PDA

View Full Version : Court of Pulbic Opinion:Justifying gun ownership.


nicki
12-29-2008, 12:57 AM
The battle for gun rights will happen in the urban areas of California and that it is in that public court of opinion that we will have to work.

Urban dwellers hear the NRA say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", then they turn on the news and what do they see.

Sure, we are gearing up for legal battles, but we must also gear up for the court of public opinion.

Right now we shutter everytime there is a shooting because the firearms community has for many years avoided dealing with the real reasons we must maintain our rights to keep and bear arms.

While traditional gun political strategies will work in the rural parts of the state, they are ineffective, in many cases, counter productive in our urban areas.

The NRA and us have become the new scapegoats, it is our fault that the courts don't work, that we have violence on the streets, the the Drug Trade is out of control etc. etc.

Government policies don't work, so rather than fix the problems and piss off special interest, they have scapegoats(US).

When we gear up, we are not fighting for gun rights, we are fighting for all rights. What if we created a left wing gun rights movement.

We can say, sure guns kill, but if a government disarms the citizens, all rights now become government revocable privileges and in a Democracy, the tyranny of the majority will strip away your rights as quickly as any dictator will.

If you are targeted by the government as a enemy of the state, the majority will side with the government regardless of how extreme the government goes.

Just a few thoughts.

Nicki

Theseus
12-29-2008, 1:09 AM
Understand the TRUE purpose of gun control though and you will see why the urban areas are anti-gun.

Gun control is not about right...it is about CONTROL! These people get their paychecks from the government that takes their guns and makes them victims. You think they want to bite the hand that feeds them?

They will drink their kool-aid and continue to spew anti-gun rhetoric UNLESS you organize them and give them guns to help them clean up their streets....help them break the victim cycle and do it WITH guns. Only then will they change their minds.. . . but still not if they get a government supplied meal ticket.

CapS
12-29-2008, 1:24 AM
Thanks Nicki: good thread.

Among other things, we need to continue to beat the drum that the NRA started: This is a civil rights issue. Now, post-Heller, that should resonate more strongly the more we press it.

SCOTUS says RKBA is an individual right. We must do everything we can to frame our public relations with this in mind: We are a minority whose rights are under attack.

/Cap :17:

grammaton76
12-29-2008, 1:53 AM
When we gear up, we are not fighting for gun rights, we are fighting for all rights. What if we created a left wing gun rights movement.

Your first paragraph was precisely spot-on, as long as "we" is restricted to the lefties. There does really need to be a left wing gun rights movement, but due to human realities it won't happen in a right-of-center atmosphere (which any "big tent" site like Calguns is going to be). Too many lefties get cranky, leave or decide that all gun owners are "wingnuts", etc. A healthy leftie environment (which Guntards could have become but didn't) would nurture and educate a cadre of pro-gun leftists who can speak to people the average gun owner can't.

We can say, sure guns kill, but if a government disarms the citizens, all rights now become government revocable privileges and in a Democracy, the tyranny of the majority will strip away your rights as quickly as any dictator will.

Unfortunately, by and large the left believes we have "evolved past" the need for armed action against a tyrannical government, and if you go feeding them this right away, you will be yourself instantly marginalized as a right-wing nutcase. Now, it would be possible for lefties to lead their compatriots into this belief eventually, but in the meantime I feel that the best route into the left's mindshare is via groups such as the Pink Pistols, etc.

Anyway, I would very much like there to be a point in time where I may vote on non-2A issues because whether the D or R wins in my district, both will be pro-gun.

At any rate, at present this isn't going to get accomplished. Way too much friction happens between left and right due to the fact that although left and right gunnies agree on guns, they disagree about most other things. It somewhat annoys me how much energy gets wasted on fighting back and forth on non gun related issues. In particular... guys, I don't like Obama and I agree with fighting tooth and nail against him before the election... but he won. Let's worry about upcoming issues; examining his past won't change the future.

Left and right gun folks are yin and yang. In order to achieve an ideal end, both sides must be strong enough to whip their respective politicians into order. However, at the same time we are opposites in many ways, and outside of gun issues it is foolhardy to believe that our ranks will ever be unified ideologically. I can only see efficient action on the left happening re: gun rights if the left has a gun board where they can talk amongst themselves (including about that 75% or so of their beliefs which the right doesn't like) without a bunch of friction from the majority of gun owners (which happen to slant right due to population).

Anyway, I see that there's no need for fighting and no need to try some haphazard Frankenstein experiment of separate forums and separate rules within Calguns... just a separate left board, with friendly links to each other and a very firm rule of not trash-talking each other. I will state for the record that I feel Calguns is as politically center as a gun board can possibly be without culling folks ruthlessly on both sides, and a "big tent" board can't really do that.

Hmm, leftguns.net is available... just a thought.

BillCA
12-29-2008, 7:47 AM
The battle for gun rights will happen in the urban areas of California and that it is in that public court of opinion that we will have to work.
...
Sure, we are gearing up for legal battles, but we must also gear up for the court of public opinion.
...
When we gear up, we are not fighting for gun rights, we are fighting for all rights.


Regardless of left/right/center politics, you are correct in that we need to address the issue as a civil rights issue.

In that sense, we can enlist the aid of people who's politics are left-of-center and/or have experience with civil rights activism. The Pink Pistols have created some messages that are poignant.

While the fight for incorporation is underway, we should be thinking up web-ads that can be placed on many websites as well as in print.

As an example...
Text on the screen, for five seconds reads:
No person may purchase more than one handgun in a 30-day period.
Now, transition by fading in new text.
No person may express more than one opinion in a 30-day period.
Then, fade back to the original message and add a new line underneath it.
If you can't exercise your rights when needed, what good are they?
Fight for your civil rights.
www.some_website_here.org (http://www.some_website_here.org)

Ironchef
12-29-2008, 8:53 AM
Thanks Nicki, this has been my position all along. I'll join the NRA when they start putting out prime time commercials showing how ridiculous gun legislation is and other commercials supporting gun culture.

I believe public opinion is WAY more important than fighting in courts. Same goes for the ACLU..if they did the above described things, I'd join.

movie zombie
12-29-2008, 9:07 AM
Regardless of left/right/center politics, you are correct in that we need to address the issue as a civil rights issue.

In that sense, we can enlist the aid of people who's politics are left-of-center and/or have experience with civil rights activism. The Pink Pistols have created some messages that are poignant.

While the fight for incorporation is underway, we should be thinking up web-ads that can be placed on many websites as well as in print.

As an example...
Text on the screen, for five seconds reads:
No person may purchase more than one handgun in a 30-day period.
Now, transition by fading in new text.
No person may express more than one opinion in a 30-day period.
Then, fade back to the original message and add a new line underneath it.
If you can't exercise your rights when needed, what good are they?
Fight for your civil rights.
www.some_website_here.org (http://www.some_website_here.org)





agree 100%

movie zombie

Hopi
12-29-2008, 9:11 AM
agree 100%

movie zombie

another in agreement.



Love the new sigline MZ.......

Annie Oakley
12-29-2008, 10:38 AM
Nicki, I totally agree with you that the way gun ownership is perceived in our society is generally based on public perception, and that perception creates an opinion that seems to be self perpetuating. The question is what or who is the source of this myopic perception, and what can we do to fix it ? I agree that the first thing that is important is that the second amendment not be viewed as a conservative or liberal issue. It should be a human rights issue in that we as human beings have the natural right to self defense. The next thing that should be stressed is that a gun in the hand of an honest law abiding person is not the source of violence with guns, nor are guns in our society in and of themselves a source of violence. Since government has failed to do this, we as activists should stress that evil people are those that would use a gun to rob, and murder a person that was never a threat to them. Use the concept of the "Scarlet Letter" to not only jail, but cast shame on evil violent people. I would also suggest that the media has been a source of bathing gun owners in a less than stellar light. On TV or in the movies, the only people who have guns, (other than police or military) are drug dealers, murderers, thieves, and crazy people. I'm sorry if this is turning into a rant, but if people compare how guns were viewed as late as the 60's versus the present, it's easy to understand why our societies view of guns has changed. We used to have heroes like the "Lone Ranger", Roy Rogers, and John Wayne, that used a gun to fight evil. Stress was placed on the guy in the white hat. And now what do we have, people like eminem, and 50 cents, who promote gang violence and the oppression of and violence against women. What else will companies like "Death Row Records" come up with to sell this propaganda. Why can't we hold up the average person as a hero like those during the LA riots that stood their ground with guns against evil violent people that burned and pillaged and were stopped by modern minutemen because the police couldn't do it on their own.

Unfortunately, politicians like Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, and Barbara Boxer, along with the Brady's and the VPC write the propaganda, and the MSM gives them the resources to spread the disinformation. Just as unfortunate, people who choose to be apathetic, accept these lies as truth, and react because that is what they are told to do. The NRA is viewed as a fringe organization who promotes gun violence by fighting against "reasonable gun legislation", and so we are told to ignore an organization of 4 million American gun owners. But of course antigun people will not mention that among those 4 million gun owners are police, military, and those that train them. They also fail to mention and in fact discount programs like "Eddie Eagle" who teach children about guns by telling them to STOP, DON'T TOUCH, LEAVE THE AREA, and TELL AN ADULT. Instead the Brady's and the VPC write articles that make outlandish claims that "Eddie Eagle" is promoting gun ownership and present Eddie Eagle as "Joe Camel with Feathers."

I'm sorry everyone for going off topic, but I am passionate about this, and I think that everyone who owns a gun should be passionate about this also.

I'll stop here and say that if you like your guns, go to your nearest mirror, point a finger at the person you see there, and challenge her or him to do more to protect the second amendment. And then find an antigunner and take them shooting.

Librarian
12-29-2008, 10:48 AM
Thanks Nicki, this has been my position all along. I'll join the NRA when they start putting out prime time commercials showing how ridiculous gun legislation is and other commercials supporting gun culture.

That would be useful. A couple of years back, NRA produced a tape somewhat along those lines, and I actually sent them some extra money to support that kind of effort.

Now, tell me how we get the TV stations in California to accept advertising or PSAs from the NRA, or from anyone, with that content?

I believe public opinion is WAY more important than fighting in courts. Same goes for the ACLU..if they did the above described things, I'd join.

Politicians will follow public opinion. Shaping public opinion is what we need.

Bad Voodoo
12-29-2008, 10:52 AM
Now, tell me how we get the TV stations in California to accept advertising or PSAs from the NRA, or from anyone, with that content?

Aren't they required by law to air it, if the spot is paid for? That's the argument I hear to support the liberal-esque commercials I hear on conservative talk radio.

Theseus
12-29-2008, 11:42 AM
Media outlets are businesses, more often than not all you need do is pay the fee and they will air just about anything. . .

That would be useful. A couple of years back, NRA produced a tape somewhat along those lines, and I actually sent them some extra money to support that kind of effort.

Now, tell me how we get the TV stations in California to accept advertising or PSAs from the NRA, or from anyone, with that content?



Politicians will follow public opinion. Shaping public opinion is what we need.

Librarian
12-29-2008, 11:48 AM
Media outlets are businesses, more often than not all you need do is pay the fee and they will air just about anything. . .

Until "they" try to revive the 'fairness' laws, the businesses are free to reject anything they want to reject. And they do, pretty consistently, reject anything pro-gun.

There's an East Bay gun store that gets a pro-gun radio ad on lately, and a few years ago CRPA had their 'We're all better off when the bad guys don't know who's carrying' billboard campaign, but that's all I've ever heard or seen in the SF area in ~20 years here.

Annie Oakley
12-29-2008, 12:19 PM
Do you suppose that things like this are considered in the court of public opinion ? How many people here listen to this ?

Please forgive me for the harsh language, but it is what people listen to.

http://cndls.georgetown.edu/applications/posterTool/data/users/50%20cent.jpeg

http://blog.themavenreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/50_cent_4_575.jpg



50 Cent Banks Victory Lyrics
Featuring: Lloyd Banks Lyrics
Songwriters: N/A

[50 Cent]
Yo, yo we can't stay alive forever
So if **** hit the fan then we might as well die together
I'm high as ever, more hoes and more cheddar
G-Unit move around wit them pounds and berreta's
Yea ***got, if I want it I'm gon' have it
Regardless if it's handed to me or I gotta grab it
Don't make a *** outta yaself tryin to stop me
I'm cocky, raps rocky, nigga you sloppy
You know that I'm, 8 levels above you nigga
I'll club you nigga, I never heard of you nigga, its ugly nigga
I'm the wrong one to provoke
You rattin on niggas is only gon' leave you smoked
So the only thing left now is toast for these cowrads
I got no friends, **** most of these cowards
They pop **** 'till we start approaching these cowards
While we lay around dollars, they lay around flowers

[Lloyd Banks]
I got a intergangstress who argue and steams wit reefer
And who flip when I call a ***** like she Queen Latifah
Not all the vehicle's is long enough to stash the streetsweeper
This **** can get uglier than the Master P sneaker
We slidin through the ruckus, wit prada on the chuckus
Soon as spring break ho's home from college wanna **** us
I ain't here to drop knowledge on you suckas
I'll sick rottweiler's on you ****as, cops followin to cuff us
Top dollars to discuss this, whole lotta zeros
When it comes to paper I blow a soul outta aero
I'ma break before I lay floor berry
Besides, every rapper ain't a star, nigga plad ain't bulbary
You can't tame Lloyd, smokin by the big screen
You changin the channel looks like I'm playin the game boy
I know the rocks botherin ya vision
But reach and I'll put a dot on ya head like its part of yo religion
Why party wit a pigeon?
I'm blowin a 10 'cause Bush handin flyers for a party in a prison
I'm in the gucci vest wit the green and red straps
I'm the last rapper to scare niggas since Craig Mack
Now every morning's a fast start
And there aint problem gettin dressed 'cause my closet got more aisles than pathmark
Run, move startin to raid
and leave wit 12 shells in ya mouth like a carton of eggs
I'm the young pimp pardon my age
I don't got long hair but if I did she be partin my braids
We just find out what club they at
take 'em wit us, and run a train on 'em like a subway mat
yer advance is a grey acura
these record labels got most artists gettin ****ed like the gay rappa'
i go to college on a tour
I'm goin down in history nigga, next to Wallace and Shakur
I keep ya ammo clean, tec's polished in the drawer
Camera's by the hamper that mine into the floor
by now, you probably heard of me
fresh outta surgery, flashy as a ****, you gon' have to murder me
Burglary, were leavin wit cha nike's burgandy, White T, burgandy
you match now, back down
niggas love to hate you, but love you when you disappear
catch me on the boat wit weed smoke and fishing gear
heavy when I toke, C notes from different years
Besly in the robe, re-motes for liftin chairs
We ain't rich, but we be glad to snatch ya
I send cars to your crib like I'm a cab dispatcha
you better off wit ya stupid guys, lookin for a coupe to drive
you ain't gettin nuttin but ya french fries supersized
it's a damn shame y'all still local
I'm in a million dollar studio layin my vocals
Nigga

[50 Cent]
Still in the projects nigga, you ain't goin nowhere
you gon' ****in be there for the rest of yo mutha****in life
and yo momma said, I'm supposed to tell you somethin.....
to encourage you, somethin positive
aight well I ain't gon' lie to you mutha****a, he ain't goin nowhere
get yaself a beer, get on the ****in curb
****in dirtbag

http://gorillaconvict.com/blog/upload/50%20cent.jpg

Maybe the court of public opinion should just ignore this. After all, it's just "entertainment".

Bad Voodoo
12-29-2008, 12:22 PM
I'd support a CGF sponsored commercial marketing effort.

yellowfin
12-29-2008, 1:40 PM
Ads come and go, making the cash basically disappear into the wind. Billboards, bumper stickers, shopping bags, etc. would be a smarter way to go because they're longer lasting. The majority of the reason the NRA et al. don't go too heavy into the advertising market over the airwaves is that the competition for attention from EVERYTHING is so great. You're not just fighting the Bradys--in fact, rarely at all--you're fighting Nike, Bud Light, Geico, Captain Morgan, Aflac, Toyota, Playstation 3, ad infinitum just to be heard at all. The free ride that the antis get from politicians and MSM is not only to have their side voiced, but to have it constantly rebroadcast. Not even Sony or Kraft could compete with that if they had to buy it 30 seconds or less at a time to the tune of millions of dollars.

We would need the operating budget of Honda or Coca Cola if we were to do it the way that they do it. What we do need to do is get out among the public much the way other organizations do. Host charity events, get our brand on credit cards and checks, put big notices in non related markets, etc. You've heard me say it dozens of times before and I'll say it thousands of times again: get out of the firing line and into the checkout lane.

rayra
12-29-2008, 1:52 PM
Even in this you fail, nicki. "justify"? We don't have to justify crap. It's right there in the Second Amendment of our Constition in plain language.
What we 'need' to do is counter the massive propaganda orgs of public/govt indoctrination via schools, media, and authoritarian political organizations and their Barrett-rifle-demonizing police chief appointees.

"justify" :rolleyes:
You're using the enemy's criteria / framework.

What's needed is a massive public (re-)education campaign. Full page ads and billboards with the Founders' own words emblazoned on them. TV spots about what the 2nd Amendment is REALLY about. TV spots directly contradicting the bs liberal spew about 'regulated' et al. And teh NRA needs to pry its asses out of the Beltway and start taking their 'lobbying' efforts directly to the People, instead of playing their stupid games in the halls of power - so the People will quit electing gun-grabbers in the first place, instead of our ceaselessly having to counter that scum.

Hopi
12-29-2008, 2:01 PM
Do you suppose that things like this are considered in the court of public opinion ? How many people here listen to this ?

Please forgive me for the harsh language, but it is what people listen to.



Maybe the court of public opinion should just ignore this. After all, it's just "entertainment".

Funny, you excerpted an example of another constitutional protection. Freedom of speech.

Are you advocating the censorship of art (an infringement on Constitutional rights) because you dislike the message?

Asking or demanding that someone forfeit constitutional protections, via censorship, is not a successful way to have folks be empathetic to your wishes that others respect the rights you deem valuable.

This has become a constant theme in your posts, and to each their own, but do you not see that hypocrisy?

Ironchef
12-29-2008, 2:12 PM
I'm picturing a commercial to air between breaks on American Idol like this:

[dark screen accompanied by sounds of gun slides being cycled and gunshots sounding in rapid succession..then more gunfire, then more...7 seconds worth]
[then the voice..] "No! This is not your nightly news covering the latest gangland style gun fight or school shooting...it's the all new and exciting reality game show!!!

Starting on January 21st, 100 people throughout the country will try their steady hands and best sight pictures to see who's got what it takes to be.... "A SHARP SHOOTER!"

Sharp shooter will begin 1/21 at 7/8 central [pop! sound of gunshots]! Be there, or be square!""


Ok, ok, maybe the reality show bit isn't ready yet..but it will be once the buzz about the first of several NRA paid 2nd Amendment and self defense and ridiculous anti-gun law commercials has subsided. Hey, if the tobacco industry and Chevron can put out their commercials being the pariahs of public opinion....why can't the "gun free zone" commercial be played with a catchy title at the end saying "...anti-gunners, are you finally getting it?"


THe footage is out there already, just need to take advantage of right-wing owned Clear Channel to git er done!
AhgzcioPet8

Annie Oakley
12-29-2008, 3:30 PM
Funny, you excerpted an example of another constitutional protection. Freedom of speech.

Are you advocating the censorship of art (an infringement on Constitutional rights) because you dislike the message?

Asking or demanding that someone forfeit constitutional protections, via censorship, is not a successful way to have folks be empathetic to your wishes that others respect the rights you deem valuable.

This has become a constant theme in your posts, and to each their own, but do you not see that hypocrisy?

I don't believe I said that at all. But I do believe in the phrase "with freedom comes responsibility". I think those that produce this kind of "entertainment" are simply irresponsible, and truthfully, I believe that those who listen to this, advocate that kind of irresponsibility. So, like Larry Flynt, you can invoke the first amendment, but I would argue that it has no redeeming value because it does promote violence, drug use and exploitation and abuse of women. Perhaps you can explain what part of that provocative expression of his first amendment right you consider "art".

To stay on topic, let me simply add that in the court of public opinion, people will judge gun owners by people like this. It's no wonder that politicians can get away with calling guns evil.

BillCA
12-29-2008, 3:31 PM
One of the reasons I suggested web advertising is that it can be done much cheaper than commercial media outlets. Once the ad is created, post it on You Tube, then ask members to feature the link in their .Sigs everywhere. I believe it's now called "viral" advertising.

I'd think that creating a series of ads within 2 weeks of each other would be fairly effective. When you view one ad on You Tube, their interface allows you to easily find more posts by the person. Having at least 2 other well done ads gives people the option of which ad to email to friends or others.

Most of us have seen the William Shatner/Boston Legal clip below. It appeals to many many people on a "just desserts" level. Using that clip as a model, we could create a pretty bold ad.
6yJ7cfr9Lso

Opening scene: Still photo series of police/EMS units at a crime scene in a shopping mall or parking garage. The word "California" appears and slowly fades while a voice over of a "radio news" voice says...
Police are investigating the murder of a 63 year old woman and the brutal rape of her 15 year old grand daughter tonight. It happened in the parking lot of the Newberry mall around 8:30 pm... [fade out]

Scene II (video) shows an older woman and a teen girl walking in a parking garage amongst parked cars. The teen girl is carrying something in a bag. The word "Texas" appears and fades away as the girl speaks.
Teen girl: "...I really love these shoes, you're the greatest, Grandma."
(Thug steps out from between cars) "Hold it right there."
Girl lets out a startled yelp. "Grandma!"
Grandmother: (pushing teen back) "Stay back Julie."
Thug: (brandishing silver automatic) "Gimme the purse grandma, now!"
Grandmother: "Here." (hands purse over - thug takes it) "Just don't hurt us, please."
Thug: "Give me your car keys too."
Grandmother: "They're in my purse."
Thug: "Where's your car?"
Grandmother: (Pointing) "Right over there."
Thug: "Good, then we're all gonna go for a ride."
Teen Girl: (fearful look) "Ride?"
Thug: "So's you and I can get acquainted in the back seat." (Thug leers as he looks the girl up and down)
Grandmother draws a revolver from under her coat/sweater and fires a "controlled pair" into the thug).
Grandmother: "Like Hell you will!"

Closing scene: text with voice-over.
In California, violent crime strikes every three minutes. Yet California law and special interest groups deny citizens the right to defend themselves and families like this grandmother did. Isn't about time we changed that? Visit www.somewebsite.org (http://www.somewebsite.org) to learn what you can do.

Repeat with another ad or two depicting lawful SD in other situations and post all on You Tube. The bolder and better researched the ads are, the more likely they are to get noticed... and perhaps discussed on MSM programs.

BillCA
12-29-2008, 3:37 PM
Ads come and go, making the cash basically disappear into the wind. Billboards, bumper stickers, shopping bags, etc. would be a smarter way to go because they're longer lasting. The majority of the reason the NRA et al. don't go too heavy into the advertising market over the airwaves is that the competition for attention from EVERYTHING is so great.

You're not just fighting the Bradys--in fact, rarely at all--you're fighting Nike, Bud Light, Geico, Captain Morgan, Aflac, Toyota, Playstation 3, ad infinitum just to be heard at all. The free ride that the antis get from politicians and MSM is not only to have their side voiced, but to have it constantly rebroadcast. Not even Sony or Kraft could compete with that if they had to buy it 30 seconds or less at a time to the tune of millions of dollars.

We would need the operating budget of Honda or Coca Cola if we were to do it the way that they do it. ...

Which is why you start your ad campaign on the web. You don't have to pay for the air-time of the ads.

But you're correct in that the MSM can pick up on it and try to spin it in a negative light. No doubt they'd spend 5 minutes interviewing an ad spokesperson and then spend the next 15 minutes talking to a Brady spokesman and an anti-gun politician. And Hollywood could counter the ads in TV show episodes, paying script writers to portray things negatively.

But you can't win if you don't try.

Ironchef
12-29-2008, 3:41 PM
Exactly! Well done commercial Bill. And what's amazing is there's a million stories and examples to show in media.

30 second public safety announcement spot on TV:
[Tucker Carlson ribbing Carolyn McCarthy about a barrel shroud...5 seconds]
[Gun Free Zone Youtube clip 10 second highlight of robber in liquor store]
[youtube clip of blurred faced criminal loading his magazines talking about how armed citizens cause his business and that of his colleagues to tank..10 seconds]
"Isn't it about time your elected officials create laws that protect the law abiding citizen, and not endanger them?" [5 second question with flashes of headlines reading "gunman kills mall patrons," "store clerk gunned down by robber," etc]

Hopi
12-29-2008, 3:41 PM
But I do believe in the phrase "with freedom comes responsibility"
Who does that responsibility lie with? Is it with the person who views the material and needs to make a personal decision on how to react, if at all. Or does the responsibility lie in the hands of folks like you and me to make decisions on what is best for others? Isn't that what gun-grabbers are trying to do? Still not seeing the hypocrisy?

Perhaps you can explain what part of that provocative expression of his first amendment right you consider "art".

I don't have to. That is the beauty of this country.

You don't determine what is and isn't art, and we don't administer censorship based on the conformation to your world view. That is unfortunate for those that are scared of the real world, but for the rest of us, we call that freedom.

That freedom is protected by the Constitution. Just like our 2nd amendment.

Cafeteria Constitutionalism only serves your tray. If you don't like eating mashed potatoes, don't put them on your tray.




To stay on topic, let me simply add that in the court of public opinion, people will judge gun owners by people like this. It's no wonder that politicians can get away with calling guns evil.

Final note, i often think the same thing when reading some of your posts. I don't want gun owners to be portrayed in the context of .50 Cent, but neither do I welcome the context that you often invite.

B.D.Dubloon
12-29-2008, 3:54 PM
I'm gonna have to side with Hopi on this one.

As far as rap setting a bad example and encouraging crime, it is hardly a problem. Most of the people that listen to hardcore rap are young middle class males, who don't commit anything but the pettiest crimes. The people who listen to rap and commit crimes aren't doing it because of the music, they are doing it because they are POOR, LAZY, and LACKING DECENT ROLE MODELS, not because 50 Cent told them it was cool. Just be thankful that most crime is committed in the criminal's neighborhoods, and that you don't live tthere. To the CalGunners who are stuck living in these areas, the rest of us will pray for you.

BDD

BillCA
12-29-2008, 4:13 PM
Even in this you fail, nicki. "justify"? We don't have to justify crap. It's right there in the Second Amendment of our Constition in plain language.
While I agree with you that justification for ownership and our rights to "keep and bear" aren't necessary, I wouldn't characterize Nicki's post as "fail". Nicki is simply addressing the issue the way the typical California-liberal views it.

What's needed is a massive public (re-)education campaign. Full page ads and billboards with the Founders' own words emblazoned on them. TV spots about what the 2nd Amendment is REALLY about. TV spots directly contradicting the bs liberal spew about 'regulated' et al.
And you propose to pay for these ads.... how?

Plus I'll be happy to argue with you - privately - why using the Founders own words would be pointless in such an ad campaign.

And teh [sic] NRA needs to pry its a**es out of the Beltway and start taking their 'lobbying' efforts directly to the People, instead of playing their stupid games in the halls of power - so the People will quit electing gun-grabbers in the first place, instead of our ceaselessly having to counter that scum.

The NRA lobbying effort is one of the most effective in D.C., generally speaking. But any advertising campaign has to recognize that most Americans are not one-issue voters. Or that their "one issue" of importance may be something other than gun rights - pick one: Abortion, Illegal immigration, The War on Terror, the economy, Taxes, racism, death penalty, pollution, global warming/environment, etc. etc.

Ads will need to focus not on high falutin' concepts of liberty or thwarting a tyrannical government, but on how the 2nd Amendment can benefit people in their everyday lives.

Annie Oakley
12-29-2008, 6:12 PM
Who does that responsibility lie with? Is it with the person who views the material and needs to make a personal decision on how to react, if at all. Or does the responsibility lie in the hands of folks like you and me to make decisions on what is best for others? Isn't that what gun-grabbers are trying to do? Still not seeing the hypocrisy?

I don't have to. That is the beauty of this country.

You don't determine what is and isn't art, and we don't administer censorship based on the conformation to your world view. That is unfortunate for those that are scared of the real world, but for the rest of us, we call that freedom.

That freedom is protected by the Constitution. Just like our 2nd amendment.

Cafeteria Constitutionalism only serves your tray. If you don't like eating mashed potatoes, don't put them on your tray.


Final note, i often think the same thing when reading some of your posts. I don't want gun owners to be portrayed in the context of .50 Cent, but neither do I welcome the context that you often invite.

Hm, very interesting post. But why are you being so antagonistic ? The thread is entitled "Court of Public Opinion: Justifying Gun Ownership"

I was simply participating in the thread by expressing certain issues that could be conditions for why a significant number of people consider guns to be evil. However, you seem to have made this about me and your perception that I am attempting to protect the second amendment by infringing on the first. Perhaps you are angry at me for some reason, I can only guess why that might be. But the fact still remains that people will express their objection to private ownership of guns because of the negative impact that people like 50 cent has on gun ownership. Does that mean that we should step on the first amendment ? I don't believe that is the answer, but I do believe that boycotting offensive (my opinion) material like this would send a message to people like this and tell them that this is intolerable.

Unfortunately, it appears the reverse is true, and 50 cent and others are making a very good living from the enormous sales of this kind of material. Since people like 50 cent and their "art" are held in high esteem, do you think that people are buying this material because they like the message it sends? Do you think that some people are acting out what lyrics like this advocate ? Let's put ourselves in the position of people who only see criminals in their world with guns. If that's all you saw, would you be an advocate of gun ownership, or would you oppose private ownership ?

You expressed 50 cent's lyrics as art, yet you refuse to express to me what exactly is artistic about it. I won't press you on this, but if you make a statement, don't you think you should be prepared to justify your answer? Or do you always just say something without really having a reason ? As for a persons responsibility, I think both parties have the responsibility for this kind of material. The creator is responsible in that s/he made it, and the listener is responsible in that they advocate the creation of this material with their money.

As for my world, I am prevented from carrying an efficient means to defend myself because in the real world some people view gun possession as unacceptable, and those same people in the real world vote for politicians who assure those same people that the politicians will fight against the "evil NRA" and make them safe by taking guns off of the street. Meanwhile, criminals are carrying firearms, and are hurting people who are unable to defend themselves. I think that whatever media creates a negative message of gun ownership is lying and abuses their first amendment right, much like a person who uses a gun to commit crimes and abuses their second amendment right.

Meplat
12-29-2008, 7:07 PM
We should just shoot rappers on site. End of problem.:43:

yellowfin
12-29-2008, 7:20 PM
We should just shoot rappers on site. End of problem.:43:Their rivals, acquaintences, and occasionally fans take care of that.

Glock22Fan
12-29-2008, 7:49 PM
Media outlets are businesses, more often than not all you need do is pay the fee and they will air just about anything. . .

E-bay and PayPal are businesses too. Have you tried selling anything gun-related there recently? How about Craig's List?

How about a classified advert for, say, a Glock in your local paper?

Do I make my point?

yellowfin
12-29-2008, 9:33 PM
^ Ya know, that brings a question to my mind. Newspapers, TV stations, eBay, Paypal, etc... is it only anti gun people who always buy and run them, and if so, why? If they're businesses, why is it something that those who invest in businesses who are on our side seem seldom inclined to do so? I keep hearing time and time again that it's big rich and powerful people who are putting their anti 2A inclinations through whatever business outlets they can, particularly media. I hear the NY Times and several others are going broke. Would it be possible for someone on our side to buy it and make it a pro gun newspaper? Would they do so if told?

Canute
12-29-2008, 10:34 PM
I'd say the LAST thing to bring up is the second amendment.
"We should be allowed to carry because the Constitution says so!" doesn't come across very well.
I think a more general right to self defense works better. So would outlining the changes in the rest of the nation, contrasting them with the numbers from the absolute gun control measures of Australia and England.
I'm not sure if I would take a sensationalist or a rational approach. Probably a combination of the two. A lot of the stuff from the anti-gun lobby is pure distortion and emotional polemic. Rational discreditation of these distortions? Someone who's had a personal loss is a powerful spokesperson. Get the message across that disarming the law abiding doesn't stop the sick and sociopathological from using other means (including farm implements, gardening tools, sporting goods, or sheer numbers) to prey upon the rest of us. That in fact it only makes the innocent more vulnerable.
I grew up with some exposure to guns. We weren't big shooters or hunters, but I knew where they were and where the ammunition was. It just wasn't a big deal to me. A lot of immigrants and people who grew up in the city have no exposure besides the sensationalism in the news.
Funny I had to promise my wife not to bring ammunition into the house yet I've carried it around in front of her. She really has no clue. She came from China where only the government gets to use guns. I think in the old days (maybe even now) as long as you weren't a squeeky wheel life was safe but generally miserable. But stick your head up and get a bullet in it. She considers American culture to be pretty violent.
I want to try to get her out to a range but don't know if it's possible.

7x57
12-30-2008, 2:32 PM
I'd say the LAST thing to bring up is the second amendment.
"We should be allowed to carry because the Constitution says so!" doesn't come across very well.


I fear that's probably true, though it doesn't speak well of the long-term viability of the Republic.


Funny I had to promise my wife not to bring ammunition into the house


must...not...make...whipping...noises.... :-)

When we got married my wife didn't like guns. I made her shoot my rifle (only one at the time) and know how to unload it on the grounds that every person in the house old enough to be responsible needs to know how to safely handle and clear every weapon in the house. It's like knowing how to turn off the gas in case of earthquake.


She came from China where only the government gets to use guns....She considers American culture to be pretty violent.


First, it *is* pretty violent, that's just a statistical reality. The important point is that this is true for reasons quite unrelated to gun ownership. You can't compare, say, Japan and the US on any single issue, because the reasons for the different levels and kinds of crime are complex and cultural. That said, though, the meme of the US as a violent society and the way the perception is used is basically free advertising for the Brady campaign based on careful parsing of the data (and pretty much lying). Britain and Australia now have two to three times the rate we do, but I don't think very many people have any idea that this is true nor that their levels have soared over the course of the last century all the while the gun laws were getting stricter and stricter. Here, it dropped, and continued to drop while more and more states adopted CCW. Objectively, Britain is now a terribly dangerous society, but people still think it is as safe as the days when the bobbies were unarmed (back when, if anyone gave a cop trouble, all the nearby gentlemen would come to his aid with guns drawn and back up the rule of law like citizens are supposed to do). If she'll read a dry book, let her see Nemerov's "400 Years of Gun Control" book.

Second: whenever statistics are used to measure the violent tendencies in a society, they always seem to have some unspoken biases, or perhaps simply bad definitions of violence. Never accept the implicit exclusion of government violence. A society with a zero percent private crime rate but a high level of violence under the color of authority is a violent society.

Third, never accept bare murder rates as the measure of violence. If a private citizen can go to jail for assault for threatening violence, then we must not exclude the fear of public or private violence from the measure of violence. Should we call a society peaceful just because the armed thugs won completely and have completely subjugated the population? By those measures, China is a very violent place. The tanks in Tiananmen (sp?) square alone demonstrated that.

Finally, in terms of actual repression, official violence under color of authority is much more deadly to freedom and society than individual violence. The former is an assault on the very idea of society and rule of law itself.


I want to try to get her out to a range but don't know if it's possible.

For my wife, after we had a child I discovered that her real core belief about armed defense is not that she has the right to defend herself, though we've come around to that point. It really is that she has the right to defend her babies by whatever means necessary. Having children changed everything for her. That motivated her to go shoot a .22 with me, and that helped overcome her image of guns as dangerously unpredictable due to an unfortunate BB-gun incident when she was a girl.

I don't know if that made a difference for anyone else, but the "momma bear" instinct was very real for her. Don't mess with momma bear.

7x57