How much harm to the pro-2A camp did Charleton Heston's "From My Cold Dead Hands" do?

[SilverTauron]

That's cute and all, but chanting that mantra should never be used as an excuse to operate in a less than optimal manner. It should never be an excuse for remaining weak.

Wait, we're "weak"?

Assuming you're even on our side of the debate, "we" collectively halted gun control laws in Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington State. That's an amazing accomplishment considering its in the shadow of a mass killing of kindergartners. The UK went full speed ahead for civil disarmament after a comparable tragedy happened there.

What's weak is the fact that less then 10% of gun owners bother to join an advocacy group like the NRA. What's weak is the fact that as millions of people strategize how to turn us into the 21st Century version of England, we've got gun owners trying to help them do us all in.

[gruntbull]

Yep, the "blame video games and tv" rhetoric recently made me cringe. That's going to totally lose the young crowd (myself included) and plays into the idea of guns only being a "conservative old white people" thing.

The truth is more important, it always will be. For us younger guys (sub40) its only a matter of time until we see the valid point to this statement.

[Excelsior]

The truth is more important, it always will be. For us younger guys (sub40) its only a matter of time until we see the valid point to this statement.

You're absolutely right! Now I really don't know if playing violent video games has the potential to screw-up (or further screw-up) people to the point where they become violent. What I do know is that automatically discounting the possibility without further investigation because "so many play violent video games" is short-sighted at best, brain-dead thinking a worst.

[TRICKSTER]

If the NRA approached the discussion more like a civil rights organization, it would more effectively defend our 2nd ammendment rights.

They should be engaging other civil rights groups like the ACLU (who so far hypocritically refused to take a stance on gun rights) and try to use more facts and data rather than relying on being confrontational and visceral in their arguements with gun-control advocates. It is so ridiculously easy to debunk all the arguements made by the gun-control crowd with facts and numbers, but instead, the NRA leadership represents the interests of gun owners more like a lobbying group with a cowboy at it's head, and in doing so loses credibility with the mainstream... thus it's image problem.

Judging from a lot of the threads around gun-related websites though, that unintelligent feel-good approach seems to be what it's membership wants.

From the person who's screen name and avatar was banned from advertising because it was claimed to be offensive to hispanics.

[ogarcia_02]

I think it did indeed motivate some but it turned-off a great deal more because it was/is embarrassing. There were ways to motivate those that it appealed to without turning-off others.

There were more productive ways to use someone of CH's caliber to attract new members.

Anyone that was offended or turned off by that speech was not a 2A supporter to begin with. The phrase was used at an NRA convention! It was meant to motivate members to take action and fight back. So I guess now you have to be politically correct even when getting bent over to be stripped of your rights

Since it was so embarrassing and detrimental to gun owners can you please tell us what you have done to improve our conditions?

[ogarcia_02]

If the NRA approached the discussion more like a civil rights organization, it would more effectively defend our 2nd ammendment rights.

They should be engaging other civil rights groups like the ACLU (who so far hypocritically refused to take a stance on gun rights) and try to use more facts and data rather than relying on being confrontational and visceral in their arguements with gun-control advocates. It is so ridiculously easy to debunk all the arguements made by the gun-control crowd with facts and numbers, but instead, the NRA leadership represents the interests of gun owners more like a lobbying group with a cowboy at it's head, and in doing so loses credibility with the mainstream... thus it's image problem.

Judging from a lot of the threads around gun-related websites though, that unintelligent feel-good approach seems to be what it's membership wants.

Really...how's that been working out for us in California?

[RRangel]

If the NRA approached the discussion more like a civil rights organization, it would more effectively defend our 2nd ammendment rights.

They should be engaging other civil rights groups like the ACLU (who so far hypocritically refused to take a stance on gun rights) and try to use more facts and data rather than relying on being confrontational and visceral in their arguements with gun-control advocates. It is so ridiculously easy to debunk all the arguements made by the gun-control crowd with facts and numbers, but instead, the NRA leadership represents the interests of gun owners more like a lobbying group with a cowboy at it's head, and in doing so loses credibility with the mainstream... thus it's image problem.

Judging from a lot of the threads around gun-related websites though, that unintelligent feel-good approach seems to be what it's membership wants.

Drawing a line in the sand, that certainly needs to be done, is the only thing that gun prohibitionists violating constitutional rights seem to understand. It's the moral thing to do, when faced with those who make disingenuous claims of safety about a "discussion," that we supposedly need to have. Where the impetus always seems to be from the top down.

The mainstream is not called lamestream for no reason. As if the David Gregory set has credibility outside of their Utopian fallacy bubble world. Where such people can even break gun laws, that they expect to be enforced against those in flyover country, while they get an exclusive interview with Fast and Furious Obama.

[Excelsior]

Anyone that was offended or turned off by that speech was not a 2A supporter to begin with. The phrase was used at an NRA convention! It was meant to motivate members to take action and fight back. So I guess now you have to be politically correct even when getting bent over to be stripped of your rights

Since it was so embarrassing and detrimental to gun owners can you please tell us what you have done to improve our conditions?

So you say...

That, or they have enough sense to realize that not every pro-2A person is a revved-up "molon labe" fanboy of gun related hyperbole.

[TRICKSTER]

Poppycock. Any proof at all for your belief? While the attempt at managed controversy no doubt resonated (and resonates) with a small number, I'm quite certain a far larger number find it to be embarrassing.

Poppycock? You started this thread and still haven't posted ANY PROOF to back up any of your claims. How about at a minimum, you hold yourself to the standards that you expect of others.

[Extra411]

If the NRA approached the discussion more like a civil rights organization, it would more effectively defend our 2nd ammendment rights.

They should be engaging other civil rights groups like the ACLU (who so far hypocritically refused to take a stance on gun rights) and try to use more facts and data rather than relying on being confrontational and visceral in their arguements with gun-control advocates. It is so ridiculously easy to debunk all the arguements made by the gun-control crowd with facts and numbers, but instead, the NRA leadership represents the interests of gun owners more like a lobbying group with a cowboy at it's head, and in doing so loses credibility with the mainstream... thus it's image problem.

Judging from a lot of the threads around gun-related websites though, that unintelligent feel-good approach seems to be what it's membership wants.

On some level I agree with this, but this approach is not without its problems.

"Facts and numbers" are notoriously controversial when it comes to firearms, gun crime, etc. For example, most gun owners are already aware that there's no hard data in regards to the number of annual defensive uses of firearms. And then there's the issue of discerning correlation from causality, and in many cases a conclusion cannot be drawn. Pro-gun people would LIKE to say that increase of civilian ownership of firearms decreases violent crimes, and increase of restrictive gun laws promotes crimes, but such is speculative and inconclusive at best, as there are far too many factors other than firearms that contribute to the rise and decline in crime rates.
Finally, you'll end up getting into a dirty battle of which "facts and numbers" from which organization/publication you can trust, and which ones you can't, all the while groups like bloomberg/Brady are out there making up and spreading their own BS numbers (though pro-gun groups aren't innocent of that either). For the average person, I think it'd be more than a little exhausting to get to the "truth".

That's not to say some "facts and numbers" aren't helpful - they are. For example, FBI crime data does show that at the very least the increase in civilian firearm possession isn't responsible for MORE crimes. I just don't think it'll be as easy a battle as you presume if you want to stick to a "facts and numbers" approach.

Which brings me to the other approach - ideological. It's plain to see that "from my cold dead hands" is an ideological statement, and not a bad one either. You CAN certainly persuade people by making an ideological stand, although in this particular case it does require the listener to share in part with this same ideology. I thought it was appropriate, as it was done at a NRA convention (literally preaching to the choir), and it served to both motivate their base as well as affirming the NRA's determination to protect the 2A.

If it's not clear already, I believe it's erroneous to approach this with a pure "facts and numbers" strategy. Slavery did not go away because of "facts and numbers". It was an ideological battle based on philosophy and principle. The NRA is sometimes effective on this, and other times disappointing (both video games and mental health are dangerous grounds to tread, even if they serve as distractions in the short term). Their approach is not wrong; it just needs some refinement.