TexasCHLforum.com

Bunk.

Presumably the writer is this woman: http://www.juliagorin.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She describes herself as a comedian who has conservative political leanings, not a psychologist or psychiatrist.

Maybe some men who "don't like guns" are cowering ninnies. Maybe some are airheads. Maybe some grew up literally without knowing anyone who owned a firearm, shot, or hunted. Maybe some believe the Brady propaganda because the Bradys pushed their buttons better than pro-RKBA forces. Maybe some think that banning anything would actually work (like all the other people who think banning their bugbear would work).

I don't know. I missed out on the mind-reading gene.

But I know that ridiculing and dismissing those who disagree with us is not going to change minds.

- Jim

No, I did not miss it. I encompassed it in my reply.

Ridiculing and dismissing your opposition has never worked. It never will.

Gandi is often quoted as saying something like, "First they ignored us. Then they ridiculed us. Then they fought us. Then we won." Probably that is not a verifiable quotation, but it's a good thought.

The anti-RKBA forces have already piled up over a century of wins. We are now pushing back, but we have a long way to go. The war will not be won until a majority of the active electorate firmly believes in the RKBA, rather than thinking of weapons as the tools of criminals, lunatics, the police, and the military.

- Jim

Is this the kind of ridicule we should avoid?

The anti-gun male is a sissy.

So would this definition be regarded as ridicule: Hoplophobia, n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns

Abraham wrote:So would this definition be regarded as ridicule: Hoplophobia, n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns

No. It's as valid a description of a certain psychological condition as arachnophobia or all those other irrational fears (though hoplophobia is not in DSM IV).

However, its use should be restricted to those who panic at the sight of any firearm regardless of the circumstances. That is quite rare, if it happens at all. Most people who "don't like guns" have no problem with weapons in the hands of the police or their own bodyguards.

That magazine cover is very well done. I hadn't seen it before.

Here's my point: Sitting in an echo chamber and telling ourselves that our opponents are limp-wristed cowards or idiots is not a winning tactic. No war has been won by the side that failed to take the other side seriously. Many of you can remember the Viet Cong being described as "little [derogatory word for Asians] in black pajamas." You know how that worked out.

In a democracy, changing public opinion is the only way to win. That is not accomplished by dismissive or hostile attitudes or congratulating ourselves on our superiority.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:That magazine cover is very well done. I hadn't seen it before.

Here's my point: Sitting in an echo chamber and telling ourselves that our opponents are limp-wristed cowards or idiots is not a winning tactic. No war has been won by the side that failed to take the other side seriously.

I don't even remember what that cover was from, but it came from my favorite news aggregator site, Fark.com, which sometimes comes very close to the 9-year-old rule on some of the news item descriptions. I think it was from one of the many photoshop contests they run. Interestingly enough, they have what appears to be a left-ish bent, but the righties do represent rather well.

I agree that we must take the 'opposition' very seriously. I had a 'discussion' on the Arizona law on my Facebook page last week. One guy I knew was running the Republican Red-Meat line about "they are breaking the LAW - send 'em back NOW!", which, on the face of it, is the correct answer, but he was getting a huge bit of pushback from another guy who was more 'sympathetic' to the plight of the Mexicans and to the whole economic impact of shutting off the cheap farm labor.

I had to run a middle ground and argue from the point that the law is virtually identical to the US Code to make any headway, and to also argue that immigration reform must make citizenship faster and easier than the Byzantine mess it is right now.

It would have been easier to agree with my 'pitch 'em back over the fence' friend, but that's not how we make progress. The same thing applies here. I think we can have a little bit of fun at their expense, but we can't make them into caricatures - they do enough of that to us already. Maybe that magazine cover can be a conversation starter - "What do you think about waiting 7 minutes for the police to show up?" etc.

seamusTX wrote:

Abraham wrote:So would this definition be regarded as ridicule: Hoplophobia, n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns

No. It's as valid a description of a certain psychological condition as arachnophobia or all those other irrational fears (though hoplophobia is not in DSM IV).

However, its use should be restricted to those who panic at the sight of any firearm regardless of the circumstances. That is quite rare, if it happens at all. Most people who "don't like guns" have no problem with weapons in the hands of the police or their own bodyguards.

That magazine cover is very well done. I hadn't seen it before.

Here's my point: Sitting in an echo chamber and telling ourselves that our opponents are limp-wristed cowards or idiots is not a winning tactic. No war has been won by the side that failed to take the other side seriously. Many of you can remember the Viet Cong being described as "little [derogatory word for Asians] in black pajamas." You know how that worked out.

In a democracy, changing public opinion is the only way to win. That is not accomplished by dismissive or hostile attitudes or congratulating ourselves on our superiority.

- Jim

Well said. Even so, I confess that my initial temptation is to be contemptuous of foolishness. I have to resist that urge most of the time.

Well said.

Thank you.

There is another thread going about "your conversion experience." Many people grew up literally having no use for guns. I am one of them. We need converts. We don't even need that many.

The state of Illinois is nearly at the tipping point, where enough people understand that Daley's policies haven't worked and never will.

The U.S. as a whole is probably past the tipping point. No anti-RKBA legislation in Congress has gotten out of committee in a long time (I can't remember when). Few candidates run on anti-RKBA platforms, and they have no influence in that respect.

- Jim

Andy is spot on with his first post as well as mention of Sara Thompson, MD. Sara is now retired and is a little to the right of most people politicaly, but she was a practicing MD and knows about what she speaks. Here is a link to the complete paper that she wrote back in 2000-

http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalre ... 16-07.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GIGO- if you are not aware of what drives your opposition, you will never compete on a level playing field with them. Bad information or worse, no information, leads to bad decisions and ineffective strategy.

People are suspicious of what they do not know--and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do or the people who have defended themselves from injury or death just by brandishing a gun. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged.

We could argue all day about what language is hostile or dismissive, except that I'm done with that part of the argument.

Many people (possibly a majority) refuse to believe that they could become victims of violence. These are the people who don't have burglar alarms (definitely a large majority), don't lock their house or car doors, open their doors to strangers with no safeguards, and go around paying so much attention to cell phones or whatever is plugged into their ears that they walk into traffic.

These people do not receive the message that they are responsible for their own protection. They reject it the way that a drunk in the gutter rejects the message of the Salvation Army.

They think (if the word think can be applied to such a mental process) that legislation can make the world as safe as Sesame Street.

These are not evil or stupid people. They lack information and experience, and they have been influenced by a propaganda message that has a lot of money behind it. We have to figure out how to change their minds. We cannot change their minds if we assume that their position is the result of a character flaw.

The likes of Richard Daley, Charles Schumer, or Carolyn McCarthy will never change. We need to adjust the political climate so that they have little or no influence.

The people who post irrational messages on blogs and message boards probably have some kind of obsessive mental illness, but they are already on the lunatic fringe.

- Jim