National How Should The 2A Community Reach Out To Middle (Undecided) Voters On Firearm Legislation?

[The B]

You counted them? Good work.

No, I'm not hung up on it. It's just a glaring contradiction. I really liked the part about playing to young women's fear that the greatest threat to their safety is all those nasty right wing racist old boomer white men just lurking around waiting to rape them. That's sure to swing the election. Go for it.

thats the perception im trying to overcome by separated gun ownership with conservative politics. separate it from politics in general, but especially separate it from right wing politics - most young adults are not just liberal, theyre anti-right and anything thats characteristic of the right.

im not entirely sure what point youre trying to make, but it seems like youre trying to present as though im suggesting old white racist republicans are out to rape women in their 20s. thats a gross generalization of THEIR perception, not mine. thats that you have to overcome to get them no not only realize guns are not a symbol of white patriarchy, but are even a tool to defend against it.

whatever it takes, dude. and what its going to take is changing the symbolism. guns ought to be a symbol of self-sovereignty and equalization between people, not a symbol of 'all thats wrong with society' as it is now for a lot of future voters (young adults dont vote now, but they will later)

 

[arakboss]

thats the perception im trying to overcome by separated gun ownership with conservative politics. separate it from politics in general, but especially separate it from right wing politics - most young adults are not just liberal, theyre anti-right and anything thats characteristic of the right.

im not entirely sure what point youre trying to make, but it seems like youre trying to present as though im suggesting old white racist republicans are out to rape women in their 20s. thats a gross generalization of THEIR perception, not mine. thats that you have to overcome to get them no not only realize guns are not a symbol of white patriarchy, but are even a tool to defend against it.

whatever it takes, dude. and what its going to take is changing the symbolism. guns ought to be a symbol of self-sovereignty and equalization between people, not a symbol of 'all thats wrong with society' as it is now for a lot of future voters (young adults dont vote now, but they will later)

I have two sons 18 and 22 and I can tell you they fit this description of hating anything "right wingy". I tried to raise them right but the public schools and their friends won out.

 

[The B]

you also have to realize that only conservatives view themselves to be on any kind of equilibrium in the political world - everyone else views conservatives as a highly vocal but very minority extremist group anchored to a terminally ill platform. half of american voters vote R, sure, but the vast preponderance of PEOPLE (to include the millions of young people who dont yet vote) are left of what the right perceives as center, and as collective thought continues to globalize and become much more globally interconnected - happening VERY rapidly - thats gonna continue to be the trend.

the non-R world doesnt see this as a binary issue - left v right. they see it as the entire world against a relatively small but highly influential group of racist white men who need to hurry up and die so we can get on with progress.

 

[WWShooter]

The difficulty with talking to "squishy" [not my term, used above] voters is trying to convince them that gun rights are more important than voting rights, fact based education, racial equality, a woman's right to choose, addressing homelessness and so on. That's a really steep uphill slog. Better to identify some Democratic candidates who support gun rights and go all in for them.

In other words, gun rights as an issue aren't going to outweigh all the other concerns that "squishy" voters have.

 

[arakboss]

The difficulty with talking to "squishy" [not my term, used above] voters is trying to convince them that gun rights are more important than voting rights, fact based education, racial equality, a woman's right to choose, addressing homelessness and so on. That's a really steep uphill slog. Better to identify some Democratic candidates who support gun rights and go all in for them.

In other words, gun rights as an issue aren't going to outweigh all the other concerns that "squishy" voters have.

The squishy voters can have all of the above. Maybe not when voting for a particular politician but certainly when voting on something like IP17 and IP18. And when a politician they voted for starts supporting firearm restrictions in the Legislature they can make their opposition known. Firearm freedoms shouldn't interfere with those other areas you mentioned.

The middle group we should be targeting are independent types that don't show solidarity with any one party anyways.

 

[Koda]

Moderates will decide the future of gun rights and if we want to reach out to them we need to detatch gun rights from conservative politics and articulate how gun rights is not a partisan philosophy and applies to both sides.

 

[WWShooter]

The squishy voters can have all of the above. Maybe not when voting for a particular politician but certainly when voting on something like IP17 and IP18. And when a politician they voted for starts supporting firearm restrictions in the Legislature they can make their opposition known. Firearm freedoms shouldn't interfere with those other areas you mentioned.

The middle group we should be targeting are independent types that don't show solidarity with any one party anyways.

Agreed on initiatives, elections of various officials are much more problematic. The left and the right both want to restrict our freedoms, they just want to restrict different freedoms.

 

[Aero Denezol]

The opposition is not interested in facts, figures, and things and especially not a history lesson. They are not interested in the difference between a Ruger 10/22 and an M4 rifle.

The opposition is interested in people and compassion.

You need to show how Firearms Legislation puts the burden of crime on ordinary people who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Firearms Legislations hurts people with families who live and work in their communities, who have nothing to do with criminal activity. People like their co-workers and neighbors. People like Grandpa and his friends. It has to tell a compelling story.

 

[Koda]

The opposition is not interested in facts, figures, and things and especially not a history lesson. They are not interested in the difference between a Ruger 10/22 and an M4 rifle.

The opposition is interested in people and compassion.

You need to show how Firearms Legislation puts the burden of crime on ordinary people who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Firearms Legislations hurts people with families who live and work in their communities, who have nothing to do with criminal activity. People like their co-workers and neighbors. People like Grandpa and his friends. It has to tell a compelling story.

This.
And I will add that this is not a partisan answer. This applies to all, which the 2A was for.

 

[OldBroad44]

Lots of gun politics are inherently emotional, as is much of non-gun politics. I like being able to own and protect myself with a gun because I feel safer that way. I believe I am actually safer. But feeling safer day in and out is a major factor. Feeling safer is basically an emotion. In my experience those who are most anti-gun can't imagine themselves owning a gun safely or using it competently. So if guns are more readily available that just means the bad guys who attack them will be better armed than them, meaning they would feel even less safe. Both sides of the argument involve feelings, not just theirs. When talking with someone who is rethinking their positions I do not make the mistake of sneering at them and thinking my position is totally rational and theirs is totally emotional. I realize that both are a bit of both.

I also don't argue based on 2A. In recent decades the freedom from search has been eliminated at every airport and wherever there is a metal detector. Freedom from seizure of our property without trial was eliminated by drugs related civil forfeiture laws, but no drug offence needs to be proved, and takes place without trial. The post 9/11 laws allow the government to secretly seize and indefinitely imprison anyone they say is a terrorist without trial. These eliminations of major freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights impact more people more frequently than 2A . Most anti-gun people are unlikely to consider 2A of any relevance at all. (I care about 2A, but I'm not who we need to convince.)

We know that gun laws don't necessarily change availability of guns or use in crime in the US in the short run. But serious antigun policies certainly can change availability of guns and use by criminals nationally in the hands of criminals in the long run. Japan. Britain. So arguing short term effects of gun laws in US on availability of guns or use in crimes does not convince true anti-gunners of anything, especially women. They can simply say that our laws aren't harsh enough.

When talking with women I say, "Okay, suppose the laws worked and eliminated all guns in the hands of civilians. What then? Almost any bad guy can rape you or me without a gun if we are all unarmed. And certainly any team of two or three bad guys could if we are all unarmed, and criminals are a lot more likely to operate as teams these days. And even if what they wanted was your wealth, they will rape you too if they break in to rob you. In front of your husband or SO if he's there. But that team of even two or more gun- armed bad guys leaves the gun-armed woman such as me alone. Because while they still might be able to overwhelm me, they can't do so without serious risk of injury or death of at least one of them. And they know that. Military fighting for country will attack armed opponents. But crooks want risk-free crimes. They want helpless victims. And that isn't a woman with a gun."

 

[RVTECH]

The opposition is interested in people and compassion.

You need to show how Firearms Legislation puts the burden of crime on ordinary people who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Firearms Legislations hurts people with families who live and work in their communities, who have nothing to do with criminal activity. People like their co-workers and neighbors. People like Grandpa and his friends. It has to tell a compelling story.

How can you show any of this to a group who seems to have compassion and sympathy FOR the criminals and appear to be attempting to 'manipulate' the entire system into this mindset as well.

When I hear leftists/libs sugar coat criminal activity as 'entitlement', or 'deserving' or any of the other words they use to rationalize and justify their activity then I certainly don't see them ever agreeing with any form of self defense against them.

And if the majority of younger people are hating anything 'right wing' then I guess that includes anything 'Constitutional' as well - including the 2A.

I think there is a misconception in that WE can change their thinking - while they are working twice as hard to change everyone's else's. Guns are most likely not even a consideration with many of these types. It would roughly be the equivalent of convincing tree huggers to accept logging as ok and necessary.

 

[Cavedweller]

thats the perception im trying to overcome by separated gun ownership with conservative politics. separate it from politics in general, but especially separate it from right wing politics

That's what you say., But then you go on to say let's reinforce all their negative perceptions and convince them that they need guns to defend themselves aginst the evil right wingers, because conservative are bad. That is hardly a unifying message.

A better message would be the truth - the Founding Fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment so that we could defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Period.

im not entirely sure what point youre trying to make... you have to ... get them no not only realize guns are not a symbol of white patriarchy, but are even a tool to defend against it.

I reject the premise that they need to defend themselves against "the white patriarchy." That is precisely the message the left has used to divide the country and I don't see any benefit in reinforcing it. In the end it will only lead to more division.

whatever it takes, dude. and what its going to take is changing the symbolism. guns ought to be a symbol of self-sovereignty and equalization between people, not a symbol of 'all thats wrong with society' as it is now for a lot of future voters (young adults dont vote now, but they will later)

Fine, dude. If that's the way you want to approach the issue, dude, do it, dude. Just don't expect me to help, dude. And I really don't care what your former girlfriends and their friends think. I know quite a few young people and they are not that stupid, dude.

ETA: Why don't your try to convince your former girlfriends and their friends that their perceptions are false, rather than using conservatives as a foil?

 

[RVTECH]

guns ought to be a symbol of self-sovereignty and equalization between people, not a symbol of 'all thats wrong with society'

In some regard this is correct considering the 2A is essentially about maintaining a balance of power between the Government and the people - however it only applies to those who accept the Constitution as a legal directive that outlines how our country operates.

Those who do not accept the Constitution are hardly going to accept guns or any argument or rational for them.

Guns will never be accepted as a 'universal language' of equalization between people. In some ways guns have served to divide people to a greater degree - even within our own ranks. Does the term 'FUDD' ring a bell?

I don't believe guns are seen by the left as 'all that wrong with society' - I believe they see them as just a stumbling block - another 'thing' they need to eliminate on their way toward their ultimate goal of some sort of socialist nirvana.

 

[Caveman Jim]

To the OP, What Avenue you take is where most of the people that do not think about what they vote for are all on some useless form of social media. You know where I'm talking about.

While there are those that are articulate enough to have logical discussions with the opposition, I give them kudos because I am not one.

I'm a doer and I will not take a knee in this battle for our Republic.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Just don't offer them water. I hear that's a big deal these days.

 

[ma96782]

Read the quotes......first time with and a second time without the bold parts.

The 1st Amendment.......
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless someone claims to be offended by your practice thereof."

The 2nd Amendment...…
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless I say it's reasonable and makes common sense to me."

Ask......
Which is correct?

WARNING.....because sometimes.....


Aloha, Mark

 

[ActionHero1980]

I'm still trying to figure out how to reach out to firearm owners/2A people, to get them to participate in the process. The endless excuses/lack of awareness from our own can be quite demoralizing.

Alot of times all it takes with non gun people, is explaining the reality of a bill, initiative, etc. Rather than let them only hear about it from an anti gun perspective. Many aren't really anti gun, they just assume it's for safety, because that's what they're told.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

How Should The 2A Community Reach Out To Middle (Undecided) Voters On Firearm Legislation?

Hey independent and undecided voters, remember the Summer of 2020 when peaceful protestors looted and burnt stores?

Did you think that you may want to purchase or legally keep a firearm on hand just in case the action got too close?

Your a good person, no felonies, right? Why should you have to jump through extra hoops and have a waiting period longer than the Federal background check?

How about NOT voting to burden law-abiding citizens?

 

[The B]

That's what you say., But then you go on to say let's reinforce all their negative perceptions and convince them that they need guns to defend themselves aginst the evil right wingers, because conservative are bad. That is hardly a unifying message.

A better message would be the truth - the Founding Fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment so that we could defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Period.


I reject the premise that they need to defend themselves against "the white patriarchy." That is precisely the message the left has used to divide the country and I don't see any benefit in reinforcing it. In the end it will only lead to more division.

Fine, dude. If that's the way you want to approach the issue, dude, do it, dude. Just don't expect me to help, dude. And I really don't care what your former girlfriends and their friends think. I know quite a few young people and they are not that stupid, dude.

ETA: Why don't your try to convince your former girlfriends and their friends that their perceptions are false, rather than using conservatives as a foil?

all im getting from this is you're offended. of what, i can probably throw some guesses at - but i dont actually care. be offended.

 

[Jay Walk]

Im not sure we have the numbers, unfortunately. Most gun purchases are made by existing gun owners. In 2019, 2.4 million Americans became new gun owners — 3.8 million in 2020. Considering 80 million people voted for Biden, it's an uphill battle.

53 MILLION households have at least one gun in them.

You going to stuff 53 million people into 2.4 million prison beds?

We have the numbers.