TexasCHLforum.com

https://artvoice.com/2018/04/15/losing- ... t6BspdOmDt
RTWT Good ideas here. We need to try new approaches to turning back the gun control tide.

We are losing the fight for the Second Amendment. We are losing it in the courts. We are losing it in the legislatures. We are losing it in the media, in the schools and with young people. The approach we have been using to protect the Second Amendment for many years has failed, is failing and will continue to fail. That approach has basically focused on lobbying, elections, voting and using the litigation process without any serious attempt to change the philosophical or ideological bent of the country or to change the ideological trajectory of the country to the left which in the last five years has been accelerating, and without any attempt to change the basic progressive mindset which has dominated American politics for many decades. The tactics we have used are archaic, dated, spent, don’t work and there has been no attempt to use bold new innovative tactics and unless that changes, we are going to lose this fight.

First, we need to recognize that gun control is a progressive idea. If we don’t understand what progressivism is, then how can we understand the basis for gun control proposals and refute and defeat them?

Progressivism is not a rational political philosophy but is rather an irrational form of therapy whereby the progressive makes himself feel better by proposing some government action he thinks, without evidence or logic, will solve the problem. That explains everything about how progressives react to mass shootings. Any role that government itself may have played in causing the event is ignored and the progressive must find a non-governmental scapegoat to blame. Thus, in the Parkland Shooting, numerous government policies or personnel failed. The shooter himself was the product of government schools and was bullied and ostracized there for years. Yet, all we hear is that the NRA is to blame. This is an obvious absurdity but perfectly understandable once you understand what a progressive is and how they think.

Seventh, we need to make new alliances. Politics is about coalitions. Who are our allies? That I have to ask makes the point. We appear to have none except the gutless GOP, which will sell you down the river in a heartbeat to win an election. The strongest allies we have are the libertarians who believe the right to bear arms is a natural right. You don’t have to agree with them on everything to work with them on this issue.

Its frustrating for me to read this stuff and thats putting it lightly. Anytime I hear anything about the fight for our 2A rights being a losing battle my blood boils. Thats not even bringing up news stories about a dude walking into a flipping Waffle House shooting upbthe place, jacked up teens with serious daddy issues shooting up schools, and the entitled mentality of it wasnt his/her fault because this or that happened in thier life.
What would work, people growing the heck up and admitting that hey they're not perfect, yes bad things happen, and hey maybe I am at fault for some of the tnings that happened in my life. You strive to be better than yesterday, mature, and grow, not pass the blame on to who or whatever is convenient at any given point in time.

kayt00 wrote:Its frustrating for me to read this stuff and thats putting it lightly. Anytime I hear anything about the fight for our 2A rights being a losing battle my blood boils. Thats not even bringing up news stories about a dude walking into a flipping Waffle House shooting upbthe place, jacked up teens with serious daddy issues shooting up schools, and the entitled mentality of it wasnt his/her fault because this or that happened in thier life.
What would work, people growing the heck up and admitting that hey they're not perfect, yes bad things happen, and hey maybe I am at fault for some of the tnings that happened in my life. You strive to be better than yesterday, mature, and grow, not pass the blame on to who or whatever is convenient at any given point in time.

We are not losing an iota unless you do not pass down your love for 2ndA, or being gun enthusiast, shooter, collector or being that once a year hunter to your kids and friends and family.

Thats the thing, i share with my kids and my friends already shoof so thats covered. The feeling is that regardless of how legitimate and law abiding I am (extremely) some jack wagon goes the extra mile to unhinge any good that you or i or any number of the law abiding citizens do. Rare coverage is that which comes from a reporter chillen at the range, or outside hunting sharing the knowledge and freedoms that 2A affords us.

Beiruty wrote: We are not losing an iota unless you do not pass down your love for 2ndA, or being gun enthusiast, shooter, collector or being that once a year hunter to your kids and friends and family.

This. I have taught many friends and relatives to shoot.. But my greatest "triumph" is a coworker. He works in San Antonio and I office in Houston but we both work for the same clients, just different functions. He is a die hard liberal but not stupid. He voted for Hillary in the general. He was dedicated anti gun. Over the course of a year I kept talking to him about guns and why I like them and what I do with them. We even discuss the political side of 2A issues. I have stood firm and refused to back down even when discussing the latest mass murder.

I wound up taking him shooting twice and he said he enjoyed it but would never own a gun. About 2 months later, across company IM , he sends me a picture of Ruger SR9 and asked me if it would be an okay pistol for him to buy. I knew I had him and it was time to set the hook. I said sure but let me bring down a few more handguns and rifles and let see what you like. He bought it and is now a proud owner. The latest is he now wants me to show him how to build AR15 from parts. My next step is to buy a 1 year NRA membership for him.

I wish I could clone him over and over. I know a lot of us hate talking to the antis and think of it as a waste of time. I have said that very thing. But keep talking to people. Be a calm, cool and level headed ambassador for our 2A rights. We may go down but I am going to go down swinging...

Syntyr wrote: Be a calm, cool and level headed ambassador for our 2A rights.

Best advice ever.

I know a lot of us hate talking to the antis and think of it as a waste of time.

look at it as a worthwhile, patriotic challenge :-)

Most shooting is the sort of thing that Obama did to prove he wasn't anti gun. Even when it involves Scary Black Rifles. That fact isnt just omitted from mass media; it is actively concealed. We have to rebuild the public RECOGNITION of the fact that gun use equates to violence in mass media, not in reality.

Mass media will retaliate by implying (even more forecfully) that cwe are bunch of hicks who cling to God and guns. That's a phenomenal result for us. Conservatives outnumber liberals everywhere outside of Massachusetts, but independents nearly outnumber both put together. Forcing a political opponent to demonize shooting clays and paper reveals "liberals" for what they are to the people who aren't fully in either camp.

An assault rifle is a gun targeted by "liberals" for advancement of their planned ban of all guns after Their effort at banning handguns failed. The word is propaganda.

...and stop with the pessimism regarding the 2A.

Stop and think what a disaster it would become if confiscation were attempted?

You think the Middle East is a mess, hoo-boy we'd make them look like the amateurs they are...

what can we do?

1. stop using the terms 'gun control' 'anti-gun' 'pro-gun'

2. use the proper term: 'civil rights' as that is what the 2nd is, a civil right. Secondly use the proper term for what they want, 'unconstitutional and hence illegal civilian disarmament' and 'unconstitutional and hence illegal infringement of our civil rights"

It is why the left uses the previously mentioned terms, to hide the truth of what the 2nd is and thier ultimate agenda and achieve the appearance of moral superiority in regards to their agenda.
By using the terms 'gun control' and other such terms it also forces us to engage the left in the culture war on terms of engagement they set. Those being they have the appearance of moral superiority, hence being right in thier claims, and ourselves being morally wrong in the truths we stand for. The result being it gives the left the political power to continually push the lie they use to cover thier real agenda.

Ever heard the saying: 'speak truth to power' ?

Power is achieved and maintained at the political level through deceiving the public via lies, "the big lie" as it is properly referred to. Speak the truth to that lie, as in this case, and it forces the advocates of the lie to defend it. Which they cannot do. Consequently the public begins to know the truth.

wil wrote:what can we do?

1. stop using the terms 'gun control' 'anti-gun' 'pro-gun'

2. use the proper term: 'civil rights' as that is what the 2nd is, a civil right. Secondly use the proper term for what they want, 'unconstitutional and hence illegal civilian disarmament' and 'unconstitutional and hence illegal infringement of our civil rights"

It is why the left uses the previously mentioned terms, to hide the truth of what the 2nd is and thier ultimate agenda and achieve the appearance of moral superiority in regards to their agenda.
By using the terms 'gun control' and other such terms it also forces us to engage the left in the culture war on terms of engagement they set. Those being they have the appearance of moral superiority, hence being right in thier claims, and ourselves being morally wrong in the truths we stand for. The result being it gives the left the political power to continually push the lie they use to cover thier real agenda.

Ever heard the saying: 'speak truth to power' ?

Power is achieved and maintained at the political level through deceiving the public via lies, "the big lie" as it is properly referred to. Speak the truth to that lie, as in this case, and it forces the advocates of the lie to defend it. Which they cannot do. Consequently the public begins to know the truth.

Wow! Never thought of using civil rights instead of gun control and you are right that does has power!

Syntyr wrote:

Beiruty wrote: We are not losing an iota unless you do not pass down your love for 2ndA, or being gun enthusiast, shooter, collector or being that once a year hunter to your kids and friends and family.

This. I have taught many friends and relatives to shoot.. But my greatest "triumph" is a coworker. He works in San Antonio and I office in Houston but we both work for the same clients, just different functions. He is a die hard liberal but not stupid. He voted for Hillary in the general. He was dedicated anti gun. Over the course of a year I kept talking to him about guns and why I like them and what I do with them. We even discuss the political side of 2A issues. I have stood firm and refused to back down even when discussing the latest mass murder.

I wound up taking him shooting twice and he said he enjoyed it but would never own a gun. About 2 months later, across company IM , he sends me a picture of Ruger SR9 and asked me if it would be an okay pistol for him to buy. I knew I had him and it was time to set the hook. I said sure but let me bring down a few more handguns and rifles and let see what you like. He bought it and is now a proud owner. The latest is he now wants me to show him how to build AR15 from parts. My next step is to buy a 1 year NRA membership for him.

I wish I could clone him over and over. I know a lot of us hate talking to the antis and think of it as a waste of time. I have said that very thing. But keep talking to people. Be a calm, cool and level headed ambassador for our 2A rights. We may go down but I am going to go down swinging...

Changing the world for the better one person at a time. Job very well done Syntyr, Kudos.

pushpullpete wrote:

Syntyr wrote:

Beiruty wrote: We are not losing an iota unless you do not pass down your love for 2ndA, or being gun enthusiast, shooter, collector or being that once a year hunter to your kids and friends and family.

This. I have taught many friends and relatives to shoot.. But my greatest "triumph" is a coworker. He works in San Antonio and I office in Houston but we both work for the same clients, just different functions. He is a die hard liberal but not stupid. He voted for Hillary in the general. He was dedicated anti gun. Over the course of a year I kept talking to him about guns and why I like them and what I do with them. We even discuss the political side of 2A issues. I have stood firm and refused to back down even when discussing the latest mass murder.

I wound up taking him shooting twice and he said he enjoyed it but would never own a gun. About 2 months later, across company IM , he sends me a picture of Ruger SR9 and asked me if it would be an okay pistol for him to buy. I knew I had him and it was time to set the hook. I said sure but let me bring down a few more handguns and rifles and let see what you like. He bought it and is now a proud owner. The latest is he now wants me to show him how to build AR15 from parts. My next step is to buy a 1 year NRA membership for him.

I wish I could clone him over and over. I know a lot of us hate talking to the antis and think of it as a waste of time. I have said that very thing. But keep talking to people. Be a calm, cool and level headed ambassador for our 2A rights. We may go down but I am going to go down swinging...

Changing the world for the better one person at a time. Job very well done Syntyr, Kudos.

I second the kudos. You can never forget that you’re an embassador for the right.

That said, there are some people I simply won’t discuss it with. It’s one thing if the person is repeating falsehoods out of ignorance, but is acting in good faith belief that they are true, as long as they are actually willing to listen to your respectfully delivered rebuttals, and to consider your invitations to go to a range and actually learn first hand exactly what it is they are telling lies about. I can talk to someone like that. It’s quite another thing when you are speaking with someone who is a deliberately mendacious cretin, like a David Hogg or Shannon Watts - who are two of the most intellectually dishonest people walking the planet. I won’t waste my breath on people like that. It is their religion, and to even consider an alternative possibility is to become apostate......and they just won’t go there. In fact, they’ll react by comparing you to Satan and invoking all kinds of imprecations against your unholy kind. So don’t waste your breath. Instead, mark their locations on the map for potential future arty missions, and move on.

Allons wrote:

wil wrote:what can we do?

1. stop using the terms 'gun control' 'anti-gun' 'pro-gun'

2. use the proper term: 'civil rights' as that is what the 2nd is, a civil right. Secondly use the proper term for what they want, 'unconstitutional and hence illegal civilian disarmament' and 'unconstitutional and hence illegal infringement of our civil rights"

It is why the left uses the previously mentioned terms, to hide the truth of what the 2nd is and thier ultimate agenda and achieve the appearance of moral superiority in regards to their agenda.
By using the terms 'gun control' and other such terms it also forces us to engage the left in the culture war on terms of engagement they set. Those being they have the appearance of moral superiority, hence being right in thier claims, and ourselves being morally wrong in the truths we stand for. The result being it gives the left the political power to continually push the lie they use to cover thier real agenda.

Ever heard the saying: 'speak truth to power' ?

Power is achieved and maintained at the political level through deceiving the public via lies, "the big lie" as it is properly referred to. Speak the truth to that lie, as in this case, and it forces the advocates of the lie to defend it. Which they cannot do. Consequently the public begins to know the truth.

Wow! Never thought of using civil rights instead of gun control and you are right that does has power!

That is why the left use tactics such as this, which is alinski 101. People do not think through what is being done and why, these tactics being a predatory tactic designed to prey on the normal human instincts. Intimidation is likely the best word, people are afraid to respond due to not wanting to appear as being morally wrong for taking a position against the lies of the left. Consequently their inherent reaction is to attempt to defend against the accusation via logic, truth, etc.

They also function on the basis of people not wanting to admit to themselves that they were not thinking things through as to what these tactics amount to, and how to deal with them effectively.
Essentially people being fooled by the 'trap' these tactics consist of and not wanting to admit it to themselves consequently they attempt to respond in the usual fashion, attempt to defend against them rather than forcing the left to defend the lies.
As mark twain said: 'it's far easier to fool people than to prove to them they've been fooled'

A simple example "so when did you decide to stop beating your wife?"

What is an individuals immediate instinctual response? "I've never done any such thing in my entire life, ask my wife"

Therein is the wrong answer, why?

Because the accuser can now say: "PROVE IT, PROVE YOU'VE NEVER DONE SUCH A THING!"

The correct answer? "what basis of validity do you have for this question / accusation / etc?

Why the correct answer?

Because now it allows for the response of "PROVE IT, PROVE I'VE EVER DONE SUCH A THING!" regardless of whatever answer they give to your initial question.

Dont think this is what is going on?

"so when did you decide to become a racist?"

" so when did you decide to become an islamophobe?"

" so when did you decide to stop caring about public safety and argue against 'gun control' ? "

" so when did you decide to stop caring about less fortunate people and keep the people trying to cross the border who're just seeking a better life from crossing the border?"

"so when did you decide to not care about the less fortunate in our society and argue against the taxes we should pay to help the less fortunate?"

"so when did you decide to stop caring about the children?"

All of the std leftist accusations fit right into the very same format of the previous example as it is the same thing just using different accusations and / or different wording.

And without fail when people attempt to defend the truth because of the aforementioned reasons as well as an attempt to genuinely debate the left, it appears trying to defend a morally wrong position.

It is not a 'debate' we are attempting to engage in. A debate is simply an effort by two or more individuals to achieve a consensus of truth. What the left does, again, is to deliberately use our inherent desire to debate on a basis of logic, facts, truth, etc, to force us into defending against the lies of their accusations. It is why they use the previous example and why they've been so successful in forcing thier agenda onto us via the culture war.

Answering them with a question forces them to defend the lie of their accusation, which they cannot do.
The term for this is: 'the socratic method of debate.' It is real and it is the way to beat them politically and in the culture war, which is no more than winning the hearts and minds of the public which are still mentally and emotionally reachable.

That being hitting them with the socratic method of debate to expose the lies for what they are and discredit the left in the eyes of the public, also to help people not feel intimidated by the left.

the most recent and effective example of this is what Trump did the weekend the 'groping' tape came out.
It was the weekend of the second debate with hillary, Trump held a press conference that sunday and did something specific. Anyone paying attention to it will know what he did, why he did it, why it worked, and why it fits exactly into what I'm saying here.

wil wrote:

Allons wrote:

wil wrote:what can we do?

1. stop using the terms 'gun control' 'anti-gun' 'pro-gun'

2. use the proper term: 'civil rights' as that is what the 2nd is, a civil right. Secondly use the proper term for what they want, 'unconstitutional and hence illegal civilian disarmament' and 'unconstitutional and hence illegal infringement of our civil rights"

It is why the left uses the previously mentioned terms, to hide the truth of what the 2nd is and thier ultimate agenda and achieve the appearance of moral superiority in regards to their agenda.
By using the terms 'gun control' and other such terms it also forces us to engage the left in the culture war on terms of engagement they set. Those being they have the appearance of moral superiority, hence being right in thier claims, and ourselves being morally wrong in the truths we stand for. The result being it gives the left the political power to continually push the lie they use to cover thier real agenda.

Ever heard the saying: 'speak truth to power' ?

Power is achieved and maintained at the political level through deceiving the public via lies, "the big lie" as it is properly referred to. Speak the truth to that lie, as in this case, and it forces the advocates of the lie to defend it. Which they cannot do. Consequently the public begins to know the truth.

Wow! Never thought of using civil rights instead of gun control and you are right that does has power!

That is why the left use tactics such as this, which is alinski 101. People do not think through what is being done and why, these tactics being a predatory tactic designed to prey on the normal human instincts. Intimidation is likely the best word, people are afraid to respond due to not wanting to appear as being morally wrong for taking a position against the lies of the left. Consequently their inherent reaction is to attempt to defend against the accusation via logic, truth, etc.

They also function on the basis of people not wanting to admit to themselves that they were not thinking things through as to what these tactics amount to, and how to deal with them effectively.
Essentially people being fooled by the 'trap' these tactics consist of and not wanting to admit it to themselves consequently they attempt to respond in the usual fashion, attempt to defend against them rather than forcing the left to defend the lies.
As mark twain said: 'it's far easier to fool people than to prove to them they've been fooled'

A simple example "so when did you decide to stop beating your wife?"

What is an individuals immediate instinctual response? "I've never done any such thing in my entire life, ask my wife"

Therein is the wrong answer, why?

Because the accuser can now say: "PROVE IT, PROVE YOU'VE NEVER DONE SUCH A THING!"

The correct answer? "what basis of validity do you have for this question / accusation / etc?

Why the correct answer?

Because now it allows for the response of "PROVE IT, PROVE I'VE EVER DONE SUCH A THING!" regardless of whatever answer they give to your initial question.

Dont think this is what is going on?

"so when did you decide to become a racist?"

" so when did you decide to become an islamophobe?"

" so when did you decide to stop caring about public safety and argue against 'gun control' ? "

" so when did you decide to stop caring about less fortunate people and keep the people trying to cross the border who're just seeking a better life from crossing the border?"

"so when did you decide to not care about the less fortunate in our society and argue against the taxes we should pay to help the less fortunate?"

"so when did you decide to stop caring about the children?"

All of the std leftist accusations fit right into the very same format of the previous example as it is the same thing just using different accusations and / or different wording.

And without fail when people attempt to defend the truth because of the aforementioned reasons as well as an attempt to genuinely debate the left, it appears trying to defend a morally wrong position.

It is not a 'debate' we are attempting to engage in. A debate is simply an effort by two or more individuals to achieve a consensus of truth. What the left does, again, is to deliberately use our inherent desire to debate on a basis of logic, facts, truth, etc, to force us into defending against the lies of their accusations. It is why they use the previous example and why they've been so successful in forcing thier agenda onto us via the culture war.

Answering them with a question forces them to defend the lie of their accusation, which they cannot do.
The term for this is: 'the socratic method of debate.' It is real and it is the way to beat them politically and in the culture war, which is no more than winning the hearts and minds of the public which are still mentally and emotionally reachable.

That being hitting them with the socratic method of debate to expose the lies for what they are and discredit the left in the eyes of the public, also to help people not feel intimidated by the left.

the most recent and effective example of this is what Trump did the weekend the 'groping' tape came out.
It was the weekend of the second debate with hillary, Trump held a press conference that sunday and did something specific. Anyone paying attention to it will know what he did, why he did it, why it worked, and why it fits exactly into what I'm saying here.

Im not ashame to say that I definitely fall into the defend yourself first from the question. I really need to train myself to answer the question with a question. I know its a long road though.