2cents on Dudley brown?

[AustenW]

Curious to hear everyone's opinions on Dudley and NAGR? Do you agree with how aggressive they are, or does that give firearm owners a bad image?

Read More

 

[Stomper]

A bad image to who, Politicians or MAD, or any other anti-2A group? I could care less what "impression" is made upon them, other than FOAD.

As far as the controversies of NAGR's "relationships" with other pro-2A organizations.... it seems he's "antagonistic" to say the least.

 

[AustenW]

No, I'm asking if you think how aggressive and antagonistic NAGR is in the gun debates, does that give firearm owners a bad image? But I do agree with what you said

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Have no idea who this is, could you supply some links?

 

[U201491]

No, I'm asking if you think how aggressive and antagonistic NAGR is in the gun debates, does that give firearm owners a bad image? But I do agree with what you said

You cannot be TOO aggressive toward anti gun people. Enough is not enough.
They really don't give a damn. They will still be azzes.

You don't mollycoddle anti gun people and your never compromise with them because they will try to eat you and see compromise as a weakness they can exploit. You win with them by becoming meaner and louder than they can ever be. Chew up their carcasses and spread it on the compost pile in the political and legislative arena..

 

[usagi]

the problem is the negative image it gives of gun owners to the public in general. you know, the side you're trying to persuade to vote for bills favorable to you.

you won't get those votes by giving everyone the middle finger and being antagonistic and confrontational.

we need to be perceived as the good guys, not confrontational a$$holes.

 

[AustenW]

That's what I mean. I'm obviously all for being aggressive for our rights and am a full supporter. But does it give us a bad image by saying "f*** you its gonna be this way" more or less. We definetly have to stick to our guns, but we have to do it in a way that is more appealing to continue to bring more people to our side. Just want to hear opinions. I love hearing others outlooks on all of this!

 

[usagi]

it's not just dudley brown and NAGR. i frequently wish lapierre would shut his pie hole. there are a lot of gun rights advocates far more eloquent and persuasive.

you can get away with being confrontational if you have lots of charisma to back it up. neither brown nor lapierre have it.

 

[U201491]

That's what I mean. I'm obviously all for being aggressive for our rights and am a full supporter. But does it give us a bad image by saying "f*** you its gonna be this way" more or less. We definetly have to stick to our guns, but we have to do it in a way that is more appealing to continue to bring more people to our side. Just want to hear opinions. I love hearing others outlooks on all of this!

It doesn't matter to anti's They have a bad image of gun owners anyway.
No one says go beat the crap out of them, What I am saying is give not so much as an inch more to them because they always come back after more and more. Well NO MORE. They use up all their options.
Full out fight in Legislation, full out fight in the courts and just plain fight to keep our constitution. In other words tell them "politely" to stick any more compromises right up to the moon.
I have watched people compromise since the 50's and enough is enough.
THEY NEVER STOP AND THEY WON'T
When its time take the fight to where it needs to go to make it very clear.
The 2nd Amendment is what solidifies the Constitution and it is what gives itself and the people strength to keep it.
There can never be anyone or anything that is allowed to harm that Amendment, no matter the cost. Without it, there will be no more America, and I do not say that lightly.
America's enemies are out there and in here, ie in the countries around the world and within our own country.
.

 

[Stomper]

That's what I mean. I'm obviously all for being aggressive for our rights and am a full supporter. But does it give us a bad image by saying "f*** you its gonna be this way" more or less. We definetly have to stick to our guns, but we have to do it in a way that is more appealing to continue to bring more people to our side. Just want to hear opinions. I love hearing others outlooks on all of this!

My harshness is towards the "professional" activist anti-2A types (they can suck farts from my sphincter), not the joe-blow-everyday-dope on the street.

Case in point, my relatives from Australia were here visiting for a couple weeks and guns came up when the news came on.... My sister-in-law said, "why does anyone need a gun, I don't think they do"... My reply was, "I bet you'd change your mind if you were getting mugged, raped, or assaulted... Plus a cop is too heavy to carry around all the time". She literally did a (cartoon like) double-take at me, and hmmmed... then said I was right.

On another incident (last week) I was taking off my EDC, 86 year old Aussie mother in law recoiled at the sight of it, and says, "Oh Tony, why do you have to be so violent?" I was flabbergasted at the correlation (but she's an 86 year old Australian, what can you do.... LOL), and set the Glock on the table and patiently demonstrated that its an inanimate object, just like the cup sitting next to it... I was saying, "See, it isn't doing a THING all by itself. Are cops violent? (Typically) NO. They carry guns for protection, and you trust them." I also stated that we are responsible for our own safety/security, and that the cops can't be everywhere all the time. I also said, a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun or any other weapon they might have.

I gave them a quick lesson in American colonial/revolutionary history, what we were subjected to under a tyrannical monarchy (forced quartering of troops in homes, warrantless searches, private property confiscated w/o due process, etc) and that we kicked "King" George III's arse out of here (at great cost), about how being able to CHOOSE to be armed is woven within our Constitution, about the underlying American attitude against being dictated to (it's still alive in America).

My relatives are good and smart people, they're just conditioned by their culture (with a COMPLETELY different history and founding), but after them watching American news on crime and politics, our personal conversations (with my typical poignant remarks), and my personal example and conduct, I believe I caused them to rethink their immediate "reaction/attitude" towards firearms (and those who carry them), and were actually comfortable with me being armed all the time.

Too bad they can't (legally) vote over here (well, they could in Chicago)... LOL

 

[usagi]

It doesn't matter to anti's They have a bad image of gun owners anyway.

the problem is that there are still a bunch of people on the fence who could be persuaded to our side. we NEED them on our side!

by being rude, confrontational, and abrasive, you are converting them to antis as well! you're being harmful to our cause.

why can't you understand that?

you're deluding yourself if you believe all the fights can take place in the courts. you're deluding yourself if you believe the courts are immune to public opinion.

this initiative process is the new game. and it's ALL about public opinion. you're gonna get us all screwed.

this is NOT "compromise". if you truly believe that, then you're truly lost.

America's enemies are out there and in here, ie in the countries around the world and within our own country.
.

gun owners are frequently our own worst enemy. want to know why people dislike us? just look at how we behave.

this continued rude, confrontational, antagonistic behavior will end up converting everyone into anti's.

it needs to stop.

 

[Diamondback]

There's the rub--it's not just Us vs Them, there's an unconvinced and/or uncommitted middle to be factored in too, and we need to make more friends among them than we do enemies.

Be polite and articulate but firm--and oh by the way, if you're writing to a legislator or publication, USE A DAMN SPELL-CHECKER, lest you portray us as uneducated, illiterate "hicks" and thus give reason for them to summarily dismiss you out of hand. I'm as hardcore "anything anytime anywhere" 2A-absolutist as anyone here, but the typical gunboard-dweller routinely makes me facepalm...

Now gaslighting Nazi Nick the Prick and his scumbag pals goose-stepping to the Bloomy equivalent of the Horst Wessel, on the other hand...

 

[Dave Workman]

it's not just dudley brown and NAGR. i frequently wish lapierre would shut his pie hole. there are a lot of gun rights advocates far more eloquent and persuasive.

you can get away with being confrontational if you have lots of charisma to back it up. neither brown nor lapierre have it.

Well, who would you suggest?

 

[Norm0931]

There are 2 types of Americans. People who own guns and people who don't. Obviously the people who own guns are 95% on the side of gun rights. The people that don't own guns however are the split vote. You've got the Anti-Gunners and the people who don't care. We need to convince the people that don't own guns and don't care either 1) they need to own a gun or 2) they shouldn't be afraid of others owning them. The Anti-Gunners entire agenda is to make non gun owners fear gun owners.

 

[Caveman Jim]

The fight has been around every corner the last 25 years and tends to make us edgy, danged unruly and tired of the same fight!!!
That these so-called Americans would do anything underhanded to give up their rights as well as take ours is uncomfortable to say the least.
You just can't be polite to a group that wants your right to defend yourself taken away!!!!!
Unless you are a liberal gun owner who votes for the scum that writes the very laws to promote law abiding gun owners as the enemy and must devalue our rights...

 

[usagi]

you still don't get it.

theres a large number of people who could be persuaded to our side.

if you guys would STOP ACTING LIKE IDIOTS AND ALIENATING THEM!

you are converting leaning pro-gun, neutral or leaning anti into FULL HARDCORE GUN GRABBERS with your behavior.

you're doing bloomberg's job FOR HIM. you are hurting all gun owners.

STOP IT.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Now tell us how YOU would convince the undecided and be successful.
Details would be handy.

 

[Dave Workman]

There are 2 types of Americans. People who own guns and people who don't. Obviously the people who own guns are 95% on the side of gun rights. The people that don't own guns however are the split vote. You've got the Anti-Gunners and the people who don't care. We need to convince the people that don't own guns and don't care either 1) they need to own a gun or 2) they shouldn't be afraid of others owning them. The Anti-Gunners entire agenda is to make non gun owners fear gun owners.

Not necessarily accurate.
For example, there are a fair number of liberal-minded gun owners who think it's just peachy to talk about licensing and registration.
They'd be willing to put up with even bans on some types of guns because they are not the types of guns "they" own. Somebody else's kind of guns.

But I concur with your observation that gun owners need to do a better job and reach out to the non-gun owners.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Kudos Dave on the first part.
The second is trying to sugar coat the opponents tactics that people don't see as fanatics or fringe type actions.
Liberals are fine with giving away what others have but not what they have.....

 

[Dave Workman]

Now tell us how YOU would convince the undecided and be successful.
Details would be handy.

First, let's practice a bit of cordiality rather than confrontation.