Can’t we all just get a long gun?
Point. Counterpoint. Remember, you’re on the same side.
15 Responses to “Can’t we all just get a long gun?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“When a man with a .45 meets a man with a rifle … the man with the pistol is dead.” 😉
‘
February 24th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Wow. I really hate it when two people whom I like get crossways with each other.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Remember, you’re on the same side.
Sometimes I’m not so sure.
February 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
The two people involved are likely on the same side with respect to organizations like the Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Ownership.
Now, whether they’re on the same side in a brotherly dispute between the VCDL and the NRA-ILA is a different matter indeed.
But, like the host says, can’t we all just get a long gun?
February 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Oy, for a scant two seconds, I vaguely considered interjecting my own piddling $0.002 (sic), and then decided very much against it.
Regardless of who was working on it longer, or who had the first idea, or who put in the most effort, or who can lay claim to it, or whatever, the fact of the matter is that something good has happened, through what appears to be the joint efforts of multiple pro-rights organizations. If one person of one of those groups, or the group as a whole, wants to take more credit than you feel they should be due… well, I hate to cut right to the chase, but be the bigger man/woman, realize that something good came out of this regardless, and move on. People will always be trying to grab for the glory, even if they are doing it unitentionally, or with malice of forethought… But bickering between groups dedicated to roughly the same end goal will only serve to weaken them collectively, alienate members and potential members, and strengthen their respective enemies – and I do not think anyone wants that.
*braces for the assaults from both parties*
February 25th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Linoge,
Prepare for my super intense assault!
First, I don’t think anyone is denying that something good came out of this. My interest has always been not just in moving the ball forward, but how it’s moved, and how to move it faster. This is what I studied in college, and what I try to do within my work. I have studied other groups and how they achieved change. I look at our own groups and want to know what they do, how they do it, and why they should or shouldn’t change.
Online, that comes in many forms, as it has for five years. No one shocked by it, nor should they be when I’m going to make comments about their pet groups. In fact, one of the really curious questions I’ve had in this that I can’t get people to answer is where we draw the line on questioning organizations or efforts in any form. Even when others have tried to find this same answer using different techniques, those who are angry in the situation haven’t answered yet. I think if we could find that out, it would help tremendously in understanding how organizations should handle the innovation/experimentation/challenge and change process even internally.
I know, that was such a harsh, terrible assault! Forgive before I head into my second point. 🙂
But bickering between groups dedicated to roughly the same end goal will only serve to weaken them collectively, alienate members and potential members, and strengthen their respective enemies – and I do not think anyone wants that.
No, absolutely. This is another thing I’m dying to understand – why is the instinct for people to throw others they have a temporary disagreement with on the other side of the issue? We can see it in this comment thread repeated. I think understanding what drives the assumption that disagreement equals against me would be fantastic. Hell, I think most of us can see just how much that’s helped the White House policies for getting things done.
Can you imagine if we completely solved that issue? Maybe someone has, and I haven’t found it yet. But it’s very pervasive in the gun rights crowds, and I’d like to understand why. Do other social change movements have this? We know LP does, but since most of our people would sympathize with them, I don’t know if that’s a great comparison.
Yeah, I know, I was rough on you. I hope we can come out of this not terribly bruised there, Linoge.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
*sniffles a little* I think I will survive.
Me, I have always been content with progress, and never really been picky about how much or how fast… Of course, I generally tend to be a non-aggressive, non-competitive person, so it figures. Guess I should be thankful people like you are around. Either way, I do not think the problem was so much questioning other groups (because, when you get right down to it, groups will only improve or change over time if they are questioned and tested), but rather demeaning the efforts of other groups. Now, I confess, I do not read you terribly often, but I understand that snark is a sizeable element of your posting style, and I certainly have no truck with that. The problemm, I think, is a matter of targeting… A lot of people have been putting forth a lot of effort for a lot of time on this one particular issue, and I can certainly see how, to some people, your comments seemed like an outright dismissal of their efforts, if not worse. With most people, myself included, you can make snide comments about me and my opinions all you like, but when I put a massive amount of work into something, and then have it randomly brushed aside… yeah, that is going to sting a little, and different people are going to have different reactions to that.
Where do you draw the line? Honestly, I dunno. But something that might help is to express a little appreciation for whatever work might have been done in a parallel vein as yours, before launching into a snark-sniping… Might ruin your style, sure, but it helps to smooth some feathers before you ruffle them. Or is it the other way?
As for your second point… people like black and white, cut and dried, clear and simple. Shades of grey are complicated, and raise the problems of lines and stopping points and all that nonsense. And, I am out of line by speaking for another person’s intentions, but I would venture to guess that the problem was not so much the disagreement, but, as I said, the belittling of someone else’s efforts. I mean, flip the situation around, and while you undoubtedly have a thick skin, consider it from the other perspective.
I can give you the short and simple reason why this kind of problem is so prevalent among the pro-guns crowd, though – on average, we tend to be cantankerous, independent, opinionated, free-willed and -minded individualists who just happen to be united by a common cause and goal. People have a hard enough time getting along as it is, but a group of people like that? Yeah, there are bound to be some hiccups. How do you fix it? Odds are, you do not. But there is no need to aggrivate the situation.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Linoge,
I will take what you say about not reading the site as the reason you see it the way you do. Consider Sebastian’s recent post which still doesn’t even begin to link nearly as much snark as I’ve sent in every direction.
So, the question begs: Why are some groups off limits, and some groups aren’t? Why do some groups require a painfully obvious round of applause – even though they have been repeatedly applauded for what they do best in the course of the conversation – and others don’t? When do you make that call? How do you keep the world from turning into a world full of apologies for what you’re about to say if it’s not even allowed on a blog that’s styled around five years of snark on the issue?
Help me understand what it is about grassroots that says this kind of snark is acceptable for Group A when working on Issue B at exact Time C, but when you make a joke about wording for a website about Group B working on Issue C at Time A, well then it’s time to say you’re actually working against gun rights.
I do take your acknowledgment that you don’t follow the site into account, but I still can’t help but seeing what you suggest as a clear endorsement of hypocrisy if we have to tiptoe around some groups and people while accepting the behavior for others. Who will set such standards? Will there be a guidebook posted on the web of acceptable terms, groups off limits, and blog personality requirements?
February 25th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
No one here can teach you tact, Bitter. Even when others have tried directing you in that direction, you continue to remain defensive and self-entitled. The “I do it to everyone” defense is lame. All you’re saying is that you don’t care who gets offended, ostracized, or alienated. It’s a poor strategy for one who wishes to rally people to a cause.
I suspect a simple, “Curtis, I apologize if I offended you,” would be sufficient. Albeit, I remember that tactic not working when you lambasted me. Even if your pride won’t allow you to apologize in a public format, Curtis has contact info up on his site. At least then the ball is in his court.
Otherwise you can continue swirling in a self-righteous dervish and those you have exiled will just stop paying any attention and those you haven’t will stop trying to help you.
Take it for what its worth…
February 25th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I suspect a simple, “Curtis, I apologize if I offended you,” would be sufficient. Albeit, I remember that tactic not working when you lambasted me. Even if your pride won’t allow you to apologize in a public format, Curtis has contact info up on his site. At least then the ball is in his court.
You know, I might have agreed with you if Curt’s reaction was not to accuse her of having contributed nothing without knowing anything about who she is in real life, and had he not accused her of “Other than sit on your condescending high horse and cheerlead for the NRA, what have YOU done that justifies your criticizing a group that works so hard and does so much to protect and advance YOUR rights?”
No, you don’t get to do that. She made a snide remark about VCDL, and he came back and attacker her personally. And now you guys are arguing that she needs to apologize? No. I call bullshit on that. It Curt had kept his argument to defending VCDL, and calling out Bitter for the snark, without resorting to personally insulting her… I would have told her she should back down, clarify what she thinks about VCDL, and apologize for offending anyone. But that’s not how things went down.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:17 am
But, Sebastian, even you, on your own site said today, “I do hope that all this will blow over, and we can all be friends again.”
That is an extending of the olive branch. That is a social grace. That type of attitude puts the OTHER party on the defensive. That is tact. You are not rescending your position or acquiescing your opinion. Yet it displays alliance, the proverbial “agree to disagree” position we must all take in various walks of life. It is a sign of humility (which is a virtue, not a vice) that displays empathy towards your fellow.
You did not use the word “sorry” or “apologize,” but you nonetheless came back with a statement saying, “I value you.” It’s the same thing whether you recognize that or not. You did not have to make that post and end with that statement, but you did. You took the initiative when Curtis was offended (justifiably or not is beside the point) by your action. You left the next move up to Curtis. The ball is in his court.
Lord knows, I hope you recognize that this is a commendation not a criticism of you. In my humble opinion, you have now acted in an honorable way. I will bow out of any further discussion on this matter. I will also not deny that I consider Curtis a friend as we have had numerous contacts outside of the blogs. The two of us have found that we have certain values in common and, as such, though I would never presume to speak for him, I believe that he is more interested in building bridges than tearing them down.
Yes, it will blow over eventually. Probably by tomorrow. Whether it will end with stronger alliances or a newly created division is yet to be seen. I will stop there before I step any further out of my bounds. If it had not been in such a public format and garnered so much attention, it wouldn’t have been any of our business anyway.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Heh! Never mind.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:28 am
Link failed: Try this
February 26th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Clint, that proposal was made by another commenter. I never indicated that you or Curt had anything to do with it. I was actually stated as a proposal that we make distinctions in who we’re allowed to say good and bad things about based on a group’s size. I think it’s a fair question regardless of the situation.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I think we are moving at cross purposes… I was not trying to say that certain groups are off limits, or should be off limits. Rather, I was just trying to say that when any group, no matter how small or large, puts forth a considerable (at least relative to its capabilities) effort to support a cause that you, too, support, some manner of honest recognition might be a good idea before you launch into a snark. Nothing complicated, “Hey, X, thanks for all the work you did for progressing Cause Y.”
Otherwise, intended-as-humor or not, your continual snarking is going to continue to ruffle feathers, and probably continue to alienate people and groups, both of which could potentially support your cause(s).
And before anyone gets the indication I am supporting Curt’s actions, I cannot say as though I am. Just go about things differently, is all.