TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:This only works if you truly understand that your real enemies want to take your guns - not just some, or only theirs, but all of our guns and repeal the 2nd Amendment. And they want to do that regardless of what OCT does. If not, then no, my idea won't help. I hope I'm not the only one that sees that.

I believe the 2nd amendment being repealed has about as much chance as a snow ball in you know where. The anti’s are going downhill so fast they are almost irrelevant.

As if things weren’t going badly enough for them, people are starting to bail out.

Mark Glaze, the head of Michael Bloomberg's ever-morphing anti-gun empire, has announced his departure from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the group he helped form and steer since 2011.
for them
Does anyone believe 38 states would vote to repeal the 2nd amendment ?

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

To which I responded:

If the antis are on the run and there is no need to be concerned, why all the wasted rhetoric on here?

Then this:

The anti's are NOT on the run, they are targeting open carry rallies and using the in your face tactics shown by those at the rallies as fuel for their anti-gun campaigns.

Maybe I need to use simpler words? My response was to the statement that the antis are falling apart and was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Maybe the quote button just failed?

If the antis are on the run and there is no need to be concerned, why all the wasted rhetoric on here?

TAM....I respect your opinions and viewpoint and believe me, I understand the frustration. I simply want to point out that, respectfully to all involved, meeting on the internet or over the phone is way different than meeting in person. I believe some us are old enough and experienced enough to know that. There are probably very few of us who have not been attacked on the internet at one time or another. Even the phone loses some of the essential humanity that makes real consensus possible. My experience has been that people are far more reasonable in person. Of course, there are no guarantees, but in my view we haven't made a sincere effort until we try every avenue. I am certain of one thing. It can't get much worse by having a face to face.

We have often suggested that an armed society is a polite society. When using electronic means of communication that means absolutely nothing.

WildBill wrote:This type of tactic eventually did win over and sway popular opinion. But I see this as much different that the OC movement. The biggest difference is that one was a moral and legal issue. In the case of discrimination, people believed that is was legally and morally wrong so they set out to make change. I don't think most people would see OC in this light.

I don't wish to turn this into a history lesson, but you are correct if you mean people outside the deep south set out to correct a moral and legal wrong. In the south, after the Civil War, the issue was much more complex and it festered into a hatred that eventually became codified into unconstitutional laws in many places. Morality was hardly an issue. Irregardless, the issue is not one of worthiness of cause, but tactics. Tactics are not subject to cause. What the tactics overcame in the south was considered by some as a completely lost cause. Most people would never have come face to face with the discrimination without the tactics of MLK and his organization. The protests drew a reaction that highlighted the problem.

None of this should be interpreted as my condoning the use of such tactics. I'm only warning you of the danger in not working with those who use them and the futility of throwing bombs at them.

Thank you for the information G.A. I will give it a listen. I am still of the opinion that politeness, respect and patience can win the day. Maybe the best I can hope for is a simple truce to allow frustrations to subside. But I like the old saying, "If at first you don't succeed, then try, try, again."

My fear is that increasing media attention may eventually highlight the divide between gun owners. If the rift cannot be healed and a unified front presented, we will surely all lose ground. No one will be seen as blameless. (Or painted that way by the media.) If truly nothing can be done, then I, for one, am willing to accept that.

If we are truly dealing with a few egomaniacs who simply want attention, then what I'm suggesting will never work. On the other hand, if OCT keeps growing and they are, as a body, sincere in wanting constructive change, then we have a genuine opportunity.

jmra I don't doubt your belief, but you are wrong. MLK's tactics of shoving the problem in the face of a wider and wider public by calling attention to the abuses, courtesy of the media, did work. I saw it with my own eyes. Those tactics changed the political landscape of the entire nation. We would be gravely mistaken to under estimate the power of even a few people, misguided or not, to effect political change that the vast majority may not be able to stop. We would also be, in my view, mistaken to think throwing potshots and insults at them will actually change what they are doing. The issue is not, "it has never worked here", but rather, "how long before it does?"

The Annoyed Man wrote: I don't mean to be disrespectful, but.....seriously? It's not like these conversations haven't already taken place. When you try often enough, and the answer that keeps comes back from them is that you don't love the 2nd Amendment or that you're a closet socialist because you won't embrace their tactics, who's shooting whom in the foot?

I apologize if I missed a sit down meeting with OCT. Perhaps you can remember when and where that took place? And not to be disrespectful or argumentative, but meeting over a keyboard on the internet accomplishes nothing. I would simply point out the many repetitive discussions of OC here on this forum. Lot of mud slinging and little else. Has anyone ever called a sit-down meeting with these folks?

Tell me, who got more done for the cause of equal rights and racial reconciliation.......Martin Luther King Jr., or Elijah Muhammed? Both were active in the civil rights cause, but MLK accomplished far more than Muhammed. All Muhammed did was drive the wedge between black and white Americans even deeper. The most radical, in your face, OC protesters are the Elijah Muhammeds of the gun world.

Again, respectfully, were you ever present at a MLK march? If you were, can you with all intellectual honesty say the mere presence of a large group of people of color marching through downtown was not seen as the ultimate in-your-face event? They didn't need to carry guns to bring the haters out of the woodwork. People were scared. Surely you haven't forgotten the images of the cops with billy clubs and dogs? And surely you know that the kind of rhetoric you offer makes any kind of working together toward a common goal impossible?

They scare the rest of the public, removing any common ground on which we can meet to convince them that gun owners/carriers are not the danger to them that they fear. Meanwhile, the rest of us to are in it for the long haul and recognize that it is a long fight, are the MLKs of the gun world. We are bridge-builders, not bridge-wreckers.

Again, respectfully, no. I am also under no illusion that the reason I am accepted in my travels is because my weapon is hidden. I sense there is a perceived difference between those, like you and me, who carry a gun loaded and ready to be used in a moments notice with someone carrying an unloaded rifle. You honestly think you won't scare the nervous nellies if your concealed firearm ever is seen or drawn? You honestly think those who witness the horrible scenario of our having to take a human life are ever going to look at us the same? There are a lot of threads on here and stories in the news that would contradict that view. My friend, you and I are the real scary people.

And can we, as a group, really claim we are bridge builders when so many stones are cast so quickly at those who bring the subject of open carry up on this forum? Were I one of them, which I am not, I would never come here. I would hope that I can sit down face to face with an honest man and come to some understanding with him. I'm just as frustrated as anyone else about how some people act. But I refuse to believe everything that could be done has been done.

I no longer try to reason with people like this because the most vocal of them—the instigators—have already proven that they can't be reasoned with. Wrestling with a pig just gets you covered in pig slop, and it annoys the pig. I call these people fools because they have already refused to listen to wisdom......not because I never tried to lend them any of it.

I have no idea how to respond to this, so I won't. I doubt MLK would have put it that way in his frustration, but I think I understand yours. I think I said something similar when my kids reached their teens.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:This only works if you truly understand that your real enemies want to take your guns - not just some, or only theirs, but all of our guns and repeal the 2nd Amendment. And they want to do that regardless of what OCT does. If not, then no, my idea won't help. I hope I'm not the only one that sees that.

I don't believe that, actually.

Interesting perspective. I hope and pray you're right. But I won't hold my breath.

BTW If they don't really want to take away Constitutional rights, then why would they care what OCT does?

This only works if you truly understand that your real enemies want to take your guns - not just some, or only theirs, but all of our guns and repeal the 2nd Amendment. And they want to do that regardless of what OCT does. If not, then no, my idea won't help. I hope I'm not the only one that sees that.

I suspect all this long-range sniping of the OCT group is not going to achieve the desired results. So they are bozos. So they are misguided. So they are taking us backward. So they have little wisdom in their leadership. Any solution that sees them as the enemy is only guaranteed to achieve exactly the opposite of what you desire. Divide and conquer can also be expressed as a house divided against itself cannot stand. They are not our enemy. We are not their enemy. The real enemy is celebrating our divisions.

Why not try to sit down with them over a glass of your favorite and lend them some wisdom? Provide them with the kind of leadership that might have a chance at altering their tactics to enhance other efforts rather than detract from the overall strategy? I think you sniping at them and them sniping at you is a losers strategy. Or is it not worth the effort to go see if you can work with them and change what will surely happen if you just sit back and snipe? Even if they reject any efforts to work with them, would it not be better to at least have tried?