Why do we have to be all nice and sweet to people that want to disarm us?

[uncle money bags]

Flybeech,
Listen and understand, they are not talking about being nice and rolling over to the opposition. They are talking about solving this problem diplomatically in order to avoid solving it with less savory means. Savory is not the right word, but im in between fever dreams so bear with me.
Your voice is every bit as important as any body elses, and you have valid points to make. In many if not most areas i agree with you, but i recognize that i am not a very diplomatic person and that those who are will be better suited to make the arguments for us right now. I say this because the flip side of that coin is violent, brutal and not at all guaranteed to give us what we want.
Dont temper your enthusiasm, but know your audience.

 

[flybeech]

You don't seem to get it

If you are turning gun enthusiasts off what do you think you sound like to my brother who doesn't think we need so any guns? You sound like a crazed, angry person that owns a lot of "scary" guns

We are trying o help you...

Respectfully, let me ask you to help me "get it". I will respectfully listen to all constructive criticism and ideas of ways to always remain nice to people I perceive as the enemy of the Constitution, if it seems reasonably effective.

I may have wrongly assumed that this forum was populated with a crowd that is generally much more friendly toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than the average man on the street, so I tend to let it all hang out a little more in a 2A forum on a shooting website, than I would if I were among a Code Pink gathering. I understand that even among modern conservatives, being Constitutionalist makes me a nut-case, in and of itself, as well as the documented enemy of TPTB. Since passage of the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968, the right to keep and bear arms has been continually been eroded and if one can't say anything nice, it's best to say nothing at all. In my view, the immediate trend is to impute further restrictions that historically lead to total disarmament.

Maybe I am reading too much into the Feinstein Bill, the UN Small Arms Treaty and the numerous other legislative assaults on the 2A. IMHO, being nice isn't going to sway those people in the least. Being nice has led us to where we are today, facing imminent and sweeping gun restrictions. Chairman Mao was right when he said political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Germany demonstrated what can happen when citizens are disarmed. Stalin disarmed the Russian people before he purged millions of Russian citizens and the Red-Coats wanted to disarm the colonists. I do not view people who wish me to relinquish my Constitutional rights very favorably and admittedly, it is a real challenge to be nice to them.

Maybe I do need to take the advise of most here, take a chill-pill, set my anger aside and shut up, adopting the popular idea that the government needs to restrict liberty to keep us safe and the Second Amendment rightly should be infringed by government in the name of perceived public safety. Step, by little step, the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose the Founding Fathers intended will disappear under the force of government, all in the name of safety.

With all due respect, is making nice the best way to defend liberty? What nice methods have people of other countries successfully used to preserve their rights? What non-threatening methods can be used today that will not offend those that want us disarmed and convince them that we should continue to enjoy our remaining 2A privileges? Is there ever any point in time when it's right to stop making nice with people who are not friends of the Constitution?

 

[flybeech]

Flybeech,
Listen and understand, they are not talking about being nice and rolling over to the opposition. They are talking about solving this problem diplomatically in order to avoid solving it with less savory means. Savory is not the right word, but im in between fever dreams so bear with me.
Your voice is every bit as important as any body elses, and you have valid points to make. In many if not most areas i agree with you, but i recognize that i am not a very diplomatic person and that those who are will be better suited to make the arguments for us right now. I say this because the flip side of that coin is violent, brutal and not at all guaranteed to give us what we want.
Dont temper your enthusiasm, but know your audience.

Brother, I appreciate your words and deeply dread the less savory means you indicate. The very thought of those "less savory" actions coming to pass is deeply troubling as a Father and an American. There are states that have passed various laws recently that directly challenge an over-reaching Federal government, by reasserting State's rights, such as the 8 states passing the Firearms Freedom Act, the Montana's Firearm Protection Act bill, Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana and state laws that criminalize implementation of Obamacare. These are ominous indicators of a growing number of entire States that are willing to get in the face of the Federal government in the same ways that the Founding Fathers got in the face of the King, when they signed their own death warrant on the Declaration of Independence.

I don't want to start a war with you guys. About everyone here is someone I could hang out with and I respect the views of most on this board, though I'm not too sure that feeling is mutual. Still, I'm willing to keep an open mind on the best ways an ordinary cranky old man from Oklahoma can turn around the steady march toward disarmament, while keeping the peaceful style of Martin Luther King. I wonder if it is even possible, at this point.

 

[CoachR64]

Fly, I truly do admire your passion. I think you would find if all the guys from this thread sat down for a beer in a room, we all understand and agree with you. I truly believe the guys in this thread are willing to fight for justice and freedom. The issue is that the fight we are in right now is political and legal, and that fight can not be won with out of control anger and emotion. We have to be level headed and intelligent in the way we present ourselves and our views. You can be firm and unwavering without beating people down. We can not stoop to the levels of piers Morgan and bully people who believe differently. If we have any hope of avoiding the worst case scenario here, we have to win e fence straddlers to our side with intelligence, sound logic, and by showing the we are not crazy lunatics for owning guns. I admire the passion of guys like Yeager and jones, but they do far more harm to the fight for our rights than they do good. They give liberals a person to point to and say that gun owners are blood thirsty maniacs.

Should peaceful solutions fail, I believe you wil see the righteous anger rise in the folks here. But for now, and for the sake of our future generations, we have to at least make every effort to fight this battle peacefully within the framework of the constitution of this country. If that doesn't work....well the time for "nice" will end. Bible says there is a time for peace and a time for war. We are hoping we can win this battle in peace time and not war.

 

[Billybob]

Flybeech, the answer is simply you must be nice because you do NOT want to be the "angry gun nut" stereotype. That stereotype frightens "regular" people ( ones with little familiarity with firearms). It makes them more likely to see the anti-gunners as reasonable.

Yes, once they see anger they feel fear and your argument is moot to them.

 

[jdagreek]

I think the gun control issue is much like the abortion issue. The vast majority of people are on one side of the other and no amount of common sense is going to change their minds. It is the fence sitters that will make the difference. These are the people with no real personal political philosophy, so they are going to be influenced by the side making the most sense.

You don't have to be nice and smile to those you are trying to convince on your side of the issue. But, you do have to be civil, respectful and present your arguments in a non-threatening manner and in a way that others can understand.

If, you can't be reasonable and win the battle then there will be a time to be a nasty and mean SOB as that will be your last resort. This is just my opinion, but the left wing of the democratic that is in power is pushing many, many people in this country off the cliff. They push to hard on this gun control issue and they will create a situation where there will be way more fly types out there.

Do you all know that the Obama folks last week launched another legislative initiative to create an audit trail for the sales of precious metals like gold and silver. I think they want to cripple the precious metal market with paperwork to make it to expensive for the little guy to invest in things like gold and silver. Then if you do they want the apparatus in place to confiscate it just like they want your weapons.

 

[SMS]

Maybe I do need to take the advise of most here, take a chill-pill, set my anger aside and shut up, adopting the popular idea that the government needs to restrict liberty to keep us safe and the Second Amendment rightly should be infringed by government in the name of perceived public safety. Step, by little step, the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose the Founding Fathers intended will disappear under the force of government, all in the name of safety.

With all due respect, is making nice the best way to defend liberty? What nice methods have people of other countries successfully used to preserve their rights? What non-threatening methods can be used today that will not offend those that want us disarmed and convince them that we should continue to enjoy our remaining 2A privileges? Is there ever any point in time when it's right to stop making nice with people who are not friends of the Constitution?

Further proof that you just don't get it.

Nobody is talking about 'making nice'. Nobody is even talking about compromise. We are talking about coming across as reasoned and respectful gun owners...not rabid, in your face, no compromise militants. One can be reasoned and respectful while still standing firm on principles.

This battle isn't going to be won by winning the hearts of fellow gun owners or the minds of the antis. It is going to be won by winning over people who are on the fence and apprehensive. Folks who aren't really opposed to gun ownership but not jumping in favor of it either....those who maybe just haven't been exposed to guns and gun owners.

Now present those people with two videos, Yeager's original and Travis Haley's. Which one do you think will pull more people over to our side? Doesn't take a friggin rocket sceintist to figure that out.

 

[Redriverboy]

Well for one youll get your chl taken away lmao

 

[Storm Shadow]

I think the country is so polarized that there are not many left that we need to try to convince by playing nice.
The Right has played the game with one arm tied behind its back long enough. Whether its the 2nd Amendment, out of control spending, or whatever. It's time to get in THEIR face a little.

 

[uncle money bags]

I think the country is so polarized that there are not many left that we need to try to convince by playing nice.
The Right has played the game with one arm tied behind its back long enough. Whether its the 2nd Amendment, out of control spending, or whatever. It's time to get in THEIR face a little.

So you believe there are no undecided or just ignorant people who could be swayed by civil discourse based in logic and reasoning?