TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:I don't know if you've ever read "Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality" by Sarah Thompson, M.D. - she says pretty much similar things - although perhaps her wording might be more to your taste.

I had read it, but I re-read it. You are correct about my "taste."

She analyzes the mental states of anti-RKBA people in objective terms, and then she suggest ways to communicate effectively with them.

Psychiatrists consciously avoid making moral judgments about their patients. This is quite a bit different from questioning the manhood of anti-RKBA people.

P.S.: No one has done a better job of this than Suzanna Gratia Hupp. She had a single message and got it across every time: The authorities denied her the right to protect herself, while failing to protect her and her loved ones.

I fault the NRA for failing convey a similar message in the public media. Other pro-RKBA are even less successful.

- Jim

The world would be a very boring place if we agreed 100%.

We have common goals. We need to develop strategies and tactics to achieve them. We can even use different tactics. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

BTW, when I use terms like war and enemy, I am talking in figurative terms. Anyone who wants to deprive us of our God-given natural right to self-defense is our enemy, but we need to fight them through the democratic political process.

- Jim

I had a roommate who was 100% anti-gun. Once while talking to her she said that, "If guns were illegal, no one would have them," in response I almost snorted (trying to control my laughter), "Yeah, just like no one smokes pot 'cause that's been illegal for decades." The irony, not lost on her, was that she had just returned from smoking pot with her brother. There's just something very satisfying in beating someone in their own playground.

Sorry, but anti-gun males are limp-wristed cowards.

I had one anti acquaintance tell me he lives in the city because it's safer than living in the country.

His thinking, as he explained it to me, was if you're attacked, home invaded, etc. there are more folks nearby to ...help.

This is the same guy who told me wouldn't shoot a violent criminal to defend himself or a loved one because morally it's not his cup of tea.

I wanted to pursue this line of thinking, whereby he'll let others risk their morality to save his bacon, but at that point he decided not discuss the subject any further...

Personally, I think his anti attitude is posturing as a cover for being a physical coward.

Can all antis be lumped into this category - of course not. There are some true believers i.e., conscience objectors among them, but within the anti group is a cadre of those who fluff their feathers with obfuscation regarding moral superiority when the simple truth is their coward's.

If this label is "politically incorrect" it's also the truth.

bdickens wrote:Sorry, but anti-gun males are limp-wristed cowards.

You have every right to your opinion, Mr. Dickens, but I don't consider contempt to be an effective strategy.

How do you suggest we make progress?

Abraham wrote:I had one anti acquaintance tell me he lives in the city because it's safer than living in the country.

<snork>

In my opinion, the mark of a hypocritical coward is holding himself to be above defending himself, but expecting police to do the wet work. We can't convert all of them, but we can push them to the margins.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:We can't convert all of them, but we can push them to the margins.

Can I just push them "overboard"??? No mess, no fuss in my book...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Can I just push them "overboard"???

No, sorry.

One of the essential features of democracy is that the winners can't just kill or imprison the losers. That kind of political structure, which you see in third-world countries, leads to civil war. No party can afford to lose.

- Jim

Abraham's aquaintance there sure is a limp wristed coward and quite typical of the anti crowd.

bdickens wrote:Abraham's aquaintance there sure is a limp wristed coward and quite typical of the anti crowd.

I am not sure how that characterization contributes to literate discourse on this forum.

I'm not sure how someone who wants me and my wife dead deserves any respect.

bdickens wrote:I'm not sure how someone who wants me and my wife dead deserves any respect.

I guess it is my own prejudice coming out. I prefer to describe what the person is doing as something objectionable rather than resort to referring to them in a disparaging manner. In general terms I agree with you.

I think that the biggest bang for our marketing/lobbying buck is in convincing women (specifically Soccer Mom types) of the falsehood of all the Brady/Kellerman propaganda about guns increasing probability of family injury/death. In other words, FORGET THE SOFT MALE. He's going to follow feminist trends, so let's keep trying to influence feminism towards the self-defense, more-guns-less-crime, etc. viewpoint. Trying to argue with soft males is a strategic waste of time, in addition to being distasteful.