Question of the Day: How Do The People of the Gun Change the Optics?

Gun range (courtesy goodcleanfunlife.com)

DrVino wonders “why are are highly restrictive gun laws that severely infringe on 2A rights called ‘tough?’ Are we viewed as a collective rabble of unruly and misbehaved children?” Here’s a clue from a recent New York Times editorial: “In a particularly egregious display of insensitivity and arrogance, cocky celebrants of gun rights packed their weapons openly and legally this month on the streets of Newtown, Conn., where a shooter gunned down 20 schoolchildren and six adults last December. Similarly swaggering gun enthusiasts showed up this summer in Aurora, Colo., to protest new gun controls even as residents were commemorating the 12 people killed and 70 wounded last year when a gunman invaded a moviehouse.” So we’re swaggering simpletons clinging to our guns and our bibles, then. [Not shown.] How do we counter that view?

 

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

101 Responses to Question of the Day: How Do The People of the Gun Change the Optics?

  1. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    I have a T-shirt, on which I had printed the following:

    “I carry a gun, and will
    gladly risk my life
    [Silhouette of a TT-33]
    in defense of those
    who don’t or won’t.”

    While I don’t wear it at work, I do wear it now and again. We are each of us an ambassador, or should be.

    It’s an idea.

    • avatarFred says:

      Unless you’re a woman or minority it won’t do any good. You’ll just be seen as another OFWG that is a crazy bible thumping idiot. Also, I wouldn’t advertise I carry for safety reasons. You want to blend in with everyone else for two reasons, 1. you won’t be a target, 2. if it ever comes up you can show them you’re just like them, a normal person. I doubt anyone on the fence or any anti-gunner would stay near you let alone talk to you with a shirt like that.

      The greater image is mostly out of our control, though. For decades guns have been shown as for bad guys and good guys only, anyone that isn’t mil/Leo is a criminal, a criminal in waiting, a wannabe cop that will get in the way and harm innocent bystanders, or the more recent development a mass shooter one argument away from snapping. Responsible gun owners don’t make the national news and would reduce movies to five minutes. Movies, just like democrats, need helpless victims to operate.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        Actually, it’s started quite a few conversations — a good number of which went well.

        While it might make me an early target in a nascent mass shooting, I find that to be an acceptable risk — especially as I do not always wear it.

        It certainly shouldn’t make me a target for a random robbery.

        A casual observer won’t know that my military experience is as an associated civilian and that I’ve never been law enforcement, and indeed many presume that I’m former military.

        ‘Round here, it works. YMMV.

        As I said, it’s an idea. It’s hardly the only idea.

        • avatarFred says:

          I’m glad you’ve had success in the past, that probably has more to do with your personality than anything else. From my experience the “gun shirt guys” have too much contempt and not enough patience to turn a conversation in a positive way. Sorry for the stereotype-based comment.

          As for the “target comment”, advertising yourself as a “gun guy” may make you a target for crime as well, such as firearm theft at home or in the car. That has a greater probability than the statistically insignificant chance of being in the same state as a mass shooting.

        • avatarRalph says:

          I have a T-shirt that says “Retired, But Will Work For Beer.” My aims are a bit more modest than defending the downtrodden, and these days beer is cheaper than ammo.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          That’s fair, but a risk I’ll take.

          I typically wear it at fairs, in amusement parks (where legal) and so-on.

          I think of myself as being in the Foreign Service of the Nation of the Gun.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Ralph, you always amuse the Hell out of me.

          Now, how about a fair trade for the shrimp…?

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        A gun played very realistically in Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rope,” f’rinstance. It does happen.

        However, you are unfortunately correct.

        I do seriously wish that at least a few DGUs would make the headlines…

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        Gods rot it! The SPAM erradicator ate a post because I correctly spelled Hitchc0ck.

        Was WordOppress written in the California Assembly…?

        Hmmm… California Assembly Language. A thousand computer jokes present themselves for inspection.

        • avatarJohn L. says:

          California assembly language … And here I thought you were talking about politician-speak!

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

           CR EQU $0D    ; carriage return
           PR EQU $SYS_PRT ; character output routine
           ;
            LD HL, TXT ; what to print
           ; 
           LOOP  LD A, (HL) ; dip the spoon
            AND A   ; set zero flag from byte read
            RET Z   ; end of text if zero
            CALL  PR   ; output char
            INC HL ; point to next char
            JR LOOP ; repeat
           ;
           MSG DB “We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia!”, CR, 0
          ;
          END

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Drat! The formatting got whacked and I made an error. Ah, well…

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        O.K. Duplicate post, edited for idiotic software.

        An excellently realistic use of a gun was in Alfred ahitchc0ck’s “Rope,” and it’s hardly alone.

        Unfortunately, though, for the most part you are indeed correct.

        We must needs reach out with every tool at our disposal, without ceasing and with the conviction that we are helping those we would teach.

      • avatarBDub says:

        I used to repeatedly get into arguments about carrying a firearm with a friends room-mate. He would insist that it was too dangerous to the carrier and those around him, that guns go off all the time on their own, that an armed civilian can do little to protect themselves or others from armed criminal attack. His little tirades have gone on for more than a year now. I have yet to inform him that I have been carrying a concealed weapon on my person every single time one of these conversations has happened – every time we have all gone to lunch together. It just warms my tummy too much to let go of the secret, just yet anyways.

  2. avatarSwarf says:

    Ho do we counter that view?

    I’m going to go with, stop doing aggressively obnoxious things like having open carry rallies on the anniversaries of mass shootings at the sites of those shootings.

    Maybe start there.

    • avatarJandrews says:

      Yeah. That isn’t helping.

      The primary problem is that emotional reaction isn’t countered with logical sense. If you sit a grabber down and make them defend their position with evidence and statistics from valid sources, it falls apart quickly. They’re left with emotional appeals only.

      In other words, it’s a lot like arguing with an angry wife/girlfriend. Yeah, I said it.

      But the point is, the discussion has to leave emotional terms to go anywhere meaningful. For a significant minority of people, that won’t ever happen.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      At least in Newtown it wouldn’t have been the anniversary.

      It’s a tough call when a banning party coincides with some sort of memorial ceremony.

      A little sensitivity wouldn’t hurt, however we must needs step up outreach efforts. Tactful outreach.

    • avatarpwrserge says:

      Arguing with the insane serves no purpose. These clowns need to be slapped down and slapped down hard. If Heller did not send a strong enough message, maybe we need to turn up the volume. I would challenge the NFA and all subsequent legislation on constitutional grounds as often as it takes.

  3. avatarRalph says:

    We can start by not buying the Times, not purchasing any products that are advertised in the NYT, PMSNBC or the other competitors of Pravda, voting out the scvm svcking pigs that pass stupid anti-gun laws and telling the gungrabbers to go fvck themselves.

    BTW, I haven’t seen a lot of swaggering by gun owners. That’s more the style of cops.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      You are insulting the post-1989 Pravda. It is probably a more accurate source of news then the NYT or any MSM organ.

      • avatarfanfare ends says:

        As much as Putin’s lapdog news machine may appear more appealing to us than the Obama-polishing media here, please don’t fail to notice that a painter who satirized Putin last week had to flee Russia.

        https://startpage.com/do/search?q=painter+flees+russia

        That should be a reminder to us that Obama’s frog-boiling of our liberties must be constantly battled, as the only thing that keeps him from going full Stasi on us is our taking advantage of the 2nd Amendment…

  4. avatarShawnK says:

    How about we propose a law that if an individual is assaulted or killed in a gun free zone then the proprietor of that building can be held accountable for failure to fulfill their obligation to protect those individuals under their protection.

    • avatarAndrew says:

      Shawn,

      I think you’re genuinely onto something there…

      The premise of a gun-free zone is that the building’s authority (i.e. owners) have decreed it as such and since they have made it a tenet of the buildings code of conduct, it is up to them to enforce such a code.

      The more I think about this the more I am genuinely shocked nobody has sued a school or mall yet for not enforcing their “gun-free zone” edict.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        Fie! Fei! Fo! Fum! I smell the blood of progressive scum!

        Spell class action…

      • avatarByte Stryke says:

        I Completely concur with private property rights as ‘Not for public access”

        HOWEVER, that being said, if you own property intended for public access and you deny the civil rights of self defense YOU suffer the burdens of liability.

        That plastic sign you stuck to the door doesn’t count

    • avatarJoe says:

      That’s the law in Wisconsin!

    • avatarJames St. John says:

      Google “gun-free zone liablity act”

    • avatarRich Grise says:

      Hear, hear!

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      You hit the bullseye! The “duty to protect from harm” concept is the one at work when we see adequate lighting in parking lots and “Help” callboxes just about everywhere. Tons of successful lawsuits support that.

  5. avatarLeadbelly says:

    At this point I believe that the editors of the New York Times are progressively surrendering any reputation or credibility they have ever held as a NATIONAL leader or arbiter in public affairs.

    I’m retired, and a heavy consumer of print and on-line news, and over the past few years The Old Grey Lady has drifted further and further from (an admittedly tenuous) American Concensus, on more issues than guns.

    Given time, they will likely self-destruct in the natural course of the ongoing and accelerating information earthquake the techies have perpetrated upon us all.

    • avatarRalph says:

      I also remember the good old days when the Times could be found in every outhouse in the Northeast. It was cut into rectangles and left hanging on a hook.

      Today, it’s not worthy of such use.

    • avatarHobbez says:

      All the big newspapers are just about dead. Morals go out the window when your drowning and know your about to die.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      Grey lady down.

  6. avatarPeirsonb says:

    It’s going to take baby steps. I’m still a believer that so many people are afraid of guns not because of intentional brainwashing, but incidental brainwashing. They haven’t been exposed to guns, have never fired one, and many have never actually seen one. They have no other perspective, so when the MSM vilifies guns and those that own them they accept it.

    When confronted by someone like this I’ve had the best results in maintaining a calm demeanor and presenting the side of the story that the MSM doesn’t. On occasion I’ve had the opportunity to take this type of person to the range. While they may not have become a bona fide member of the POTG I like to believe that I’ve at least softened their anti-gun stance.

  7. avatardarkstar says:

    I don’t know that that view can be changed by the anti crowd. They have a head full of notions and ideas of what guns and gun owners are. It’s been my experience that the only way an anti gun type changes is if they have become a victim of a crime.

    • avatarRalph says:

      50 years of indoctrination cannot be reversed or changed. We just have to wait for the schmvcks to die off while we indoctrinate their children through movies, video games and any other means legally at our disposal. I would add books to the equation, but with all that indoctrination going on in the schools there hasn’t been a lot of time left over for actual teaching. But hey, there’s always manga. You can be illiterate and still enjoy a comic book.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      There aren’t a lot of antis. Not really.

      There are a bunch of misinformed and underinformed who are easily led.

      It’s akin to the burning of heretics. A lot of people convinced they’d be “damned” if they didn’t do what a few really evil, ugly, greedy, stupid people in authority told them to do.

      The collectivist anti-freedom movement is very like a religion, with a Priesthood, a cadre of acolytes and the largely ignorant masses “doink vot they are tolt” for fear of a damned straw man.

      The first thing we must take to heart is that a run of the mill “anti” is a friend-to-be in need of enlightenment.

      Compassion, patience, respect and an even temper work far more often than they don’t.

      • avatarAndrew says:

        I would invite everybody to read the comments below the op-ed.

        90% of them have not just drank the kool-aid, they’re swimming in the damn tank.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          I don’t doubt it, but for every commenter there are a hundred on the sidelines.

          Also, keyboard kommandos might behave differently in person, when not in a position to employ anonymous bravado and faced with a very human opponent.

      • avatarSkyMan77 says:

        +1 Russ

        “Compassion, patience, respect and an even temper work far more often than they don’t.”

        And at the very least this might just heap burning cold on their heads and make them re-think things a bit…

        I sure am in good company here at TTAG… Thank you and God Bless!!!

        • avatarSkyMan77 says:

          Coals!!! Not cold… Apologies..

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          You’re welcome, and thanks y’rself.

          I read “burning cold” as a bucket of ice water. It kinda works either way.

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          And a bucket of ice water is a lot less likely to do actual harm.

          I don’t advocate the infliction of pain or injury under any circumstances. (other than self-defense, of course.)

  8. avatarJeff Dowder says:

    The vast majority of the population is largely indifferent to guns. This leaves them prone to learning about guns from silly NYT editorials and Hollywood. How to counter this?

    Take someone shooting for the first time. Be proud to be a shooter — don’t treat it like a drug habit. Hardcore antis will never change their minds. But they are not the ones we need to focus on.

    • avatarEvan says:

      I can agree with that, who cares what Difi thinks. If I can change Bob from across the streets opinion than I’ve done some good. It works for me, I’ve brought 3 new shooters to the range for the first time this weekend.

  9. avatarRev. Maurice Pompitous says:

    ” So we’re swaggering simpletons clinging to our guns and our bibles, then how do we counter that view?” You ask;
    Answer – We can’t. That view is the one chosen by the media and pop culture which, at present, is mainly controlled by the liberal Democrat party. Gun control has become a major plank in their party platform. Unless we come up with the money to buy a lot of media outlets and take over the entertainment industry, we’re pissing in the wind with changing the “optics”. The media presence is 24/7 in our lives and when they decide to come down on one side of an issue, it’s a steamroller. If you care about gun rights, vote for pro-gun candidates even if they are misogynistic, homophobic, racist bastards (said with tongue in cheek) and contribute to the NRA.

  10. avatarThomasR says:

    I’ve noticed just in the three years of OC’ing here in NM that the vociferous attacks against those of us that OC from the CC crowd going from plentiful to the few and random on pro gun web sites like this.

    In the same way, that the harassment by NM cops of those of us that OC were somewhat common a few years are now is almost unheard of .

    It’s an incremental process, but the more of us that carry a weapon , OC or CC, the more that the public will accept it as the cultural norm.

    • avatarJeff Dowder says:

      Unless you live in CA…

      • avatarThomasR says:

        There is always exceptions to any rule when dealing with human beings, especially those that are true converts. They will never change their minds; but when we have natural law, history, facts, and the laws of God supporting us, freedom will prevail; as long as there are enough of us willing to defend that truth and freedom with our lives.

  11. avatarIn Memphis says:

    We all know that gun owners are a diverse group and Im sure the grabbers know that too. The problem is they dont care. This administration has proved time and time again it doesnt care about what the people think or know (Syria comes to mind as a current example).

    I have talked to many, many gun owners in my area that dont fit the Bible thumping OFWG stereotype. The only thing we can really do is try to show this diversity to the fence sitters.

  12. avatarRev. Maurice Pompitous says:

    I had the “gun” conversation with some friends in Illinois just last week when I ventured into the land of political corruption. They brought up the CC issue, said they were worried about increased heat of passion gun murders, road rage and so on. I countered with the facts, used the Chicago example of successful gun control and so on. At the end they were agreeing with me and supporting the 2d amendment and so on. When the time comes to vote though, he will vote D because he’s a strong Union man and she will vote D because she’s a feminist and pro-choice. In Illinois a D vote is an anti-gun vote.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      Libertarians aren’t congenitally anti-union, anti-woman, racist or ani-gun.

      Why don’t we have a government full of Libertarians? Because the money goes to candidates who are anti-A and pro-B or the reverse.

      We’ve the very best government money can buy.

      O Thrill and Rapture!

      • avatarRev. Maurice Pompitous says:

        True, it’s a flawed system. I say do away with all political contributions and limit voting to land owners and squires.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Ummm…

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          Meh – silliness.

          Let’s eliminate corporate contributions and limit campaigning to six weeks prior to the elections. And make the “straw poll/projection” fantasy game that the MSM plays to inflate ratings illegal as an attempt to unduly influence voters.

    • avatarChuckN says:

      A D vote anywhere is an anti-gun vote not to mention an anti-liberty vote.
      Unfortunately many of the R’s seem all to ready to follow suit.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        “This is not a partisan issue in kansas.”

        — Governor Sam Brownback, in telling the Feds to stick the interstate commerce clause where no clause has gone before.

    • avatarT-DOG says:

      Being a member of a major union I see some of the buyer remorse when it comes to guns and healthcare. Most member in our union are salt of the earth folk which generally means they are people of the gun too. I realized I wasn’t the only union member to feel put out when I saw an ad for the union sportsman alliance in our national magazine.
      http://unionsportsmen.org/
      The rank and file are even less happy when it comes to the changes to healthcare that is crushing our health insurance. Me personally will be using the NRA voter guide over the unions on the next elections for the foreseeable future. I can get a job anywhere, My gun rights are little harder to get back when gone.

  13. avatarAccur81 says:

    As a CA resident, I simply do not have confidence that hearts and minds can be changed. Anti-gun politicians are either ignorant of the facts or are actively subverting freedom for their own selfish purposes. Banning guns from the proletariat is a good old fashioned power struggle. A cursory glimpse of human history reveals a recurrent theme of oppression, and human nature has not changed.

    The wealthy, powerful, and influential leaders of the past and present have deliberately chosen to ban weapons amongst those they mean to rule. Nazi Germany, Communist China, Feudal England, American Indians, UN, Obama, etc. are a few examples with historic significance. The current target is the civilian population of the US. A government that means to expand its rule will eliminate or reduce weapon ownership of the people group they mean to marginalize, oppress or eradicate.

    If and when CA, NY, and others fall further into tyranny, the major population centers will already be controlled. Free states will take longer to deal with, but they can be left for later. If a pro-gun, patriotic family has two or three kids, the families in the inter cities will have a dozen or more. It’s quite clear that major population centers lean left, and are pushing additional gun restrictions as quickly as possible. See Chicago, Sacramento, NYC, etc.

    As long as the Constitution can be violated without consequence, as has occurred numerous times with the current administration (and by CA, NY, CT, MA, etc.), the whole Bill of Rights is in jeopardy.

    If this was about facts, there are already plenty of facts to carry the day. It’s about control.

  14. avatardisthunder says:

    Hate to say it, but the only way we change the conversation is to make them fear us as a voting block. Guns were known for decades as the third rail, we need to make sure that it returns to that. This means more recalls, more phone calls, all of what we did to fight the UBC bill, but it needs to be during elections. I honestly don’t care if a portion of the population never learns to understand or like us, I just want them to learn not to f*ck with us.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      Wow. That’s low on the Colbergian scale of ethics, but yeah.

      A two year old doesn’t give a damn about rules, right, wrong or much else. They don’t do what they’re told not to do (when they don’t) because they’re afraid of negative consequences.

      I dont like it, but I respect it. Yeah.

  15. avatarRoadrunner says:

    Not long after the Newtown atrocity, I was at a gun counter in a Wal-Mart in New Mexico (not Connecticut or Colorado) buying ammo. A condescending individual walked past me shaking his head at my apparent lack of sensitivity. I was not dissuaded.

    First and foremost, let’s not buy into their arguments, adopt any of their language, or apologize for being free Americans. The Left, which is anti-American and anti-liberty, always tries to take possession of words first, thereby to own the debate. Don’t let them.

    The NYT, better suited to Soviet Russia, claims that people are insensitive or swaggering for exercising their rights as Americans because some demonic individual committed murder. Behold the dishonesty in their assumption: Your proper response to lies about you and murder of innocents is to surrender, slink away in shame, and give up your rights. After all, you should be ashamed because your rights caused it. Got it?

    In the end, the Left’s destruction of American culture and its relentless push to make everyone defenseless has killed far more people more directly than law abiding people owning guns. At some level they know this. There, I feel better now.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      Nah. The guy was shaking his head because since you were at Wally World you couldn’t be buying 7.62x54R.

      ;)

      • avatarjwm says:

        Not so, grasshopper. I’ve seen 54r for sale at the wally world. Winchester white box and some Hot Shot brand(Russian, I think).

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Wow. Not ’round here. The Wally World robots got a glazed Bambi in the headlights look last I asked.

          Good on yours, though.

  16. avatarMediocrates says:

    You are not going to win that argument until “rights” trump emotion. Pure and simple.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      They do already.

      Marriage equality, for instance, rather than Federal law adhering to a particular religious view. Such a thing trumps the emotional “Ewww!” factor natural to the majority — including me.

      I find nothing remotely appealing or interesting In buggery, but in the Land of Personal Liberty I’ll defend to the death two (or more, I suppose) guys’ rights to one another and legal recognition of a committed relationship irrespective of majority sentiment in the matter.

      Another example: sperm are routinely manufactured and reabsorbed, and eggs continually lost. There is he right of a woman to take a pill and prevent a man’s pollen (no, it’s not seed) from ever starting the nine month shuffle, be he rapist or husband.

      Make the case as a matter of the most basic civil right — that to the preservation of individual sovereignty.

      • avatarRich Grise says:

        I’m pro gay union because for every two guys that jump in the sack together that’s two more women for us normal guys to chase after. :-)

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          That’s fair — so long as they’re not chasing one another…

        • avataroopsdidisaythatoutloud says:

          What? Nobody is lining up behind Rich on this one?

          (Sorry, back to candy crush, my evil deed for the day is done.)

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          <rimshot, so to speak>

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Reminds me of a tshirt that a buddy of mine used to have: “I support gay marriage if both chicks are hot.”

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          I agree, but have you ever seen the real ones on the news reports? It’s like guys who visit nudist colonies to ogle. Surprise, surprise, very few people look like fashion models; they look like you and me and the folks next door. Ick!

          Of course you have and you know all this – I’m just a postaholic.

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          Matt in FL reminds me of a phenomenon I’ve noticed – the “triple standard.” Imagine you’re walking from the parking lot to work (or wherever) and in one of those doorway recesses, there’s a young couple making out. Most people will ignore them, some might say, “Get a room!”, not that big of a deal. If you’re walking past the same doorway and two gay guys are making out, most people will try to ignore them, some would probably avoid them, some will want to kill them. If you’re walking past the same doorway and two hot babes are making out, you won’t be able to just walk by because they’ll have drawn a crowd.

  17. avatarTotenglocke says:

    Realistically, the only way to change that is to take over the news networks / newspapers. They are the ones that pick the language and use it to manipulate the moronic masses.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      That’s the problem with many of us when it comes to outreach: “moronic masses.”

      They’re not morons. They’re ill-informed. We people who appreciate guns are not inherently better than the vast majority of those who don’t.

      Through our upbringing and experiences, we are fortunate enough to have either shaken off or never suffered from the baseless fear of firearms and/or the lack of understanding of the realities of liberty.

      If we treat the hoplophobic or near-neutral masses with contempt, even among ourselves, we’ve already lost.

      • avatarChuckN says:

        There’s a big difference between being ill-informed and willful ignorance.
        Those “moronic masses” deserve every bit of scorn and contempt if/when
        they remain willfully ignorant. In my view there is no excuse to ever let any
        rule/law/policy/opinion etc.. go unchecked. If people don’t educate
        themselves, for whatever reason, they do so willfully. How many on TTAG
        began as indifferent or even as anti-gun advocates? Nobody force fed
        them information; nobody brainwashed them. They sought out information and allowed themselves to become educated on the subject. Yes, our daily lives and upbringing may help or hinder but either way no one is prevented from educating themselves.

        Next time you get in a debate with someone, challenge the person to look
        up their own facts and verify them. It’s easy to spot the differences in
        people. Those willing to look up info are often simply ill-informed. However, if the person refuses to address conflicting data (or any data) they are generally willful idiots. Some will refuse simply to assuage their own ego, but the end result is the same; willful ignorance.

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          I guess I had an unfair advantage. My Mom was a card-carrying Libertarian. :-D

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          While I’ll grant your argument, the “moronic masses” is an oversimplification.

          “The moronic segment of the masses,” however, is clumsy at best.

          Anyway, you’ve passed muster (as if I’m any judge) by indicating your awareness that not all ignorance is incurable.

          Sorry I went off; I just see so much black and white around that soetimes I don’t recognize grey. My bad.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        No, Russ, go deal with people and you’ll realize quite quickly that the majority of the people in this country (most likely on the planet) are complete morons and it’s a surprise that they can manage to tie their shoes in the morning. Liking guns has nothing to do with it – there are gun owners who are morons too.

    • avatarRich Grise says:

      It’s been done at least once, in spades:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WBo4sfmi4

  18. avatarJus Bill says:

    OK folks, the way to win this fight is to approach it as a sales job. Women won the vote by selling the package. Libs won the fight for Prohibition by selling it to the dim and getting them to vote. The sane won it’s repeal by selling common sense. Antigun laws were relatively unheard of until WWI, when the likes of Sullivan and his ilk sold “peace.” Get the picture?

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      The Temperance League were hardly “libs,” as the word had yet to be corrupted. Progressives, I’ll grant.

      • avatarRich Grise says:

        True. “Liberal” used to have its roots in “Liberty.” Then the “progressives” (who really aren’t) co-opted the word, which is why Freedom- and Constitution-lovers had to make up the new word, “Libertarian.”

  19. avatarMichael Reed says:

    In my view, there is no way to “convert” these professional gun-haters. Their hate is their meal ticket. Thus, the only way to end their propaganda is to buy their media outlets, fire the prohibitionists and hire new and properly trained and vetted staff. My 2 cents.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.