View Single Post
Old 01-11-2013, 3:58 PM
pMcW's Avatar
pMcW pMcW is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Morgan Hill
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by NytWolf View Post
You are forgetting one thing ... the anti's are not as logical as you would like them to be. They are driven by fear, not by logic. They are driven by what the media tells them, not by common sense.
Alan's whole point was that not everyone is either hardcore pro-gun or hardcore anti-gun, and that many people are undecided. (We had better hope he is right about that too!) They might lean toward "accepting restrictions of something exotic and unfamiliar" because they don't perceive that they have a personal stake in gun freedom because they do not own or want to own guns.

Theoretically speaking, if you had replaced Wayne La Pierre's speech with Alan Gura's speech or something that he would have come up with, do you think the gun control agenda people would be swayed?
Not DiFi, but maybe some of those folks in the middle.

His point was that there are some people out there that maybe could have been moved, not the hardcore anti-gun crowd, but some folks in the middle. The NRA probably did not successfully reach many of those people, and probably even alienated some... young gamers, for example.

Let's put this into perspective. Just for argument's sakes, let's put the gun control agenda at -10 (minus 10) on a number scale and put the NRA on +10 (plus 10). An equal compromise on both sides would bring the entire gun control argument to a 0 (zero). Now, knowing the pro gun control people is unlikely to budge, so their position stays at -10 (minus 10). Now to the million dollar question. Did La Pierre's speech move the NRA's position to any less than the +10 (plus 10) that they started? If Alan Gura had spoke in place of La Pierre, do you think the NRA's position would move to any less than +10 (plus 10)?
I don't really understand the "-10 to 10 scale" that you present here. Do you mean to imply that Alan was suggesting that NRA should have offered compromises on gun restrictions? I didn't hear that at all. I think NRA could improve its messaging while still holding the line against new restrictions!

I too would have liked to hear a more positive message about how "guns are about freedom" and "regular decent folks own and enjoy guns", instead of the suggestion that we all live in a war zone, where the bad guy is always coming with his guns, and especially without the blaming of video games and movies.
Questions about new laws? Seek answers here first: Assault weapons law? | Ammunition law? | Magazine law?

M1A, Mini-14, M1 Carbine, Garand? Not banned.

Remove BB or similar device after AW reg? We don't know.
(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). SB 880 | AB 1135
Reply With Quote