My Fear

[Vince49]

Statesman.

We are looking for a Statesman and none are to be found. We wish for a spokesman of noble intentions to step forth and be our champion and he is nowhere to be found. Our Nation is mired in a two party system of career politicians whose sole occupation is campaigning not governing. As I am not that Statesman I guess I am part of the problem and therefore I despair of a solution.

 

[traderdan]

Very few,who have reached positions of wealth or power ,are willing to risk loss of these,and promote unpopular truths.

 

[netsecurity]

Someone big needs to be on the air every day pointing out one thing: The shooter could've been using a baseball bat, a machete, a chainsaw, a golf club, or FILL_IN_THE_BLANK, and still could've succeeded at killing multiple children and adults. Obviously the gun makes it easier to kill quicker, but banning guns completely doesn't even address the root problem, which is lack of security.

We cannot allow liberals pretend they want to protect the children by banning certain types of guns, because that is just a way to pursue their political agenda, and doesn't solve anything. NRA is absolutely correct about armed security being the only solution, ever. Every government building with politicians in it is protected with armed security, but they scoff when we talk about protecting our helpless children.

We need to eliminate all GFZ's. A gun free zone is for people who believe in fairy tales and unicorns. Even with armed security guards, good people still should be able to be armed. What if your child's school has one armed guard at the door, and the attacker kills him first (he could be sniped off from 200y for example), then breaks the door open? THERE MUST ALWAYS BE SHEEPDOGS with concealed weapons that the attacker cannot calculate, ESPECIALLY when the zone contains mostly women and children who could not even adequately defend against one man with a small knife or pistol.

If we have a capable armed defense it shouldn't matter what type of weapon or what size magazine is on the streets. If we have a proper defense in place then the attacker would likely never consider striking! And if he did, he would likely be dispatched rather quickly, or AT LEAST SLOWED DOWN until police arrive.

Police must be considered the last line of defense, not the first! When someone can articulate this on television, I don't see how anyone could refute it. NRA was darn close, but still a bit scattered.

 

[pudly]

So, there aren't any conservative/pro gun radio, television, satellite or print media? The liberal media was begging for opposing views last week and not one politician was available. That excuse that the other side capitalizes on tragedy has gotten old. Why ridicule their success when they continue to be successful with their strange?

Begging for opposing viewpoints? You did see the Piers Morgan videos, right? Few people (and particularly politicians) want to go in against such a stacked deck. They know from overwhelming experience how they will be treated, how their comments will be edited and/or misquoted, and how they will have random accusations thrown at them that really require serious preparation and/or research to properly refute.

The left's success is largely based on owning the mainstream media. Of course there is conservative/pro-gun media out there, but it is called "alternate" for a reason.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

 

[Que]

Begging for opposing viewpoints? You did see the Piers Morgan videos, right? Few people (and particularly politicians) want to go in against such a stacked deck. They know from overwhelming experience how they will be treated, how their comments will be edited and/or misquoted, and how they will have random accusations thrown at them that really require serious preparation and/or research to properly refute.

The left's success is largely based on owning the mainstream media. Of course there is conservative/pro-gun media out there, but it is called "alternate" for a reason.

Pudley, I'm not talking about going on The View or P. Morgan's show. I'm talking about producing PSAs and advertising on R. Limbaugh and WIBC with the truth. I'm talking about communicating to the MAJORITY of gun owners who can care less about any pending changes in the law because they feel it doesn't effect them and could possibly be good for society.

It's not about being on the Sunday morning talk shows, either. There needs to be a message provided in a way that doesn't allow feedback:

- Guns don't kill!
- Why not protect our most precious asset?
- If you protect your children from 5PM-7AM, why not allow the teachers and coaches to protect them from 7:01AM-4:59PM?

The pro-gun/conservative side makes up too many excuses for not doing what needs to be done. The liberal media does not turn down advertising money! Shows on PBS conduct REAL interviews that give all sides an equal voice. Even NPR does a good job interviewing people about positions they don't necessarily support.

 

[bwframe]

We must get organized and have at least a cheat-sheet to succinctly counter their points. Long, drawn-out explanations get nowhere in an age of ten-second soundbites. Short, to the point, and cutting to the quick.

I think a well versed person such as yourself should get us a thread started with just this. I would add that you should dumb down things to a level that is not talking over the heads of simple minded folks like myself.

I have a thing or two to get you started:

- 90% of the argument by those promoting gun control would not have had any effect on the CT lunatic suicide shooter. Thus their conversation is a long awaited political one. One that could have taken place two or three months ago, but for a silly election that would have been changed by having this discussion then.

- The only real argument the antis have in relation to CT is the magazine capacity one. We can win that fairly easily by first bringing in the "clip" terminology argument that shows that they have no understanding of what they speak of. There are a lot of directions on magazines to go after this.

- The ultimate argument against those promoting AWB's is the cold hard fact that the 2nd A. has nothing to do with hunting. It is completely about self defense, moreover self defense from tyrannical government. The exact reason we are the United States of America as opposed to the colonies of United Kingdom of Great Britain.

 

[gunman41mag]

Ted Nugent is a gun guy

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

Ted Nugent is a gun guy

Uncle Ted is famous and knows his stuff. However a lot of people, including a lot of pro 2A people, also think he's bat$#!$ crazy. Jus sayin

 

[Que]

What if?

The main reason why you have some who will come out and voice their concerns and opinions is the effect the "what if" question has on them. To the average citizen, they never believe they will be the person to have their homes broken into; they believe their children will never be murdered by some maniac with a gun; they believe that bad things will only happen to "those people" and "them." That is why they don't care if they ever have the ability to protect themselves and their families.

The problem is, they can process the "what if" question in the context of another family. They are concerned about "those people" and want to do something to help them not experience a tragedy, similar to what recently occurred. However, let something happen to them and they will be the first in line at their local FFL for a gun. Hopefully, at that point they will not become the person who believes they must protect themselves and something must be done to help our society by banning guns... all but theirs.

Even Nancy Peloci could care less about her personal safety, until it was placed in jeopardy. Now she agrees that she has to ensure he own personal safety, even with the security detail assigned to her, but as for the average citizen, well, if we get rid of guns, they will be safe.

 

[gunsisgood]

Uncle Ted vs Uncle Joe
pretty fun debate im thinkin.

 

[Dave-O]

This could get interesting this time around. I do believe what you say about the dormant "it won't affect me's" out there. Most of the pan banging out there is the uneducated that are going to scream about something everyday that is someone elses injustice to them. Generally they are the problem. I know a lot of anti-gunners in my area and they are being somewhat softspoken right now, not banging pans. Kind of like Obama, I would think they would be all over this but not really doing anything. But I also know way to many homes around here that 5 years ago would not have let a gun in their home period, but now own several, and typically the ones on this hit list. What is going to happen when they sit back don't voice and Dianne gets their gun, on paper anyway. Gonna be some real pissed off scarred and don't know what to do americans out there.

 

[CQB]

My dad asked me a good question today.

Are there ANY celebrities and big names that are talking out against any type of gun control?

There are actually quite a few, but I'll bet they have become tight lipped since this last tragedy.

Brad Pitt
Angelina Jolie
Chef Alton Brown
Joe perry (Aerosmith)
Most every star in country music
Most every driver in NASCAR
Johnny Depp
Clint Eastwood
James Earl Jones
Whoopi Goldberg
Bruce Willis
Ice-T
Ted Nugent
Tom Sellek

I'm sure tree are more.
Some of these are very surprising. I'm guessing most of them won't be hitting the stump in support anytime soon

Reference:
11 Pro Gun Celebrities – Yes, They Do Exist! | Guns Save Lives

 

[reedo]

We are headed into some very scary times with the Liberals leadind the way. If they have their way, they would take every single gun from every single american.

 

[Bahrutile]

If Mitt was in office I don't think things would be that much different, he was governor of MA and everyone knows they have horrible gun laws. It's not a right left or middle issue, big government wants an unarmed society... This is the time that We The People let our voices be heard!

 

[Bahrutile]

We must remember United We Stand, Divided We Fall!

 

[AJMD429]

Many 'sort-of pro-gun' so-called "conservatives" in the media are so ignorant of firearms that when they start talking about how many 'bullets' a 'clip' holds, or how powerful the .223 is, it makes me puke.

Very few in the entertainment/news industry "get it". Ted Nugent does, but some folks are 'offended' by him (and need to get a life). Neal Boortz does, but he's against the 'war on drugs', and some 'conservatives' can't handle that. Sometimes Gordon Liddy does, but he's getting near as self-absorbed and pompous as Rush Limbaugh, who acts 'pro-gun' but really doesn't understand the issue.

HOWEVER - one thing we CAN do is educate these people, or at least some of them. I've used the articles like Don Kates' "Guns and Public Health - epidemic of violence of pandemic of propaganda?" to sway several journalists and politicians, as well as some fellow physicians. Evidently it shocks them to see that a bunch of academics (including 'liberal' ones) can actually write a thoroughly-referenced piece in a law review journal which exposes 'gun control' as a dangerous fraud. I guess most of them assume that all the objection to 'gun control' just comes from a bunch of beer-guzzling, Bambi-blasting rednecks.

 

[Captain Morgan]

We must get organized and have at least a cheat-sheet to succinctly counter their points. Long, drawn-out explanations get nowhere in an age of ten-second soundbites. Short, to the point, and cutting to the quick.

Ok, here's a start. * indicates their point, - indicates our counterpoint

*Assault weapons must be banned to prevent these tragedies
-Columbine happened during the last AWB.

*Columbine had armed security when the shooting occured, so school security isn't the answer
-Columbine's "armed security" was just one person, and was eating lunch in his car. He wasn't in the building when it happened.

*At a minimum, high capacity "clips" should be banned and we should limit people to 10 rounds
-The Virginia Tech shooter used guns with only 10 round magazines

*Virgina Tech had a full campus security team, so again, security isn't the answer
-Virginia Tech was a campus, not a single school building, such as elementary, middle, and high schools
-Virginia Tech's security team had an active shooter policy of "wait for a "force" to gather before entering a building and tend to the wounded while also looking for the shooter." Policy was changed across the country because security teams realized it's a recipe for failure in an active shooter scenario

*We need to make more laws so it's more difficult for people to do this sort of thing again.
-Everything the Connecticut shooter did was illegal (killing his mom, stealing her guns, driving a vehicle with loaded firearmes without a permit to carry, taking guns onto school property, breaking and entering, killing 25+ other people)

*Look at "civilized societies" like Great Britain and Australia
-Ask them "Would a civilized society have a higher rate, or lower rate of home invasions and violent crime than an uncivilized society?" When they naturally answer "lower rate," point out that both GB and AUS have much higher violent crime rates and home invasions than we do in the US

*Get rid of guns and drastically reduce gun deaths (again, they'll refer to GB and AUS)
-Same point as above. Also point out that if we get rid of all cars, we'll eliminate car accidents.

 

[Que]

Great points, Captain Morgan.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

hmmmmmmmmmmm

Only 11 more to go and your in!