PDA

View Full Version : We're Reaching a Broader Audience


jdberger
08-01-2010, 6:17 PM
I saw something interesting in the parking lot at Chabot today.

A little Prius with the following bumper sticker.

http://www.nclrights.org/images/wrpr/nclr_logo.gif

The Prius I get. There are lots of them up here in NorCal. It was the sticker that threw (and heartened) me. I'm pretty sure that this was the first time the driver had been to Chabot since there was a sheet of notebook paper in the front passenger seat with directions. (I wasn't spying, but the car was parked next to mine and the top of the sheet said, "9999 Redwood Road". I'm simply observant)

I'd like to think that Calgunners have made it possible for people who've normally been wary of "gun-folk" to explore their interest in firearms and self defense.

And the bumper sticker means they're already politically active - which is always a plus.

Expanding our base......

We.
Are.
Winning.

(of course it could always have been an LCAV/Brady spy)

CCWFacts
08-01-2010, 6:23 PM
(of course it could always have been an LCAV/Brady spy)

Maybe, but I would hope that those groups would have enough clue not to use a car like that as a spy-vehicle. I think your main conclusion is correct: we are winning. The more diverse we are, the harder it will be for our opponents to dismiss us as angry uneducated white men. And it's always better to have a broader support base too. And hey, it makes it more fun and interesting too.

yakmon
08-01-2010, 6:24 PM
Pink pistols?

Doug L
08-01-2010, 6:36 PM
There've been threads here in the last few months discussing ways to 'broaden our audience,' but, sadly, they never seemed to develop into any plans or action.

I do agree, that that is an absolute must ('broaden our audience,' that is).

It is puzzling, that the anti-gun sentiment seems so strong here, espcially considering the popularity of TV shows and movies that feature gun use. There must be a way to capitalize on that media activity.

choprzrul
08-01-2010, 6:39 PM
Had to google the address. Good catch. I have no clue what the address is for my range, but I know how to get there. Had to drive there twice today after forgeting my ammo bag!

NotEnoughGuns
08-01-2010, 6:41 PM
There've been threads here in the last few months discussing ways to 'broaden our audience,' but, sadly, they never seemed to develop into any plans or action.

I do agree, that that is an absolute must ('broaden our audience,' that is).

It is puzzling, that the anti-gun sentiment seems so strong here, espcially considering the popularity of TV shows and movies that feature gun use. There must be a way to capitalize on that media activity.

Thats because in media guns are used only to hurt/kill people. When was the last time you saw a movie depicting guns in a good light? Its pretty rare. :(

JimWest
08-01-2010, 7:10 PM
One fundamental thing will bring everyone together in the ultimate broadened audience-FREEDOM. Underlying any bumper stick the meaning will be:

I'm gay and I can own a gun because in America, I'm FREE!
I'm black and I can own a gun because in America, I'm FREE!
I'm a Christian and I can own a gun because in America, I'm FREE!
I'm an atheist and I can own a gun because in America, I'm FREE!

Well, you get the idea. Oh, except I forgot:

I'm a politician and I'm in jail because I didn't think anyone believed in the Constitution!

cmth
08-01-2010, 7:19 PM
You would think that the LGBT crowd would be natural allies of the 2A crowd, seeing as how many of them have been the victims of very real hate and violence. Unfortunately, the conservative right, who are also in the 2A crowd, have done anything and everything they possibly can to alienate them from the movement. Being in the libertarian community myself, I have had some contact with groups like Outright Libertarians, and they do have a lot of pro-gun members, so there is some crossover, but not nearly as much as there should be. Gun owning gays are probably in the minority, and that's a shame.

Vox
08-01-2010, 7:28 PM
Gun owning gays are probably in the minority, and that's a shame.

up until recently almost 100% of the gays I knew were hardcore "Progressives" who fawn over the likes of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. They were all gay guys, but then I met a group of lesbians and two were pro-2A cops and the rest were all fairly conservative. Still, the liberal to conservative ratio of Gays that I know even in my conservative area of CA is pretty high.

Lulfas
08-01-2010, 8:13 PM
You would think that the LGBT crowd would be natural allies of the 2A crowd, seeing as how many of them have been the victims of very real hate and violence. Unfortunately, the conservative right, who are also in the 2A crowd, have done anything and everything they possibly can to alienate them from the movement.

:iagree:

Getting the conservative agenda far away from the gun rights movement is the easiest way to pull the crowds in. As long as people continue to mix the two, it will necessarily create a barrier to entry. Calguns Foundation (not the website) is one of the very few gun groups that doesn't have a heavy Republican slant (such as Gun Owners of America and, to a much lesser degree, the NRA).

Vox
08-01-2010, 8:38 PM
:iagree:

Getting the conservative agenda far away from the gun rights movement is the easiest way to pull the crowds in. As long as people continue to mix the two, it will necessarily create a barrier to entry. Calguns Foundation (not the website) is one of the very few gun groups that doesn't have a heavy Republican slant (such as Gun Owners of America and, to a much lesser degree, the NRA).

I occaisionally get a super Christian vibe from the NRA.

383green
08-01-2010, 9:36 PM
This is wonderful. Our movement is built upon ideals of ordered liberty and personal responsibility, and all who hold those ideals dear are welcome among us. :grouphug:

C.W.M.V.
08-01-2010, 9:48 PM
My wife just took her very, very, very gay friend to the range and taught him how to shoot her G17. It really was funny watching a grown *** man jump at the recoil of the mighty 9mm Luger:rolleyes:
But by the end of the day he was doing very well. He had such a good time he started asking me what types of pistols would be good for defense/carry and is considering getting his first.

So I guess its a good thing. Truth be told its a crowd I choose not to associate with, but the more we can enlighten about guns the better.
I never realized how many people were clueless about guns until I started working in a gun store. Its awful.

EDIT: Just to ask a question, is the term "Queer" kosher on this board?

tboyer
08-01-2010, 9:50 PM
I saw something interesting in the parking lot at Chabot today.

A little Prius with the following bumper sticker.

http://www.nclrights.org/images/wrpr/nclr_logo.gif

The Prius I get. There are lots of them up here in NorCal. It was the sticker that threw (and heartened) me. I'm pretty sure that this was the first time the driver had been to Chabot since there was a sheet of notebook paper in the front passenger seat with directions. (I wasn't spying, but the car was parked next to mine and the top of the sheet said, "9999 Redwood Road". I'm simply observant)

I'd like to think that Calgunners have made it possible for people who've normally been wary of "gun-folk" to explore their interest in firearms and self defense.

And the bumper sticker means they're already politically active - which is always a plus.

Expanding our base......

We.
Are.
Winning.

(of course it could always have been an LCAV/Brady spy)

Yes I think we are winning, this month Harpers Magazine had an
article on the writer obtaining a CCW

dantodd
08-01-2010, 9:58 PM
My wife just took her very, very, very queer friend to the range and taught him how to shoot her G17. It really was funny watching a grown *** man jump at the recoil of the mighty 9mm Luger:rolleyes:
But by the end of the day he was doing very well. He had such a good time he started asking me what types of pistols would be good for defense/carry and is considering getting his first.

So I guess its a good thing. Truth be told its a crowd I choose not to associate with, but the more we can enlighten about guns the better.
I never realized how many people were clueless about guns until I started working in a gun store. Its awful.

Good for your wife. And good for her friend. Tom Palmer, co-complaintant in Heller is a gay man who used a handgun to defend his life (in San Jose.) he is a senior fellow at the CATO institute.

You should re-think your decision to "not associate" with that "crowd." If you could look beyond the stereotype of all gay men being collectivist left-wingers maybe some of "them" will do you the same honor of not grouping you as a troglodyte "gun nut."

trashman
08-01-2010, 10:02 PM
Yes I think we are winning, this month Harpers Magazine had an
article on the writer obtaining a CCW

A co-worker just handed me said article on Friday - have it in my bag to read on the flight to work tomorrow.

It just goes to remind us how important it is to pull new shooters in from the center (or center-left) of the political spectrum. It will eventually cause the LCAV/Brady folks to make their (already shrill) message more and more shrill and less connected with reality.

They are self-marginalizing and I love it.

--Neill

trashman
08-01-2010, 10:05 PM
You should re-think your decision to "not associate" with that "crowd." If you could look beyond the stereotype of all gay men being collectivist left-wingers maybe some of "them" will do you the same honor of not grouping you as a troglodyte "gun nut."

Exactly. It is not possible to overstate this point.

--Neill

C.W.M.V.
08-01-2010, 10:07 PM
...You should re-think your decision to "not associate" with that "crowd." If you could look beyond the stereotype of all gay men being collectivist left-wingers maybe some of "them" will do you the same honor of not grouping you as a troglodyte "gun nut."

Not that it pertains to the thread, but...hey I call em as I see em, and they have the right to do the same. Every gay man Ive ever met has been a libtard. Show me a man who is strong, conservative, doesn't act like a damn woman and believes that the welfare of his country is the highest calling and Ill respect him regardless of his orientation. And I am in fact a gun nut, although I prefer the term Neanderthal to troglodyte as it is more universally understood.

tboyer
08-01-2010, 10:11 PM
My wife just took her very, very, very queer friend to the range and taught him how to shoot her G17. It really was funny watching a grown *** man jump at the recoil of the mighty 9mm Luger:rolleyes:
Yes, it is interesting how some large men will exclaim about the recoil
of the parabellum
In fact, it is so interesting that for the first shot I put my hands around
theirs, so that they don't drop the handgun, which can be a challenge
because of my small size 5" 3' 1/2
Had a guy drop my new HK p7m8 once.:eek: :mad:

383green
08-01-2010, 10:16 PM
Yes, it is interesting how some large men will exclaim about the recoil of the parabellum

I've never particularly liked shooting 9mm handguns. I find .45ACP to be much more pleasant to shoot. While a 1911 packs a big kick, the recoil and slide operation feel a lot less snappy than a 9mm gun to me. The dynamics of a full-frame 1911 just feel right to me.

pointedstick
08-01-2010, 10:54 PM
I occaisionally get a super Christian vibe from the NRA.

I get a super rural vibe from the NRA. It doesn't do much to dispel the urbanite antis' "uneducated racist redneck" stereotype.

Roadrunner
08-01-2010, 10:58 PM
It always good to see people finally get it, take the initiative, and stand up and take responsibility for their own self defense.

When it comes to the 2A, everyone that doesn't have a propensity for violence, and can use it responsibly, has the right and duty to carry a firearm for their own defense. One thing though, any person that chooses to have a firearm for self defense really needs to make sure they know what that entails. To put it bluntly, if they can't get in the mind set to kill someone that is trying to kill them, then having them as an ally really is irrelevant to me because they simply give the antis ammunition to use against me. So, when you take a person to shoot, hopefully everyone emphasizes to that person, regardless of who they are, the tremendous responsibility they are taking on by owning a firearm. I know that we tend to laugh at those that freak out at the mere presence of an unloaded firearm. Hopefully those that take an anti to the range rid them of the hoplophobia, but retain the healthy respect for firearms and the safety and responsibility that goes with ownership.

C.W.M.V.
08-01-2010, 11:02 PM
It always good to see people finally get it, take the initiative, and stand up and take responsibility for their own self defense.

When it comes to the 2A, everyone that doesn't have a propensity for violence, and can use it responsibly, has the right and duty to carry a firearm for their own defense. One thing though, any person that chooses to have a firearm for self defense really needs to make sure they know what that entails. To put it bluntly, if they can't get in the mind set to kill someone that is trying to kill them, then having them as an ally really is irrelevant to me because they simply give the antis ammunition to use against me. So, when you take a person to shoot, hopefully everyone emphasizes to that person, regardless of who they are, the tremendous responsibility they are taking on by owning a firearm. I know that we tend to laugh at those that freak out at the mere presence of an unloaded firearm. Hopefully those that take an anti to the range rid them of the hoplophobia, but retain the healthy respect for firearms and the safety and responsibility that goes with ownership.

One of the reasons I never shoot at anything but people shaped targets. I want to train people to shoot other people, not a bullseye. If they cant get past that they have no business owning a firearm for defense.

jdberger
08-01-2010, 11:24 PM
My wife just took her very, very, very gay friend to the range and taught him how to shoot her G17. It really was funny watching a grown *** man jump at the recoil of the mighty 9mm Luger:rolleyes:
But by the end of the day he was doing very well. He had such a good time he started asking me what types of pistols would be good for defense/carry and is considering getting his first.

So I guess its a good thing. Truth be told its a crowd I choose not to associate with, but the more we can enlighten about guns the better.
I never realized how many people were clueless about guns until I started working in a gun store. Its awful.

EDIT: Just to ask a question, is the term "Queer" kosher on this board?

As long as you don't use "queer" as a pejorative, I'm sure it's ok.

Regarding who you "prefer to socialize with" - sometimes you'll be suprised at how wrong your assumptions are. Give folks a chance to impress you with their rationality. Sometimes people adopt certain points of view simply because they haven't been exposed to an opposing thought.

I've had the opportunity to march in the last 2 San Francisco Pride Parades with Tom Boyer and the Pink Pistols. You'd think we'd be heckled. You'd think that the "progressive" sensibilities that you (rightly) allude to would lead the audience heckling us.

They didn't.

In fact, quite the opposite. We saw lots of people cheering us on, waving, nodding heads.... And people would sheepishly come up to us and want to talk to us about their guns - that they owned guns. It was like they were in the closet because no one had ever thought to tell them that gun ownership wasn't the sole province of the white redneck racist gay-bashing set.

C.W.M.V.
08-01-2010, 11:30 PM
As long as you don't use "queer" as a pejorative, I'm sure it's ok.

Regarding who you "prefer to socialize with" - sometimes you'll be suprised at how wrong your assumptions are. Give folks a chance to impress you with their rationality. Sometimes people adopt certain points of view simply because they haven't been exposed to an opposing thought.

I've had the opportunity to march in the last 2 San Francisco Pride Parades with Tom Boyer and the Pink Pistols. You'd think we'd be heckled. You'd think that the "progressive" sensibilities that you (rightly) allude to would lead the audience heckling us.

They didn't.

In fact, quite the opposite. We saw lots of people cheering us on, waving, nodding heads.... And people would sheepishly come up to us and want to talk to us about their guns - that they owned guns. It was like they were in the closet because no one had ever thought to tell them that gun ownership wasn't the sole province of the white redneck racist gay-bashing set.

Like I posted earlier, I call 'em like I see 'em. Its not like I introduce myself as "Hi Im Kc, are you gay? If you are I wont talk to you." Most of the time Ive been unlucky enough to only meet stereotypes. Like I said show me a mans-man and I have no problem with him. He starts getting all flame-ish and flaunting it, I just walk away.

Thanks for the clarification on the use of queer!

dantodd
08-02-2010, 12:21 AM
Like I posted earlier, I call 'em like I see 'em. Its not like I introduce myself as "Hi Im Kc, are you gay? If you are I wont talk to you." Most of the time Ive been unlucky enough to only meet stereotypes.

Perhaps you've met plenty of gay folk and just don't know it because they didn't fit your stereotype and you didn't ask.

C.W.M.V.
08-02-2010, 12:25 AM
Perhaps you've met plenty of gay folk and just don't know it because they didn't fit your stereotype and you didn't ask.

:rolleyes: Perhaps, but Ill never know and that's the way it should be. If one must air their dirty laundry in public and fit into a stereotype perfectly there is something wrong with that person.

BUT YES GETTING EVERYONE THAT WE CAN TO SHOOT IS A GOOD THING.

nicki
08-02-2010, 12:27 AM
Generally open members of the LBGT community tend to be in high crime urban areas where there is little, if any gun culture. Those urban areas have high crime rates due too misguided government policies that encourage criminal activity.

It is easy to blame the so called easy access to guns.

Tell a lie long and loud enough and it becomes the truth.
Of course some people question authority and that is where we will see the shift.

When your life is on the line, critical seconds count, 911 will get the police in minutes. That sinks in.

Me personally, I like the 1911 solution. A couple of double taps, attack stopped.

Nicki

Roadrunner
08-02-2010, 12:33 AM
Generally open members of the LBGT community tend to be in high crime urban areas where there is little, if any gun culture. Those urban areas have high crime rates due too misguided government policies that encourage criminal activity.

It is easy to blame the so called easy access to guns.

Tell a lie long and loud enough and it becomes the truth. people will start to believe it.

Of course some people question authority and that is where we will see the shift.

When your life is on the line, critical seconds count, 911 will get the police in minutes. That sinks in.

Me personally, I like the 1911 solution. A couple of double taps, attack stopped.

Nicki

Fixed it for you. A lie is a lie, no matter how many times you tell it.

Doug L
08-02-2010, 8:05 AM
...Our movement is built upon ideals of ordered liberty and personal responsibility, and all who hold those ideals dear are welcome among us.

Exactly!

NiteQwill
08-02-2010, 8:27 AM
I saw a Prius on the 405 the other day with a sticker that read:

If you can read this
Just because I own a Prius doesn't mean I'm not a member of the NRA. Back off.

It made me :D

Lulfas
08-02-2010, 8:49 AM
I occaisionally get a super Christian vibe from the NRA.

It is there, but I don't know if they mean to. Religious people often have a feeling that they need to talk about it, relate stuff to it, and in general be excessively open about it. As the NRA trends conservative, you are likely to get more religious people involved. Hence, you'll get it. Same reason you get them talking to random micro-county sheriffs about Border issues, which have nothing to do with gun control whatsoever. (saw it posted in off-topic, so blame them if the Border stuff isn't real)

Wherryj
08-02-2010, 9:24 AM
Maybe, but I would hope that those groups would have enough clue not to use a car like that as a spy-vehicle. I think your main conclusion is correct: we are winning. The more diverse we are, the harder it will be for our opponents to dismiss us as angry uneducated white men. And it's always better to have a broader support base too. And hey, it makes it more fun and interesting too.

I would say that the use of "uneducated" is already patently false. Such things don't seem to stop the anti-2A types.

OleCuss
08-02-2010, 12:00 PM
.
.
.
Me personally, I like the 1911 solution. A couple of double taps, attack stopped.

Nicki

You said it right. I don't want firearms owners to train to kill anyone, ever. I want them to train to stop the attacker with deadly force if necessary.

If you train to kill you'll make more mistakes. If you train to service the target and stop the threat - fewer mistakes.

Truly training to kill means that even if the guy/gal is bleeding on the floor and is incapable of posing a threat you'll execute them. It's just the wrong mentality.

You train with deadly force to stop the deadly threat from the bad guy.

If they die - too bad. If they survive, so be it. But you stop them whatever their survival status may be.

advocatusdiaboli
08-02-2010, 1:49 PM
I occaisionally get a super Christian vibe from the NRA.

Like putting Sarah Palin up as the keynote speaker? Yep--me too and I don't like it. Thomas Jefferson didn't believe Jesus Christ was the son of a god no less and he was a founder of this nation and the author of the Declaration of Independence. The NRA is about firearms--I wish they'd leave their religion out of it.

-hanko
08-02-2010, 2:42 PM
I get a super rural vibe from the NRA. It doesn't do much to dispel the urbanite antis' "uneducated racist redneck" stereotype.
Interesting.

I get a super "screw the US Constitution & let the government fix everybody's lack of intelligence regarding their 'poor choices'" from urbane urbanites.;)

Do you think my issue is living 7 miles from the nearest small town half the time?? It's somewhat confusing to me, as I spend the other half of my time in the middle of the SF peninsula.

The "urbanite antis'", as you phrase it, are generally too ignorant to form their own opinions, believe wholeheartedly what CNN purports to be news, and tend to keep the same politicians in power who opt to kill your 2nd Amendment rights.

I'd stereotype them as "Libtards".

-hanko

Lulfas
08-02-2010, 3:45 PM
Interesting.

I get a super "screw the US Constitution & let the government fix everybody's lack of intelligence regarding their 'poor choices'" from urbane urbanites.;)

Do you think my issue is living 7 miles from the nearest small town half the time?? It's somewhat confusing to me, as I spend the other half of my time in the middle of the SF peninsula.

The "urbanite antis'", as you phrase it, are generally too ignorant to form their own opinions, believe wholeheartedly what CNN purports to be news, and tend to keep the same politicians in power who opt to kill your 2nd Amendment rights.

I'd stereotype them as "Libtards".

-hanko

You went out of your way to insult people. We're trying to talk about reaching a broader audience. Randomly using insulting names to reference people who disagree with you just makes gun owners look worse. It doesn't matter what you say now, you're tarred as a person who can't handle civil discourse. You drag the entire group down with you.

-hanko
08-02-2010, 4:11 PM
You went out of your way to insult people. We're trying to talk about reaching a broader audience. Randomly using insulting names to reference people who disagree with you just makes gun owners look worse. It doesn't matter what you say now, you're tarred as a person who can't handle civil discourse. You drag the entire group down with you.
Context, context, context:sleeping: Not a very thought-out rant, here's why...

I responded to..." Originally Posted by pointedstick... I get a super rural vibe from the NRA. It doesn't do much to dispel the urbanite antis' "uneducated racist redneck" stereotype"

Are you saying you're not trying to reach people out of big city areas...note the counties in CA where CCW is easy v. impossible to obtain...would you characterize them generally as population centers or rural? Would you consider their populace as "uneducated racist redneck"??

Should I have taken offense to my living in a rural area equating me to an "uneducated racist redneck"?...hell, I have a master's in engineering, I'm fairly successful, and married a Hispanic lady.:eek:

Tell me why you think "Libtard" is more insulting than "uneducated racist redneck"...

A couple of definitions for you, both from the Urban Dictionary. Personally, I find both fitting...

Libtard

As repetitive as it sounds, it stands for "liberal retard." A libtard wants to live in a fantasy world (in which life is the way that they WISH IT WAS) as opposed to dealing with life the way it actually is. (This explains the religious fervor that many of them demonstrate when it comes to smoking pot).

The most idealistic libtard envisions a time when science/technology and Socialism will eliminate all poverty, hunger, war, disease, injustice, unemployment and prejudice. (It is a nice pipe dream but human nature will forever stand in the way of that goal).

Most libtards subscribe to the notion that "people are basically good", and build their foundation for activism and "improving the human condition" on that faulty premise. Because they deny the facts about human nature, their "reasoning" is diametrically opposite to common sense (blue states vs. red states).

The reality that people have different initiative levels, are basically selfish, and often work for their own interests before helping others, puts a libtard's panties in a wad. So, when citizens will not voluntarily comply with various libtard prescriptions for "the common good", then laws must be passed, or force used, to MAKE them comply. (It is the gradual path to totalitarianism). Likewise, his/her naïve cries of: "can't we all just get along...

and...

One of liberal politcal persuasion who wastes their entire lives *****ing about president Bush/conservatives/Christianity, or hunting for an opportunity to do so. Often very loud, uninformed, and annoying. Makes the Democratic Party look bad. Usually found on college campuses.

There are others. Btw, I've been a registered Democrat since I was old enough to vote.

-hanko

socal2310
08-02-2010, 4:46 PM
You should re-think your decision to "not associate" with that "crowd." If you could look beyond the stereotype of all gay men being collectivist left-wingers maybe some of "them" will do you the same honor of not grouping you as a troglodyte "gun nut."

It kind of depends on what he means by "not associate." I have had many homosexual acquaintances, but none who could be called close friends. I am willing to forgo preaching to them in favor of agreeing to disagree about the morality of their lifestyle. At the same time, there is some tension there since I actually believe that what they are doing is wrong, just as there is considerable tension when I discover an acquaintance is unfaithful to his wife. I won't refuse to speak to him, but I'm not going to invite him over for dinner either.

Ryan

CP562
08-02-2010, 5:19 PM
There are Libtards.....


then there are just plain ol tards.


:gunsmilie:

Lulfas
08-02-2010, 5:26 PM
hanko's entirely too long to quote last post

Pointedstick talked about dispelling a stereotype that hangs around pro-gun people. Your quote of him even refers to that. You simply insulted everyone who disagrees with you. If you can't see the difference, I don't know what to say.

Simple analogy: "We need to dispel the myth that all Rock Island Armory 1911 are poorly made pieces of crap."

Your response: "Glocks suck."

cmth
08-02-2010, 5:35 PM
We would all be living richer, much happier lives if only we could all make the choice to give up our fear, hatred, and irrationality. Humanity cannot advance to a higher state of moral understanding if we cannot let go of our prejudices. Learn to see people for what they are: individuals, who are entitled to be judged by their actions and their character, and not by the characteristics that make them different from one another. The only man who deserves to be held in contempt is the man who would initiate force against you.

BigDogatPlay
08-02-2010, 6:00 PM
Of course we always have to do everything we can to reach as many as we can. Yes we need to set aside stereotypes, prejudices and all of that. The media's portrayal of gun owners is always stilted. We know all that, and all too well.

But we also need to understand that there is a massive nation out there, with millions of NRA members, who think that anything that comes from California is automatically wrong... up to and including us. Don't believe go browse GunBroker ads for an hour or two. Trying to push the NRA into a mindset of being more like pragmatic Californians is not a recipe for success. Remember that, for the most part, our conservatives here in California are a shadow of what passes for conservative in the rest of the country.

Getting hinky feelings about the NRA being too close to religion.... well, bummer quite frankly. NRA membership does have a strongly religious component that wears it on their collective sleeves, hence the prayer breakfast at the annual meetings. I do not necessarily like it, I'm not a particularly religious guy so prayer breakfasts aren't my dance, and I choose to not attend them.

The association is also supposed to be apolitical... the measure for a politician to get NRAs support, Democrat or Republican, is to stand up for gun rights, nothing more, hence the tempest in a teacup that was the supposed NRA endorsement of Harry Reid.

Bottom line... I don't care if the new shooter I am working with is black, gay, a woman, straight, white, a Christian, a pagan, an atheist or whatever. I care that the person is interested in firearms and the shooting sports and it's my job to help them grow that interest. I check my spiritual beliefs and politics at the safety line on the range.

CaliforniaLiberal
08-02-2010, 6:01 PM
There've been threads here in the last few months discussing ways to 'broaden our audience,' but, sadly, they never seemed to develop into any plans or action.

I do agree, that that is an absolute must ('broaden our audience,' that is).

.....



IMHO, the very best plan of action to broaden our audience is personally, one at a time. Take a friend shooting for the first time, teach them safety and help them enjoy the experience. Demonstrate that gun lovers are not evil wannabe serial killers. At the very least you'll help change their opinion and attitude. At best you'll help make another gun lover.

mur
08-02-2010, 7:10 PM
It just goes to remind us how important it is to pull new shooters in from the center (or center-left) of the political spectrum.


I'm a moderate Democrat, just as most of my family and friends are.
None of them will reload nor will they slap NRA stickers on there cars.
They will not join a gun forum and they will not go hunting.
They will not wear gun shirts or have gun porn by the can.
However most believe in the right to Bear Arms and just about all of them own guns.
When we talk about CCW I have to admit we are more divided. Half of them believe CCW is a bad idea,
However asking them would it not be nice to have some type of assurance when walking through the park late at night, everyone says yes.
Pulling over more Dems is a lot easier than some people would like to think, it's all in the delivery....

Roadrunner
08-02-2010, 7:38 PM
Like putting Sarah Palin up as the keynote speaker? Yep--me too and I don't like it. Thomas Jefferson didn't believe Jesus Christ was the son of a god no less and he was a founder of this nation and the author of the Declaration of Independence. The NRA is about firearms--I wish they'd leave their religion out of it.

You're wrong and I can prove it. If you ever have an opportunity, read the Jefferson Bible which was made solely of quotes from Christ.

rabagley
08-02-2010, 7:53 PM
You're wrong and I can prove it. If you ever have an opportunity, read the Jefferson Bible which was made solely of quotes from Christ.

Jefferson believed that Jesus of Nazareth was a wonderful person with a line on the best ethics the world had ever (and would ever) see. But he did not believe that Jesus was divine. To Jefferson, the quotes he used in his book were not made by "Jesus (the) Christ" but "Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph".

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

Letitrip
08-02-2010, 9:45 PM
I know of many liberals that are actually pro-gun. Interesting to you all? In addition, at work i met a republican that was anti-second.

So from this I would suggest that some of you tone down your generalizations written on this forum. Those kinds of comments are a turn off to anyone coming here to be educated on their gun rights.

Roadrunner
08-02-2010, 10:24 PM
Jefferson believed that Jesus of Nazareth was a wonderful person with a line on the best ethics the world had ever (and would ever) see. But he did not believe that Jesus was divine. To Jefferson, the quotes he used in his book were not made by "Jesus (the) Christ" but "Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph".

You might want to try reading it in context before posting. In fact he just finished quoting John 1 from the Greek and suggested that Calvinists say that Jesus created the world when, according to Thomas Jefferson, God created the world. He also makes other assertions that I won't go into but this letter clearly shows that Thomas Jefferson did not reject Christianity. The paragraph that you take out of context is at the end of the letter, so you miss the entire message of the letter by quoting the tail end.

Letter to John Adams

Jefferson's letter to John Adams, from Monticello, April 11, 1823.

Dear Sir, — The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `mon Dieu! jusque à quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Dæmonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a dæmon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god. Now one sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians: the other five sixths then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation, are without a knowledge of the existence of a god! This gives completely a gain de cause to the disciples of Ocellus, Timaeus, Spinosa, Diderot and D'Holbach. The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of Cosmogony you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say then that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may for ever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it's parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it's distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in it's course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro' all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis. Some early Christians indeed have believed in the coeternal pre-existence of both the Creator and the world, without changing their relation of cause and effect. That this was the opinion of St. Thomas, we are informed by Cardinal Toleto, in these words `Deus ab æterno fuit jam omnipotens, sicut cum produxit mundum. Ab aeterno potuit producere mundum. — Si sol ab aeterno esset, lumen ab aeterno esset; et si pes, similiter vestigium. At lumen et vestigium effectus sunt efficientis solis et pedis; potuit ergo cum causa aeterna effectus coaeterna esse. Cujus sententiae est S. Thomas Theologorum primus' Cardinal Toleta.

Of the nature of this being we know nothing. Jesus tells us that `God is a spirit.' 4. John 24. but without defining what a spirit is pneyma o Theos. Down to the 3d. century we know that it was still deemed material; but of a lighter subtler matter than our gross bodies. So says Origen. `Deus igitur, cui anima similis est, juxta Originem, reapte corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum ratione corporum incorporeus.' These are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says `appelatio asomaton apud nostros scriptores est inusitata et incognita.' So also Tertullian `quis autem negabit Deum esse corpus, etsi deus spiritus? Spiritus etiam corporis sui generis, in sua effigie.' Tertullian. These two fathers were of the 3d. century. Calvin's character of this supreme being seems chiefly copied from that of the Jews. But the reformation of these blasphemous attributes, and substitution of those more worthy, pure and sublime, seems to have been the chief object of Jesus in his discourses to the Jews: and his doctrine of the Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of the 1st. chapter of John, in these words:

en arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton Theon kai Theos en o logos. `otos en en arche pros ton Theon. Panta de ayto egeneto, kai choris ayto egeneto ode en, o gegonen

Which truly translated means `in the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made'. Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word logos. One of it's legitimate meanings indeed is `a word.' But, in that sense, it makes an unmeaning jargon: while the other meaning `reason', equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal preexistence of God, and his creation of the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that `a word,' the mere action or articulation of the voice and organs of speech could create a world, they undertake to make of this articulation a second preexisting being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe. The Atheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and the simpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe. The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.

So much for your quotation of Calvin's `mon dieu! jusqu'a quand' in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our ancient Colleagues, and receive with them the seal of approbation `Well done, good and faithful servants.'

Let me also add the logos does mean word, not mind and many many scholars of the ancient greek language will not dispute this.

"Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

Having surfed the internet for this quote, I only find it among the atheists and not among any impartial groups. I might also add, that unlike Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Adams, there is no reference or even a date. So, until you can provide credible proof, Thomas Jefferson never said it.

wheels
08-02-2010, 10:39 PM
I would say that the use of "uneducated" is already patently false. Such things don't seem to stop the anti-2A types.

When my educated friends use "educated" or "education" as a podium to enlighten me I remind them that educated and intelligence are not synonyms.

rabagley
08-02-2010, 10:53 PM
You might want to try reading it in context before posting. In fact he just finished quoting John 1 from the Greek and suggested that Calvinists say that Jesus created the world when, according to Thomas Jefferson, God created the world. He also makes other assertions that I won't go into but this letter clearly shows that Thomas Jefferson did not reject Christianity. The paragraph that you take out of context is at the end of the letter, so you miss the entire message of the letter by quoting the tail end.

Your quotation of the full letter fully confirms my assertion and shows that, even in context, Jefferson still didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Nothing that you have stated substantiates your assertion, that Thomas Jefferson ever believed in the divinity of Jesus.

Jefferson, repeatedly made clear his belief that Jesus is one of the great wise men of history, but was never a divine individual. Modern Christianity is largely centered on the writings of Paul, but Jefferson had nothing good to say about Paul, who he claimed was the first deceiver about the nature of Jesus.

Just so we're clear, nobody in this thread is saying that Jefferson didn't believe in the same God as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed. He did. What we're saying is that he was not a Christian, which requires faith in the redemptive sacrifice of a divine Jesus the Christ to pay for the world's sins.

In case you're wondering, I myself am an atheist.

Roadrunner
08-02-2010, 11:28 PM
Your quotation of the full letter fully confirms my assertion and shows that, even in context, Jefferson still didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Nothing that you have stated substantiates your assertion, that Thomas Jefferson ever believed in the divinity of Jesus.

Jefferson, repeatedly made clear his belief that Jesus is one of the great wise men of history, but was never a divine individual. Modern Christianity is largely centered on the writings of Paul, but Jefferson had nothing good to say about Paul, who he claimed was the first deceiver about the nature of Jesus.

Just so we're clear, nobody in this thread is saying that Jefferson didn't believe in the same God as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed. He did. What we're saying is that he was not a Christian, which requires faith in the redemptive sacrifice of a divine Jesus the Christ to pay for the world's sins.

In case you're wondering, I myself am an atheist.

You should go back and read the letter again because he doesn't say that at all. In fact he claims to believe in intelligent design or creationism. His statement is made only after quoting John 1 in Greek and saying that he believes that unlike the Calvinists, he believes God created everything, not Christ. But you know what, even John says The LOGOS was present and in fact the LOGOS was God. So, not knowing the extent of Thomas Jefferson's command of Greek, I'll go with the recognized Greek linguists and scholars when reading the interpretations of the Greek New Testament.

I'm not going to give an elementary Bible study here, but the letter clearly says that his concern was that some Christians would take John 1 out of context and give atheists something to justify their unbelief in the Bible. So go back and carefully read the letter again, because it appears that you only read the parts that you thought supported your argument.

rabagley
08-03-2010, 12:04 AM
You should go back and read the letter again because he doesn't say that at all. In fact he claims to believe in intelligent design or creationism. His statement is made only after quoting John 1 in Greek and saying that he believes that unlike the Calvinists, he believes God created everything, not Christ. But you know what, even John says The LOGOS was present and in fact the LOGOS was God. So, not knowing the extent of Thomas Jefferson's command of Greek, I'll go with the recognized Greek linguists and scholars when reading the interpretations of the Greek New Testament.

I'm not going to give an elementary Bible study here, but the letter clearly says that his concern was that some Christians would take John 1 out of context and give atheists something to justify their unbelief in the Bible. So go back and carefully read the letter again, because it appears that you only read the parts that you thought supported your argument.

Again, you've substantiated the argument that Jefferson was a deist who believed in the same God as Abraham. Nobody disagrees with you. We all agree with you.

You have yet to substantiate the argument that Jefferson is a Christian, believing in a divine Jesus who died for humanity's sins.

If I am mistaken, you should feel free to highlight the part of the letter (or any writing) where he asserts the divinity of Jesus. I'll be back tomorrow to find out that you haven't done it (because Jefferson didn't believe that).

Roadrunner
08-03-2010, 12:17 AM
Again, you've substantiated the argument that Jefferson was a deist who believed in the same God as Abraham. Nobody disagrees with you. We all agree with you.

You have yet to substantiate the argument that Jefferson is a Christian, believing in a divine Jesus who died for humanity's sins.

If I am mistaken, you should feel free to highlight the part of the letter (or any writing) where he asserts the divinity of Jesus. I'll be back tomorrow to find out that you haven't done it (because Jefferson didn't believe that).

I could quote Jefferson till I get cramps typing and you wouldn't believe it. I've read Jefferson's letters, he has said that he is a Christian. You can believe whatever disinformation you choose. You're wrong and I see no reason to continue this exercise in futility.

jdberger
08-03-2010, 12:26 AM
and it looks like I've completely lost control of this thread...... :rolleyes:

Lesbians.

We were discussing lesbians, folks.

NiteQwill
08-03-2010, 12:35 AM
Religion. Bleh.

Remove religion from the world and we solve 98% of our problems.

Gray Peterson
08-03-2010, 12:37 AM
Religion. Bleh.

Remove religion from the world and we solve 98% of our problems.

I disagree. Besides, as long as there are tests, there will always be religion.

Good for your wife. And good for her friend. Tom Palmer, co-complaintant in Heller is a gay man who used a handgun to defend his life (in San Jose.) he is a senior fellow at the CATO institute.

You should re-think your decision to "not associate" with that "crowd." If you could look beyond the stereotype of all gay men being collectivist left-wingers maybe some of "them" will do you the same honor of not grouping you as a troglodyte "gun nut."

Don't forget me. I'm a gay man, and an open carrier to boot, I am currently working on a case which will destroy the notion of your state (or even your county) of residency determines whether or not you can exercise your RKBA right.

You'll thank me when you can go to any county in California and get a carry license rather than dealing with stupidity from the urban counties.

You would think that the LGBT crowd would be natural allies of the 2A crowd, seeing as how many of them have been the victims of very real hate and violence. Unfortunately, the conservative right, who are also in the 2A crowd, have done anything and everything they possibly can to alienate them from the movement. Being in the libertarian community myself, I have had some contact with groups like Outright Libertarians, and they do have a lot of pro-gun members, so there is some crossover, but not nearly as much as there should be. Gun owning gays are probably in the minority, and that's a shame.

Gun owning gays and lesbians are not a minority up here in Washington State.

and it looks like I've completely lost control of this thread...... :rolleyes:

Lesbians.

We were discussing lesbians, folks.

I have to agree. Let's try to steer this thread back to the proper direction. Religious debates of this form is not helpful to the subject at hand.

Wrangler John
08-03-2010, 1:28 AM
Hey, no big deal. I've been a member of Chabot for some decades now, and met many lesbians shooting there. Some centerfire rifle shooters, some pistol shooters, one builds custom rifles, one does custom commercial loading. Then you may ask, how did I know they were lesbians? Well, one can't live as long as I have without developing some discernment, it also helps to have worked in the horse show business.

One lady wasn't a lesbian but she had been a WASP pilot ferrying P-51's during WWII, my wife and I enjoyed her tales of learning to shoot her issue 1911.

You meet the most interesting people while shooting, come to think of it, that's where I met my wife 35 years ago.

spgripside
08-03-2010, 1:58 AM
Thanks Grey and Josh!

Mulay El Raisuli
08-03-2010, 7:16 AM
and it looks like I've completely lost control of this thread...... :rolleyes:

Lesbians.

We were discussing lesbians, folks.


Actually, I thought we were talking about expanding the ranks of gunnies. Of whom lesbians were only one aspect of that.


Yes I think we are winning, this month Harpers Magazine had an
article on the writer obtaining a CCW


And speaking of that effort, does Harpers have any of their stuff on-line? So that we can all read (and then share) this article?


The Raisuli

jdberger
08-03-2010, 9:16 AM
And speaking of that effort, does Harpers have any of their stuff on-line? So that we can all read (and then share) this article?


The Raisuli

I found it online - but I'm not sure if I want to link to it.

First, it's the intellectual property of the author and the magazine. They printed and published it in the hope that people would spend money on the magazine. Hopefully, the more magazines they sell, the more money the author makes.

Second, if Harpers, and other magazines see that publication of pro-gun articles drives up sales, they're likely to publish more pro-gun articles.

Part of our challenge in this fight is to make talk about guns ordinary and mundane. Make guns no more unusual than a lawnmower or 4 door sedan. It's hard to get people riled up about lawnmowers. Pro-gun (or neutral gun) articles in major publications (especially lefty intelligentsia ones) help us to accomplish that goal.

Third, given the latest wave of threatened litigation against forums and blogs for copyright infringement, I don't think that it would be beneficial to CGN to post an article here that's behind the pay wall at Harpers.

guayuque
08-03-2010, 9:29 AM
This is fantastic. There are threads where some spew vitriol against peole they think are "liberals" and assume they all fit one convenient mold that is anti-gun. That, I think, is a mistake. As one poster pointed out it puts up a barrier to inclusion. Pro 2A should be divorced from any political demgougery so that we can inlcude all and we can gather strength. As others have suggested making allies of certain sectors that people would otherwise label as "anti-gun liberals" strengthens what I believe should be a core quest in California - shall issue CCW.

I urge you all to reach out to family and friends that are "liberal". For instance, my wife's entire family was pretty anti-gun. Guess what? The nephews, in-laws, their friends, etc. usually now do the off-road little trips with me to go out and shoot skeet, target practice, etc. They enjoy it. I converted my neighbor as well. And, working on another pal whose wife is anti-gun but coming around. Hell, my wife who was anti-gun as you come because her later father was virulently anti-gun just bought her very own first handgun.

We make allies of these people by teaching them, showing them responsbility and showing them how to have safe fun. And, most of all not feeding the "angry white male" stereotype that is perpetuated when some of those among us engage in name calling.

Great thread.

CaliforniaLiberal
08-03-2010, 9:31 AM
Found more info on the Harpers magazine article. HAPPINESS IS A WORN GUN - My Concealed Weapon and Me By Dan Baum

In the latest issue of Harper's.

Sounds like an interesting article. More evidence that public opinion has started a slow shift away from the anti-gun point of view.

I say that there is light at the end of the Gun Control tunnel and it is not an oncoming train.


Here's a summary from the Harper's site. Might be worth the effort to get on down to the bookstore and buy a copy of their magazine. It would send an important message if they had a spike in newsstand sales.

http://www.harpers.org/PR/highlights/Highlights-2010-08.pdf


another discussion/summary

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x332576


and another

http://richmondguns.com/story/concealed-carry-harpers-magazine

guayuque
08-03-2010, 9:34 AM
I'm a moderate Democrat, just as most of my family and friends are.
None of them will reload nor will they slap NRA stickers on there cars.
They will not join a gun forum and they will not go hunting.
They will not wear gun shirts or have gun porn by the can.
However most believe in the right to Bear Arms and just about all of them own guns.
When we talk about CCW I have to admit we are more divided. Half of them believe CCW is a bad idea,
However asking them would it not be nice to have some type of assurance when walking through the park late at night, everyone says yes.
Pulling over more Dems is a lot easier than some people would like to think, it's all in the delivery....

Exactly the point. Putting a reasoned and calm face on the debate and reaching out to all demographics rather than childish name calling is the key.

GuyW
08-03-2010, 10:09 AM
Part of our challenge in this fight is to make talk about guns ordinary and mundane. Make guns no more unusual than a lawnmower or 4 door sedan. It's hard to get people riled up about lawnmowers.

Its even harder to get them to write articles about lawnmowers....

Winning in this context means ongoing, positive media about guns, gun people, safety via guns, etc

.

cmaynes
08-03-2010, 10:40 AM
the right of self defense is a natural law right. We need to stand for it in every venue- whether it is for the Gay/Bi/TG community or any other- as long as the people are law abiding citizens they need to be supported-

CP562
08-03-2010, 10:58 AM
Found more info on the Harpers magazine article. HAPPINESS IS A WORN GUN - My Concealed Weapon and Me By Dan Baum

In the latest issue of Harper's.

Sounds like an interesting article. More evidence that public opinion has started a slow shift away from the anti-gun point of view.

I say that there is light at the end of the Gun Control tunnel and it is not an oncoming train.


Here's a summary from the Harper's site. Might be worth the effort to get on down to the bookstore and buy a copy of their magazine. It would send an important message if they had a spike in newsstand sales.

http://www.harpers.org/PR/highlights/Highlights-2010-08.pdf


another discussion/summary

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x332576


and another

http://richmondguns.com/story/concealed-carry-harpers-magazine

I've also stumbled upon a pdf copy of the full article on another site...PM me for a link, if that's OK with the mods.

stag1500
08-03-2010, 11:45 AM
There've been threads here in the last few months discussing ways to 'broaden our audience,' but, sadly, they never seemed to develop into any plans or action.

That's going to happen by default. The more court cases we win, especially the big ones that get the most national attention, the more the general public will accept that the RKBA is a normal part of our society. What is going to happen over the next few years will be very similar to what happened in the years that followed the decision in Brown v. Board of Education and the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Discrimination became taboo as will gun-control.

yellowfin
08-03-2010, 11:50 AM
If I had to guess, magazines and some journalists may finally be waking up to the fact that they can't ignore that while a lot of their profession may be in NYC and LA, at least 50% of their potential readership isn't.

sharpie613
08-03-2010, 12:01 PM
If you want to not be called rednecks and backwood hicks for owning guns, don't use terms like libtard, or tard for that matter. Slurs aren't very inclusive.

Vox
08-03-2010, 12:03 PM
You said it right. I don't want firearms owners to train to kill anyone, ever. I want them to train to stop the attacker with deadly force if necessary.

If you train to kill you'll make more mistakes. If you train to service the target and stop the threat - fewer mistakes.

Truly training to kill means that even if the guy/gal is bleeding on the floor and is incapable of posing a threat you'll execute them. It's just the wrong mentality.

You train with deadly force to stop the deadly threat from the bad guy.

If they die - too bad. If they survive, so be it. But you stop them whatever their survival status may be.

That's something I'm constantly trying to teach my less educated friends. It's not about killing it's about stopping a threat. I made my buddies mom promise me that she wouldn't use her weapon in self-defense if she was going to TRY TO KILL a goblin after the way she was talking. Instead I want her to have my buddy deal with it (plus he's a better shot). The two in the chest one in the head stuff a friend of mine was talking about got into a long argument as well and it turns those who are anti because they don't know much against us when proper discssions of the technique makes them more comfortable.

383green
08-03-2010, 12:05 PM
If you want to not be called rednecks and backwood hicks for owning guns, don't use terms like libtard, or tard for that matter. Slurs aren't very inclusive.

:iagree:

Sanctimonious bile isn't endearing, even when it's coming out of somebody on your own side of the argument.

yellowfin
08-03-2010, 12:19 PM
If you want to not be called rednecks and backwood hicks for owning guns, don't use terms like libtard, or tard for that matter. Slurs aren't very inclusive.Sure that's a consideration for those who don't know which side to take or don't know any better. With far more of the problem it's long past a matter of how nice we are, though.

trashman
08-03-2010, 12:19 PM
Found more info on the Harpers magazine article. HAPPINESS IS A WORN GUN - My Concealed Weapon and Me By Dan Baum


I read the article on the plane ride last night; it is indeed interesting, and the author gets a lot of stuff right although there is a little bit of slightly cringe-inducing language describing that the "sensual pleasure of handling guns is a big part of the habit...they are deeply satisfying to manipulate" and "even the word gunfight is sexy". It made me laugh out loud a little bit.

Dan writes:

...anyone who tells you he has no fantasy life constructed around his gun either has been packing it for as long as he's been watching television or is flat-out lying.The author also touches on the Open Carry, and UOC movements. He writes about the nature of the open carry movement -- and comments:

[Mike Stollenwerk] wants more people carrying handguns openly because "we want everybody to have that right". Wearing guns openly so you can wear guns openly sounds to me like the old Firesign Theatre joke about the mural depicting the historic struggle of the people to finish the mural.:p
--Neill

Roadrunner
08-03-2010, 12:56 PM
That's something I'm constantly trying to teach my less educated friends. It's not about killing it's about stopping a threat. I made my buddies mom promise me that she wouldn't use her weapon in self-defense if she was going to TRY TO KILL a goblin after the way she was talking. Instead I want her to have my buddy deal with it (plus he's a better shot). The two in the chest one in the head stuff a friend of mine was talking about got into a long argument as well and it turns those who are anti because they don't know much against us when proper discssions of the technique makes them more comfortable.

However, from what I've been told, police train that way in case a criminal that is attacking them, is wearing a bullet proof vest. I've also been told that it may be the only way to stop an attacker who is on certain drugs, or who is just resistant to dieing. At any rate, police do train to shoot someone in the head because it is the most effective way to stop someone from attacking you.

No sane and nonviolent person wants to kill anyone. But anyone who carries a firearm for self defense needs to be told and occasionally reminded that using a firearm against another person is using deadly force. I might also add that not emphasizing that fact is a recipe for mental problems in the future for the shooter if their attacker dies. Because a firearm IS deadly force, you are in fact shooting to kill. If you happen to stop the threat and not kill your attacker in the process, so much the better. According to cops I know, the term "shoot to stop" was an exercise in verbal judo years ago to side step hungry trial lawyers that were trying to deep pocket cities when some thugs family saw dollar signs because their poor poor misunderstood son was killed when the man ruthlessly killed him because he shot at them first (sarcasm alert). So, using the term, shoot to stop, is fine if you are defending your freedom or your wallet. But lets be realistic, if you ever feel that your life or the life of your family is in danger, you will be using your gun to kill your attacker, because you will not be merely shooting to wound or any of that TV crap. If your attacker lives after he has stopped attacking, then it just wasn't his day to die. It's just that simple.

Vox
08-03-2010, 1:42 PM
However, from what I've been told, police train that way in case a criminal that is attacking them, is wearing a bullet proof vest. I've also been told that it may be the only way to stop an attacker who is on certain drugs, or who is just resistant to dieing. At any rate, police do train to shoot someone in the head because it is the most effective way to stop someone from attacking you.

...because you will not be merely shooting to wound or any of that TV crap.

I can't speak for any orgnization than that which I've been a part of. In Infantry OSUT they taught "shoot for center mass" though for them the emphasis was kill rather than "stop the threat" and in the current police training I'm going through (CA Modular POST Academy) I've been told repeatedly to "shoot to stop", yes, in part as verbal judo for any trials but in part because that's really the goal, "we" as police officers are not judge jury and executioner. The only time "we" are allowed to do anything where the sole purpose is to end the life is on a death warrant sign by the governor.

I have also heard that admitting to "shoot to wound" is something that can get you in trouble if the attacker then dies, it makes it seem like you're either a bad shot or it gets turned into a malicious torture scenario with you as the bad guy. While these reports were unsubstantiated at the time they were made to me it doesn't seem lie a stretch some evil LCAV type lawyer would try something along those lines.

Roadrunner
08-03-2010, 9:16 PM
I can't speak for any orgnization than that which I've been a part of. In Infantry OSUT they taught "shoot for center mass" though for them the emphasis was kill rather than "stop the threat" and in the current police training I'm going through (CA Modular POST Academy) I've been told repeatedly to "shoot to stop", yes, in part as verbal judo for any trials but in part because that's really the goal, "we" as police officers are not judge jury and executioner. The only time "we" are allowed to do anything where the sole purpose is to end the life is on a death warrant sign by the governor.

I have also heard that admitting to "shoot to wound" is something that can get you in trouble if the attacker then dies, it makes it seem like you're either a bad shot or it gets turned into a malicious torture scenario with you as the bad guy. While these reports were unsubstantiated at the time they were made to me it doesn't seem lie a stretch some evil LCAV type lawyer would try something along those lines.

I completely agree, the cops I know would never consider themselves to be judge, jury, or executioner. However, when someone is attacking you, whether it's with a gun or a knife, I also understand that you just want the attacker to stop attacking, and that means using whatever you have available to you to make them stop by any means possible. But we have to appreciate what that means. If you use a firearm to make the attacker stop the attack, you have made the decision to take the attackers life to protect yours or the life of an innocent victim. I'm not suggesting that you can't substitute kill for the less aggressive stop. But I wouldn't be so quick to tell the people you are teaching that they're not trying to kill their attacker, they are merely trying to stop them. In my opinion, that opens up a whole lot of cans of worms, to and including some Charlatan attorney putting a persons head on a chopping block for killing and not wounding. If I was to ever get caught up in a situation like that, I don't think I would tell anyone I was trying to kill my attacker. I would probably tell them I was so freaking scared of being killed by what d-bag was doing, that I used my firearm because I had no other adequate means to make them stop doing what they were doing to hurt me. So I agree with you, I just think you need to explain that to the person you teach.

KylaGWolf
08-03-2010, 10:15 PM
I've never particularly liked shooting 9mm handguns. I find .45ACP to be much more pleasant to shoot. While a 1911 packs a big kick, the recoil and slide operation feel a lot less snappy than a 9mm gun to me. The dynamics of a full-frame 1911 just feel right to me.

I find a 1911 to have less recoil than my HK USP Compact 9mm.

I am glad we are winning. One way we as a gun community can reach out to a more diverse crowd is to leave the stereotyping at the door. No matter what group a person is in color, religious belief or sexual orientation each person is different. There is no one size fits all when it comes to any of us in the human race. Unfortunately it seems that within the gun community and 2A community there tends to be a bit of well my rights are important but if you are x, y or z then your not as worthy as I am.

Why not hold shooting clinics in your community to reach out to the diverse members of your community such as a self defensive shooting class or even just a self defense class. How about in those communities that are lucky enough to be shall issue hold a seminar in how one can apply for ccw and give a short class on the legal ramifications. Then have those forms there and help anyone interested in filling one out. How about seeing if you can speak at group meetings to offer the olive branch as it were to show that those that are in the pro second amendment movement are not what the liberal press portrays us as.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-05-2010, 7:57 AM
I found it online - but I'm not sure if I want to link to it.

First, it's the intellectual property of the author and the magazine. They printed and published it in the hope that people would spend money on the magazine. Hopefully, the more magazines they sell, the more money the author makes.

Second, if Harpers, and other magazines see that publication of pro-gun articles drives up sales, they're likely to publish more pro-gun articles.

Part of our challenge in this fight is to make talk about guns ordinary and mundane. Make guns no more unusual than a lawnmower or 4 door sedan. It's hard to get people riled up about lawnmowers. Pro-gun (or neutral gun) articles in major publications (especially lefty intelligentsia ones) help us to accomplish that goal.

Third, given the latest wave of threatened litigation against forums and blogs for copyright infringement, I don't think that it would be beneficial to CGN to post an article here that's behind the pay wall at Harpers.


All real good points.


The Raisuli

yellowfin
08-05-2010, 3:14 PM
It seems we lost a lot of public appeal by having had an unfilled void left by Herb Parsons and the classic shooting generation of the 50's. They reached out to the public just fine without things getting complicated.

jokat989
08-07-2010, 10:53 AM
Pink pistols?

ill take pink pistols over bullet buttons any day

Vox
08-07-2010, 1:48 PM
So I agree with you, I just think you need to explain that to the person you teach.

Oh I do. When talking in a personal setting I much more strongly emphasize the "Shoot until the bad guy no longer poses a threat" and that yes, that will mean that you'll kill if you get enough enough firefights and that you must be 100% willing to kill bad guys dead. But in more open discussions I'm fond of being clear that that's not the actual intention so as not to affect negatively the public opinion of gun owners as people who just want to kill other people.