the MMM wasn't brought about by nice sweet innocent things. It wasn't that we asked to be included, that plan backfired. We come to the low-down dirty back-stabbing part of this battle. Sometimes in life in order to get in we are forced to sling a little mud. The mud I began to sling was by inviting TFL, HIS, Huntamerica, and all sorts of other boards to visit this address(I urge you to go there now)
http://pluto.beseen.com/boardroom/g/49363

Folks this is the home turf of the enemy, the people we are battling against. When I was aided by you in flooding their board a sudden invitation popped up in my email. It was a lie, a deception, and Dennis and I both suspected it was, but we decided not to let them win. Dennis was a hit, just like he is here, his sound logic, quick thinking, and ability to communicate without offending made him a shoe-in to win over some others.

I wasn't so warmly received, but then it was me who ruined their board. When you want to know how to take the moral high ground with these people you'd be well advised to ask Dennis. Even the adament antis couldn't help but like him.

When it was all over Dennis made the decision to keep up the positive efforts with his new recruits. I decided it was time to bury the march leaders in a pool of media slime. Some of the more vocal antis at the boards I sent you to made it easy. Conservative talk radio had a field day dragging the leader through the mud. The paper didn't do a whole lot for the march, and the local news decided maybe they should leave the MMM to it's own demise. It worked. I slipped emails with the page address into reporters hands, sent it to talk radio, did all I could to be a royal pain, had a few hundred friends flood phone, fax and email in the critical last few days before the marchplus a few other things I won't discuss here. Nothing illegal<grins>.

I guess what i'm trying to say here is in regard to this battle we need to have a little of everything in us in my opinion. Peacemaking, outright aggression, a large dose of sneaky, ornery, and sometimes media brutal. I've read to many times that the best way to beat an enemy, is to know them, I think that advice is dead-on. My peacemaking with the antis gave me some insight into how to twist the screws in tight when the time came.

Please visit the page, leave some peaceful inciteful things for the crazies there, the media still today is checking in every so often.




------------------
 
If we do win this is what will win it for us.

Dennis, I'm not sure what brought this post on but I'm glad it did. Keep it up. You and several others here are an inspiration to us all and I'm proud to know you and call you my friend.

------------------
Gunslinger
 
'Slinger....you took the words right out of my mouth!!! :D (OMG...I'm starting to think like 'Slinger...Yikes!!!)

Dennis....have a Shiner or two, on me! ;)
 
Dennis,
To illustrate how divergent viewpoints can be:
I see Jaspar as a guy giving $20.00 a month to an anti gun group. (AOL) ;)

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited August 01, 2000).]
 
Dennis,
I very much enjoyed your post. I agree with your overall message( At least how I interpret it) at we cannot afford to indulge
in the same sort of stereotyping that we ourselves are subject to. I also appreciate you stating in plain, uneqivical terms that others who have different views are welcome here and your call to treat them with respect.
I can't tell you how often I have been both amused and angered by the posts railing against what they consider the rigidity and absurdity of political correctness as though no such thing exists on this forum. It is clear to me that these folks have no real idea of what political correctness is. Up until 1998 I was what most here would consider "anti-gun". I won't bore you with the whole story of my "conversion", but I will say that my "anti" thinking had nothing to do with wanting to weaken constitutional rights, or fascism, communism, etc. It had a lot to do with wanting to make the world we live in a better, safer place. Unfortunately
"gun control" was a misguided manner in which to go about this. I had bought into the misinformation that has been perpetuated
by others over the years. I take my share of the responsibility for this. I had become intellecually lazy in my thinking about gun control or what I thought was gun control. Frankly when I started thinking in a more critical manner about this issue I was and still am to some extent embarassed. I'd like to say more about your post, however we have a thunderstorm starting here and I need to get off the computer. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Daddycat

------------------
"A rigid investment in flexability is but another closed system of thinking"
 
Up until 1998 I was what most here would consider "anti-gun". I won't bore you with the whole story of my "conversion",....

Daddycat, if you have the time please bore us with the whole story. It may help us to better understand the thinking of some and assist in making converts.

------------------
Gunslinger
 
Gunslinger,
Remember you asked :). For many years I associated guns with crooks and criminals. Actually I associated carrying weapons period
with bad guys. I'm 47 yrs old now. Up untill 1982(age 29) I lived a rowdy and to say the least an unwholesome lifestyle. The people I knew then carried weapons(illegally, and were not very nice people). In 1982 I made some decisions to change my life. Not only did I disassociate myself from these people but all things that reminded me of that lifestyle, which included weapons of any kind. As I became genuinely more socially conscious and responsible and returned to school, eventually ended up with a M.A. in Counseling Psychology and embarked in a career which has lasted for the last 18 years. I became a Democrat. It seemed to fit with the work I was doing. I mistakenly belived that anyone who carried a weapon did so out of fear. That if they were cautious about whom they associated with and where they went, weapons were unnecessary and indeed created a potential for violence that did not exist without them. As you may see, here is where good intentions and misconceptions begin to merge. Fact is, since I changed my lifestyle in 1982, I have not been involved in any altercations whatsoever. However the rest of my reasoning was not well thought out in a critical manner. I had more than one stereotype running around in my head about gun folks, none of them good. I did not know that most of the information I was hearing through the various medias about gun related violence was bias, erronerous, and at times, out and out false. What I was hearing did support the attitudes I had already developed about guns and weapons. As such, I was lazy in my thinking about what I was hearing. In 1996, I got married to a woman who is an Administrative Law Judge and relocated to Atlanta, Ga. Several things began to evolve out of this move that led to my "conversion".
One is inexplicable to me even now. That is I developed a sense of uneasiness. I know this sounds odd, however this is the best way I know to explain it. Also my wife was threatened a couple of times in the course of her work. We began to talk about a gun for the house, however did not feel motivated enough to do more than discuss the issue. In 1998, I started working exclusively with sex offenders in an private agency. At times I would terminate a client due to non-compliance with treatment expectations. This almost always meant jail time for them, as well it should. However, there was considerable lag time between their termination and the time it took for a warrant to be issued and the police to pick them up. As a result there were times when I would have furious pyschopaths running around who knew where I could be found , my schedule, and what kind of a car I drove.
Also I began to worry about if I could adequately protect us in our home witout a weapon. Finally my wife and I decided to look into getting a gun. Now here is where some of my stereotypes were proven false. When we went to a gun shop, picked because it was open later than the others, the man behind the counter, said he would sell me a gun, but he would feel better about it if my wife and I would get some training. Now we had already decided to do this, but whats pertinent to this post is that it challeneged
my belief that most people who owned or sold guns were for the most part irresponsible. Had I run into someone who was fundamentally opposed to mandated training to the extent that he did not recommend this, out of wanting to protect RBKA, my first experience might have been different. I know this is an emotionally charged issue, I think people who carry concealed need training. I began to read gun mags etc to educate myself on guns. I began to hear the other side to the story regarding "gun violence." I began to think about the politcal implications the loss of the second amendment would have. I learned the truth about how often guns are used defensively in this country by honest people. In short I began to think in a more critical manner about the issue. Being reviled as a democrat does not help. Being called a socialist, fascist etc, does not open dialogue. When people at the range in Ga got it that we were serious about learning to shoot, thats how they treated us, seriously. In the past year one of my colleagues began to listen to me when I would talk about gun control and would challenge him on a intellectual level. At last count he owned two pistols.He also votes Democrat. My other colleague at the time was not interested in seeing the issue from a different viewpoint.
Now my wife and I reside in N.Virginia and have our Virginia CCWS. She carries a G30 and I carry a Springfield compact. I'm on the last leg of the vetting process to become a VA probation officer. Talk about coming full circle! :)
Good shooting!
Daddycat

------------------
"A rigid investment in flexability is but another closed system of thinking"

[This message has been edited by Daddycat (edited August 01, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Daddycat (edited August 02, 2000).]
 
Thank you Daddycat. That was well worth the read. That post and in fact this entire thread is the reason I am here at TFL.
Threads like this ad both encouragement and perspecitive.

------------------
Gunslinger
 
Great post, Dennis. Thank you for the story, Daddycat.

Dennis, I realize what I'm about to say may sound argumentive, but that's not my purpose. It is easy to quote another out of context, not read the entire post and become overly assertive in reply. I have been guilty in the past, so I'll try to not do that (tryin' to change my ways ... :)).

In a nutshell, I believe that just because TFL is more than a pro-gun site doesn't mean it's not pro-gun. Maybe I'm haggling over words. But, I agree with statements like, "We do not require a member to own a gun or even to like guns.". I also agree that, "Nowhere does it say a member must be a gun owner, a fighter for our RKBA, or hold beliefs "exactly like mine"!" Again, "... but also welcome are: - Those who know nothing about guns or our RKBA, - Those who like only one aspect of firearms and not others, and - Even anti-gunners." Also, "... Anti-gunners can come here for information and debate ... They should be treated with the same respect as any gun owner or "pro-gunner"." (See, I read the whole thing! :))

Yes, yes. Agreed. That must be a desired outcome. There are many forums and boards to associate with those with whom we already agree. I also think that trying to convert the anti-gunner to the truth is worth while. It took a long time to get where we are and it won't be righted overnight. Witness Daddycat's story. Miss Demeanor has a great story too.

BUT, how can we have a mission statement that proposes the "... advancement of responsible firearms ownership." and claim to be non-committal on the issue of RKBA?

I submit we are pro-gun. We also attempt to be open-minded in the classic liberal sense (or should be) and that extends to the conditions you so eloquently stated. Listen to the other side, consider the argument, then respond politely and thoughtfully. Difficult, but necessary. Agree or disagree, but be civil. Does that mean we aren't pro-gun? I really think there is no contradiction here.

The issue of TFL as an entity separate from TFLers is interesting. "... in my personal opinion, TFL is not a pro-gun board. Are TFLers “pro-gun”? Of course." I realize that is not a policy statement, but would a pro-gun disclaimer change the sense of the mission statement of TFL? That's a real question. 'Not trying to be cute.

In closing, your admonishment concerning criticising another RKBA activist during his debate with an anti-gunner hits close to home. I plead guilty.


[This message has been edited by sensop (edited August 02, 2000).]
 
Sensop said: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"BUT, how can we have a mission statement that proposes the "... advancement of responsible firearms ownership." and claim to be non-committal on the issue of RKBA?"[/quote]

You know, that was my initial reaction to Dennis' claim, too. But then I got to thinking: you can be for "the advancement of responsible firearms ownership" without being so much for universal firearms ownership. A comparitive example would be a MADD mother that is for taking responsibility when drinking and not driving, but who personally has an overall distaste for drinking per se, altogether. (While I don't perceive firearms ownership as a vice, I have to be realistic about how the antis perceive it.)

This is the tack that I take when I wish to push firearms safety in schools. The antis wail that we're trying to indoctrinate children early into gun culture. My answer is that guns are already a part of our culture, and that their very own facts show that accidents are utterly preventable. There's absolutely NOTHING pro-gun about pushing The Four Rules on kids. To say it is would be like a super-green-environmentalist claiming that teaching a child to look both ways before crossing a busy intersection is to indoctrinate the child against greener forms of public transit!

So, officially, TFL is saying: "You who are firearms owners: Be responsible!" :)

I'm comfortable with that position. (Split hairs or not.)
 
Good point ... I gotta think it over for a while ...

[This message has been edited by sensop (edited August 02, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top