NWF.COM....Time To End Discussion and Organize

[PlayboyPenguin]

Ah, somehow I missed the reference before, skimming too fast.

So out of curiosity, and this isn't me defending the comparison (seeing as it wasn't my post and all), what would you compare it to if 2A rights were infringed on? Would the undesirable state of affairs in DC and Chicago be just effective? How would you express your displeasure with the new administration's track record?

Humor me, I get the general concept behind Godwin's Law and all... but it's interesting to see how others think.

If the deeds are dire enough to warrant action no comparison needs to be made. They can stand or fall on their own merit, or lack there of. Especially not outlandish comparisons which are obviously intended to demonize. No one is going to believe Obama is the next Hitler, or anything like him. Trying to imply that off the bat shows bias, prejudice, and malice. It makes you look like the bad guy who has nothing to say that is worth listening to. It makes the person making the statement sounded like an extremist.

 

[Abe Froman]

If the deeds are dire enough to warrant action no comparison needs to be made. They can stand or fall on their own merit, or lack there of. Especially not outlandish comparisons which are obviously intended to demonize. No one is going to believe Obama is the next Hitler, or anything like him. Trying to imply that off the bat shows bias, prejudice, and malice. It makes you look like the bad guy who has nothing to say that is worth listening to. It makes the person making the statement sounded like an extremist.

It also makes it sound like all you want to do is ***** and moan and cry like a little baby. Sit and ***** or stand and fight. This forum and OFF and others have all done things to help inform us of what is going on and what we can presently do to help. The time for whining is well passed over.

 

[NWMoss]

If the deeds are dire enough to warrant action no comparison needs to be made. They can stand or fall on their own merit, or lack there of. Especially not outlandish comparisons which are obviously intended to demonize. No one is going to believe Obama is the next Hitler, or anything like him. Trying to imply that off the bat shows bias, prejudice, and malice. It makes you look like the bad guy who has nothing to say that is worth listening to. It makes the person making the statement sounded like an extremist.

I'm hoping that you mean that in the generic-third-person "you" as I made no such statements myself.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I'm hoping that you mean that in the generic-third-person "you" as I made no such statements myself.

of course. I am just generalizing about that type of statement and the people who would make them.

 

[aslinged]

From Wikipedia on the so-called Godwin's Law: "However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

Either way P. Penguin you're welcome to your opinion and one less supporter is only that and nothing more. However, in defense of my post I'll say, and it's really pretty obvious, that to compare the mass adulation of Obama (how many times, in how many languages and countries has the word messiah been used in his reference?) is not hyperbole at all.

In fact my comparison is, if anything, an understatement. The sheer numbers and global nature of the Obama fetish serve to vastly outweigh any recorded or reasonably inferred support for German leaders in the 1930s.

So with that, hopefully you'll clear yourself to other more interesting threads and leave this one un-hijacked.

Enjoy yourself. Don't worry, we'll take care of it for you.

 

[BUZO71]

Oregon Firearms Federation
oregonfirearms.org

Oregon's "No Compromise" firearm lobby. Kevin Starrett, the director, has been fighting for firearm rights (not privilege) in Oregon for 10 years or so. Search this web site and you will find many posts about OFF.

Also, cop haters. Anti government in every way. Now, I'm not a government guy but ... "No Compromise" means they DO NOT compromise in any way from THEIR own ideas.

 

[SigSamuer]

I'm sure by posting my thoughts, I'm going to be designating myself as the "whipping boy" for this thread....But someone has to bring a different perspective to this discussion.

In the world of political science, most of the people on this board are considered "single-issue voters." In this case, gun rights. Unfortunately, I personally believe that single-issue voting only leads to political tunnel vision and barricades the ability to look at the larger political picture. American politics isn't just about gun right, or abortion, or national security, or the economy, etc...It's the aggregate consolidation of all these issues together. My interpretation of the posts in this thread as well as others on Northwest Firearms is that there is an underlying fanaticism (borderline schizophrenia) that gun rights is the end-all issue to America as we know it. This is absolutely not true. The threat to American security and simple existence is much more economic than blunt force. Economic instabilities are by far the most significant contributors to historically failed societies. Only after the economics have failed, have the need for firearms become so important. I think many people neglect a simple anecdotal example of this...In the circumstances that you (figuratively speaking) have the choice between letting your family starve or robbing a liquor store that would ensure another week of food on the kitchen table; which would you choose? This takes a lot of introspection because most of us on this board have never faced this situation, we have people who have helped us when we were broke, etc, etc. But even in the face of judicial punishment and no other means to provide for your family, what choice do you make, do you rob the store or let your children starve? This example is not an good-and-evil problem, this is an economic problem of competition for resources.

Freaking out about or defying the Obama Administration simply because we're afraid that our guns are going to be taken away is a wild miscalculation. There are so many other issues facing our country right now that are much more imperative, that the Obama Administration is NOT going to even be able to touch the gun rights issue in the first term of the new Administration. Instead of polarizing ourselves from the Obama Administration under the auspices of him taking away gun rights, I think more of us on this board should be talking about the ways in which the Obama Administration represents an America that is about helping the majority, not minority. There are many other issues that we can find common ground with despite our feelings on single-issues and avoid restraining ourselves to defining our existence by a single-issue.

I also wanted to talk about the NRA, I am NOT an NRA-member; I'm proud of that. I don't believe the NRA represents the average gun owner at all. I don't believe the NRA advocates the ownership of guns. I think the NRA represents the sales of guns, they are ultimately promoting the sales of guns to boost the economic viability of the NRA's elite (The gun manufacturers). Everyone here know that EVERYTIME the NRA rattles the cage about upcoming gun-restricting legislation, gun and gun-accessory sales go through the roof. At this point, I think the NRA uses this dynamic to its own advantages, not to the advantage of the average gun-owner.

What does all this say? It says we need to stop talking about how we're going to use our guns and start talking about how to construct an environment where we don't need our guns....

 

[SigSamuer]

From Wikipedia on the so-called Godwin's Law: "However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

Either way P. Penguin you're welcome to your opinion and one less supporter is only that and nothing more. However, in defense of my post I'll say, and it's really pretty obvious, that to compare the mass adulation of Obama (how many times, in how many languages and countries has the word messiah been used in his reference?) is not hyperbole at all.

In fact my comparison is, if anything, an understatement. The sheer numbers and global nature of the Obama fetish serve to vastly outweigh any recorded or reasonably inferred support for German leaders in the 1930s.

So with that, hopefully you'll clear yourself to other more interesting threads and leave this one un-hijacked.

Enjoy yourself. Don't worry, we'll take care of it for you.

Then instead of comparing Obama to Hitler, why wouldn't you compare him to Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. or others? I don't feel like it's an accident that you are comparing him to figures that have negative connotations

 

[Mutoman]

Unfortunately, providing a false dilemma by offering up letting your family die or rob a store is a popular form of rhetoric used by many scare mongers to prove a point, the NRA has taught you well even if you don't belong to their organization, their representation of this false dilemma is to pay them money or you will lose your guns. There are other ways around these issues, and other ways to combat wrongs, just because some guy only gives you two choices to try to make you take his view, doesn't mean you only have two choices.

Using these scare tactics only water down any respect you may gain of the unbiased views that you do have.

 

[SigSamuer]

Unfortunately, providing a false dilemma by offering up letting your family die or rob a store is a popular form of rhetoric used by many scare mongers to prove a point, the NRA has taught you well even if you don't belong to their organization, their representation of this false dilemma is to pay them money or you will lose your guns. There are other ways around these issues, and other ways to combat wrongs, just because some guy only gives you two choices to try to make you take his view, doesn't mean you only have two choices.

Using these scare tactics only water down any respect you may gain of the unbiased views that you do have.

I think it's pretty obvious that nobody on this board has an unbiased view....

There are also examples that can be used conversely, like that if all our guns are taken away that the government is automatically going to become an unchecked authoritarian regime. This example is playing the same game of rhetoric to support the opposing view.

Just because I'm well within the minority of people on this board with views contrary to the belief that everyone needs to own a gun because there's a bad guy around every corner doesn't mean that my views are illegitimate. No one on this board has the monopoly on what's right and what's wrong; so demonizing my dissent with the majority of this board ultimately proves my point. And anyone who has the right-and-wrong answers about gun rights would have answered a "million-dollar question" and possibly be in place to receiving a Nobel Prize.

And also, my original example is NOT a false dilemma...It is a dilemma that people turmoil with everyday around the world....It's only false because you have not experienced the level of desperation that forces people into making these type of decisions

 

[Mutoman]

Your original example is a False Dilemma, your referring to my inexperience to turmoil is ignorance at its best.

I am biased toward gun ownership, because I own guns, like to shoot them, and like using them for hunting. I do not belong to the NRA for similar reasons as you, however I have thought about joining.

I do not succumb to "group think" philosophy, that's why I replied to your post because you were doing the same as you were accusing the others of, using rhetoric in your arguments.

A person can be biased without using rhetoric to state your opinion, thus supplying a more respectable opinion.

 

[SigSamuer]

Your original example is a False Dilemma, your referring to my inexperience to turmoil is ignorance at its best.

So tell me, are you saying that you have been put in the situation where you've robbed a store? Or did you let your family starve? It's an example of illustration and ignorance is ignoring the fact that these circumstances are part of people's lives all over the world....

 

[SigSamuer]

I do not succumb to "group think" philosophy, that's why I replied to your post because you were doing the same as you were accusing the others of, using rhetoric in your arguments.

I don't think that "group think" has anything to do with this, because people on both sides are guilty of "group think"....

Group think isn't a term of generalization, it's a term of specifics in which one doesn't take the time to rationalize their own cognition because responsibility for the consequences are diffused between the members of the group...

And group think isn't a philosophy...Morality is a philosophy, free market economics is a philosophy, international relations is a philosophy....Group think is a proven psychological phenomenon

 

[Joe Link]

Guys, this thread needs to take a sharp turn toward civility or it's going to be closed. Attacking thoughts and ideas is fine, as long as it's in no way personal.

Sam, I agree with quite a few points of your long post, but I also disagree with a few things. In any case we need to get together and talk about this in person while you satisfy that bet we made

In the world of political science, most of the people on this board are considered "single-issue voters." In this case, gun rights.

I know many of these people personally and I've spoken with many more online. It's wrong to assume that because people speak one way on a single-issue website that it's the only issue they care about. If speaking about other political issues were not against the rules I'm sure you'd see that most gun owners are very politically active, with many different issues and opinions that span the whole political spectrum.

Unfortunately, I personally believe that single-issue voting only leads to political tunnel vision and barricades the ability to look at the larger political picture. American politics isn't just about gun right, or abortion, or national security, or the economy, etc...It's the aggregate consolidation of all these issues together.

I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone to disagree with this. There are many reasons people are so passionate about the second amendment. For me, it's because it's a constitutional right, one that is in line with my belief that we have an inherent right to and responsibility to our own self defense.

In my mind, and in the minds of almost every gun owner I've met, the 2nd amendment is an individual right (just like all the others) enumerated in the constitution, written in such a way as to bar infringement. Any attempt at restricting this right is seen as an attack on the constitution itself. I don't know about you, but I believe that piece of paper is the thing that makes this country the greatest nation on earth, despite us getting so far away from the true intent of the founding fathers. It upsets me greatly whenever either party thinks they know better and tries to change rights enumerated in the bill of rights.

I find that the people that most often attack our 2nd Amendment are people that I generally disagree with politically. I'm for smaller government, less spending, personal freedom, and personal responsibility. If I heard those words come out of a Democrats mouth, I'd vote for him or her. If you had four things you were 'for', one person was 'for' two of those, and the other for one, which would you vote for? That's why I usually vote for conservatives (lesser of two evils, since most aren't very conservative), then work to change things to align closer with those things I'm 'for'. Since the Republican party is closer to my beliefs, that's the party I work within. It's too bad libertarians don't win elections.

The threat to American security and simple existence is much more economic than blunt force. Economic instabilities are by far the most significant contributors to historically failed societies. Only after the economics have failed, have the need for firearms become so important.

Again, I agree 100%. Most of us vote for less taxes, less spending, and less regulation, and overall less economic manipulation, which are undeniably the best four things you can do for any economy to thrive. That isn't happening with either party, and unless it does our economy is eventually going to fail. When it does, guess who's going to be prepared?

I think many people neglect a simple anecdotal example of this...In the circumstances that you (figuratively speaking) have the choice between letting your family starve or robbing a liquor store that would ensure another week of food on the kitchen table; which would you choose? This takes a lot of introspection because most of us on this board have never faced this situation, we have people who have helped us when we were broke, etc, etc. But even in the face of judicial punishment and no other means to provide for your family, what choice do you make, do you rob the store or let your children starve? This example is not an good-and-evil problem, this is an economic problem of competition for resources.

I don't think there's enough information in this anecdote to determine whether it's a good or evil problem. In order to determine that, we need to know who's responsible for your family starving. Is it you, who sat on the couch collecting a government check, though you could have worked, until the (California) government went broke and couldn't send out those check anymore? Or is it because due to some government policy or increased taxes your employer was no longer willing or able to employee you, though you've worked hard all your life? Give me someone who's in a horrible situation such as this one and 9 times out of 10 I can retrace their choices and tell you where they went wrong (I've had to do this many times with my own life). I do believe there should be options for people who have hit rock bottom to begin the journey up and out of their situation. However, I believe there should be limits and a strict vetting process for those resources, since they are (and should be) scarce. If those options are available and they do not take advantage of them I have zero sympathy for that individual.

There are so many other issues facing our country right now that are much more imperative, that the Obama Administration is NOT going to even be able to touch the gun rights issue in the first term of the new Administration.

Absolutely nobody is qualified to make that statement. With the current makeup of congress it would take mere days for a bill to pass both houses, then only a stroke of the presidential pen. You and I both know that congress does not work on the most pressing issues first, and often times works on something of little significance while important legislation sits idle.

Instead of polarizing ourselves from the Obama Administration under the auspices of him taking away gun rights, I think more of us on this board should be talking about the ways in which the Obama Administration represents an America that is about helping the majority, not minority.

Again, this is up for debate. True conservatives believe the policies Obama has supported will greatly hurt the majority of Americans and help very few.

I also wanted to talk about the NRA, I am NOT an NRA-member; I'm proud of that. I don't believe the NRA represents the average gun owner at all. I don't believe the NRA advocates the ownership of guns. I think the NRA represents the sales of guns, they are ultimately promoting the sales of guns to boost the economic viability of the NRA's elite (The gun manufacturers). Everyone here know that EVERYTIME the NRA rattles the cage about upcoming gun-restricting legislation, gun and gun-accessory sales go through the roof. At this point, I think the NRA uses this dynamic to its own advantages, not to the advantage of the average gun-owner.

Agreed.

What does all this say? It says we need to stop talking about how we're going to use our guns and start talking about how to construct an environment where we don't need our guns....

As long as man exists this utopia will never be a reality. The fact is that guns truly are the great equalizer that provide the weak and disabled the ability to defend themselves from the fists of one who is bigger and stronger than them. How do you make the world a safer place by disarming honest people of their best defense, especially when no law in the world will disarm criminals?

 

[CaseyPod]

I agree about us joining up with other citizens! The NRA has compromised on too much and allowed too much to slip by. I think that as a large citizens group we need to exert pressure on our leaders, the NRA, and GOA to ensure our rights.

I am in! It is either do or die (literally- if they come for my guns, it will be pryed from my cold dead hands)

 

[SigSamuer]

As long as man exists this utopia will never be a reality. The fact is that guns truly are the great equalizer that provide the weak and disabled the ability to defend themselves from the fists of one who is bigger and stronger than them. How do you make the world a safer place by disarming honest people of their best defense, especially when no law in the world will disarm criminals?

Careful that you are not falling into, what I believe, is an outdated philosophy of humanities anarchical state on nature....I don't believe that we are naturally out to get each other, I believe we are innately prone to cooperate with each other and have over the years of history been conditioned to be pessimistic of each other....I'm not asking for utopia, but I do think we can make more strides towards living in an environment where we don't feel the necessity to own guns....Plus guns as the "great equalizer" is the type of thought process that has propelled the Cold War arms race and the status-quo of MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction)

Oh damn, I messed up the quoting...Fix it Joey

 

[SigSamuer]

Absolutely nobody is qualified to make that statement. With the current makeup of congress it would take mere days for a bill to pass both houses, then only a stroke of the presidential pen. You and I both know that congress does not work on the most pressing issues first, and often times works on something of little significance while important legislation sits idle.

In the political realm, NO ONE is ever qualified to make ANY statements as if they were facts...That's the difference between the natural and social sciences...And another fundamental of democracy as to why we vote for who we think has the best answer, not necessarily THE answer....I apologize I didn't premise it with a disclaimer that it was my hypothesis, but I am confident that I have enough academic merit to compel supporters of my hypothetical prediction....I will reiterate it again, my hypothetical prediction is that the Obama Administration (for a variety of exogenous and endogenous political reasons) will NOT have the political capability to drastically change the current status quo on the gun rights issue.

 

[Joe Link]

Careful that you are not falling into, what I believe, is an outdated philosophy of humanities anarchical state on nature....I don't believe that we are naturally out to get each other, I believe we are innately prone to cooperate with each other and have over the years of history been conditioned to be pessimistic of each other....I'm not asking for utopia, but I do think we can make more strides towards living in an environment where we don't feel the necessity to own guns....Plus guns as the "great equalizer" is the type of thought process that has propelled the Cold War arms race and the status-quo of MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction)

Oh damn, I messed up the quoting...Fix it Joey

The 'outdated' argument for anything really bugs me. Many people use it in reference to the second amendment. People seem to think we've come so far in the last 100 years that all these 'old' philosophies are out dated. While things like slavery and restricted civil rights were old ideas that we've overcome, they have never, even in their heyday, fit in with the centuries old philosophy of freedom and liberty. How far to we have to 'progress' before we can pick up a turd by the clean end? So many people spend so much time trying to come up with new and improved ways of doing things. Often times they tout something as being 'better' just because it's new and different, when the opposite is usually true.

I believe the opinion that we're not naturally out to get each other is careless and naive, considering the thousands and thousands of years of history showing the opposite. I believe my belief is the pragmatic one, that there has always and will always be someone looking to take the easy route and get theirs by taking and benefiting from the hard work of others, be it through violence or fraud.

I confident the MAD theory is the reason the Cold War was ended with so few casualties and no actual battles being fought. If either country was not armed with nukes, I bet the outcome would be very, very different.

 

[Joe Link]

In the political realm, NO ONE is ever qualified to make ANY statements as if they were facts...That's the difference between the natural and social sciences...And another fundamental of democracy as to why we vote for who we think has the best answer, not necessarily THE answer....I apologize I didn't premise it with a disclaimer that it was my hypothesis, but I am confident that I have enough academic merit to compel supporters of my hypothetical prediction....I will reiterate it again, my hypothetical prediction is that the Obama Administration (for a variety of exogenous and endogenous political reasons) will NOT have the political capability to drastically change the current status quo on the gun rights issue.

While your hypothesis and mine differ, hope you're correct

 

[ZombieAssassin]

Also, cop haters. Anti government in every way. Now, I'm not a government guy but ... "No Compromise" means they DO NOT compromise in any way from THEIR own ideas.

Part of organizing is to work with existing organizations that have been there, done that, have the connections, have the track record, have proven effective. Many would agree that OFF meets those criteria and more. For those that disagree, start another thread and give some hard data to prove your assertions, otherwise your words are ramblings that should be rejected. If data is part of a discussion, then I think it is wise for anyone to at least honestly listen to the facts, investigate them, and then make an WELL informed decision.