The target
Targeting moderates and going with infighting. One thing I’ve found effective at swinging moderates is to point out that none of the laws proposed disarm criminals. Only honest people.
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 19th, 2013 at 9:14 pm
Not sure if the NIJ memo the NRA has put out has been independently confirmed (I know the conclusions are sound) but that right there is the ultimate answer to any moderate gun owner who tries to hedge with “but no one wants to take our guns.”
In that memo, in black and white, is a summary of every gun control meta-analysis done in the past few decades and every control proposal comes down to “this restriction will be ineffective without universal registration and confiscation.”
Simply present the moderate with those facts and ask them how they respond to that settled science.
Then point out that even in Canada they couldn’t get 100% compliance with a long gun registry. Then ask them, now knowing -that- incontestable fact, how on earth one might work in a country where hundreds of law enforcement officers and several entire states have stated they will not comply?
The burden of answering these questions is on them. Simply present them with the evidence, ask the question and put them in the position of using reason or denial.
February 19th, 2013 at 10:07 pm
But we MUST do SOMETHING, right? I mean, the Bill of Rights is obviously the problem, so we must errode it for our own “safety”. That’s what we’re being told– that our rights are to blame for our problems. This coming from people who’ve taken the Oath, and we call them “moderates”.
No, Young Grasshopper; they are extremists. Extremists in opposition to liberty.
February 20th, 2013 at 2:06 am
Just take them shooting, but use reactive targets like cans, clays, or steel plates.
February 20th, 2013 at 12:27 pm
@M.Carberry: your logic is infallible, but it takes an inferential leap by supposing that the uncommitted and/or opposition folks have the power of reason and use that power. Your leap fails, because if facts and truth were the rule, we wouldn’t be having this argument in the first place.
The 2A remained largely un-interpreted for two centuries simply because the basic necessity of the right was accepted at face value. With sinister precision, the forces that espouse the end of the individual and the rise of the collective have eroded, in most “modern” thinking, the necessity of having an ultimate control over Government, or the right of self-defense.
Consequently, the only way to logically fight the collective IS to constantly point out it’s failures, and you do that by showing how maintaining individual rights is always more efficient at promoting the general welfare of citizens than is collectivism.