Why "THEY" Will Win.

E

Ed Brunner

New member
I read the thread about HCI's tactics and lies and it made me realize why it is working.
In the past we have explained its success as due to incrementalism. This is true but it is only part of the story.
Their ploy is based on the certain knowledge that 99% of gun-owners are essentially decent and law-abiding citizens and they know that we will not fight until it is too late.

This situation is a serious problem to me
and I would expect bothers most of you too. A lot of people oppose abortion.I dont want to debate abortion-just use the issue as an example.Some people see it as murder and feel justified in bombing clinics and shooting doctors. There will always be crazy people who will commit the crimes.Abortion clinics are guarded and have their own protective laws.The same can be said about women, minorities and homosexuals. There are specific laws protecting them and others as defined categories of people. This is because they have been threatened and abused and existing laws treating them the same as other people were not considered to be adequate because they did not address the specific emotion which triggered the crime. So now we have hate crimes.

So far we do not have hate crime leglislation to protect the anti-gun folks because we as a group are too law-abiding to be a threat to their safety or lives.
Their entire program is operated with the certainty that they will not be confronted.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING ANY THREAT OR VIOLENCE AGAINST ANTI_GUNNERS.I AM MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT WE WILL NOT RESIST BECAUSE OF WHO AND WHAT WE ARE.

Do you doubt that they are winning?

Interestingly enough we have a specific law to protect our right to own and use guns.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Greetings and thanks for an insightful post.
I opine that "we" are our own worst enemies in that many of us are just too independent and not willing to get involved. Just imagine if everyone with a hunting license wrote just one letter opposing gun control to their elected officials, news programs, papers, etc! Instead, a small hard core of gun owners have to carry the load. Yet, these who've never even taken the time to make one phone call to protect the Second Amendment will inevitably be the first to cry,"Where was the NRA (GOA, CCRKBA, etc)?
The FOUP idea here is good is for no other reason that it shows that not all believe guns are inately "evil." All I know to do is to keep writing, calling, faxing, etc. In any event, this is what I'll do. I suspect that most on these boards do their part....and more. Best to all.
 
While I agree with you, I believe there are even more problems:

1) Stating that guns provide a final check against a tyrannical government is a useless argument when so many people are on the government teat or simply can not realize the inherent danger in big government.

2) Stating that we need guns for self-defense doesn't work because HCI's views are publicized better than Dr. Lott's. (Not enough good people are victimized, I guess.)

3) Stating that our guns provide a nice hobby can not overcome the killings at schools and mass murders/suicides. And, in our current society, we blame inanimate objects rather than the violent offenders.

4) Yelling about our Second Amendment rights is unconvincing when anyone, even a nitwit like Rosie O'Donnell, can state in public that the Second Amendment means we can have muskets to fend off the British.

5) Add the media (there you go, Ivan) and we got trouble, right here in River City.

6) Ooops! I almost forgot the "wordsmiths" - the people who are so skilled at rhetoric they want NO other means of settling conflict. These are the brilliant PhD types (and PhD wanna-bees) who believe we can convince anyone, even a tyrannical government, to become Barney-like by sitting down and talking.... (gag).



[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 06, 1999).]
 
Well Put Dennis, I especially enjoyed the "Barney-Like" comment. Hal, not to flame you , but the "we've allready been beaten" attitude is what has allowed the anti-gun folks to walk all over your rights. If we continue to sit around and whine to one another on these boards about the media, pol's and HCI, you're absolutely right, we will lose. If we fight back we just might win. The next time anyone feels like writing a post lamenting the current legislative climate, I suggest they write it to their state and federal representatives. There it might make a difference.

[This message has been edited by BigBird (edited August 06, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by BigBird (edited August 06, 1999).]
 
I believe that the biggest reason they will win eventualy is the public schools are constantly convincing out kids that guns are bad, not socially acceptable, dangerous and all the other twaddle that they spew forth. After a few more generations of this, the answer is clear.
 
Shotgun,
I couldn't agree with you more. Much of what is taught in schools is a travesty of logic, tradition, freedom, morality, etc.

But, for a moment, I think of the poor teachers who believe as we do but must work in such an institution. That must be a terrible agony for them.

Unfortunately, the best teacher my kids had in high school tells me she's going to quit teaching - primarily for the reasons you explained.
--------------

I have a "label" problem.

In my earlier post I mentioned the "PhD types and PhD wanna-bees". I don't know how to separate the wheat from the chaff here.

I have found many PhDs to be the Pile-it-Higher-and-Deeper types. But a blanket indictment is unfair, inaccurate, borders on "stupid", and slanders friends who have PhDs and don't fit my "label".

So let me apologize right here to a PhD whom I greatly respect.
-------

DC,
Sorry for the wild shot. It was uncalled for, and flat wrong. Blame it on my lack of education, okay? ;)

It is not the education and achievement that offend me - I respect those. It is the use of rhetorical expertise to frustrate and defeat common sense, fairness, freedom, and other such values that offends me.

I stand in awe of your knowledge and abilities (and in some fear of your wrath ;)) so I'll just ask for your help.

What is the correct term to describe the immoral victory of rhetoric over right?

Again, sorry to include you in a group whom we both despise. It was a verbal error, not one of character judgment.

Dennis
 
Dennis, I can think of a number of synonims (sp?) for "the immoral victory of rhetoric over right" ...

1. Congress
2. Clinton
3. HCI
4. Apathy

Need I go on? :)

But in reality, I think that perhaps these PhD's of whom you speak (and I know some that don't hold PhD's that fit this category) might be defined as disingenious.

** And I like Dennis, don't lump *all* holders of higher degrees to be in this category, but sometimes those that *are* in this category manage to convince me that there is such a thing as too much education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top