Quote Originally Posted by IShouldDoThisAllTheTime View Post
Yeah, you got me. I'm probably also vegetarian and left handed and a fag. Now knock it off.

Look, 50% of the country didn't take your/my/our/whoever's arguments seriously. We need to be *growing* the shooting community, and that means not alienating people who aren't already a part of it.

You know what the self-image of an immigrant rights activist is? A person who cares about individual human dignity. You know what the self-image of a self-defense rights activist is? A person who cares about individual human dignity. There is a common language that can be spoken here, and this us-versus-them mentality is bullshit and gets us nowhere.

You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't infantile? DON'T throw public tantrums.

You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't ignorant? DON'T assume you know everything -- or even anything -- about them because of how they react to your tantrum.

You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't bullies? DON'T call them incapable of exercising a fundamental constitutionally guaranteed human right.

You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't paranoid clingers? DO drop the siege mentality.

The shooting community is its own worst enemy when it comes to PR, and its shit like this at the core of it. This behavior only appeals to the single demographic that needs NO outreach from us.


If you're worried about another AWB, or mail-order ammo ban, or whatever, and GIVEN that an Obama win already puts us all behind the curve on these fights, we as a group need to STOP making the anti's job easier. Don't act like a goddamn clown, and don't cheer on those among us who do.
Not to be repetitive but how's that strategy been working for the last 40-50 years? While I respect your opinion on the best approach and even agree with some of your thoughts on a personal level, our unfettered access to firearms, ammunition and places to shoot are diminished daily as we "hold the moral high ground" in the face of emotional, groundless accusation and falsehood. The opposition is louder, they draw more attention and invoke more emotion, theirs is obviously a more effective strategy or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Switch your argument for a moment and direct it at the anti-gun crowd, how many of them would agree with or embrace your approach? I think I know the answer because I see their "tantrums", "ignorance", "bullying" "siege mentality" in every one of these conversations including your quaint parenting reprimand.

In a Utopian world we might be able to engage in meaningful dialog grounded in facts without name calling and baseless accusation but that's not this world. In reviewing the state of battle and the effectiveness of various strategies Sun Tzu might advocate adopting that of the enemy as a more effective counter strategy.

The firearms community was well represented in years past with school sanctioned and other youth shooting events, no one thought twice of a boy walking along the side of a road with a shotgun draped over his arm. All the sterling examples of safe and recreational gun ownership conveyed the message you promote and were universally ignored in preference of uninformed emotion and opinion. Not uninformed because no one took the time to send a positive message, uninformed because they just don''t care about or respect anyone's rights or opinions contrary to their own narrow view of the world at large. I don't lobby to diminish or restrict their rights under the Constitution even though I may disagree personally and I don't want to fight with them at all, I want them to have the same level of tolerance for me that I afford them and leave my rights alone.