- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
NRA ad goes too far?
- Thread starter JettaKnight
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I think this is the crux of it. Using hyperbolic language doesn't help foster an honest discussion. It just sends people to their ideological corners.
Of course "clenched fists" is metaphorical. And that's the problem with doing it. "But they do it more" isn't a proper defense of doing it. Getting serious shouldn't look like Ben Affleck attempting to play Batman. "This is my angry face". It's put on like makeup where underneath, you just have someone playing the part of an angry person.
What is the goal of the NRA? Is it to foster tribalism or is it to promote firearm ownership and rights? Is the NRA the conservative's personal gun toter's wing, or is it simply that the people who tend to be in favor of gun rights happen to be more conservative. If it's the former then the NRA may as well be an extension of the Republican Party. But if it's the latter then gun rights proponents should want to expand their tent to anyone who promotes firearm ownership and advocates for gun rights.
I understand the frustration and anger over the tactics the regressive left has used over the right, but I've seen signs of dents in the left's power to do so. Exposing the absurd, and articulating the stark contrast with the truth has made more progress in defeating progressives. Articulating truth is way more powerful than angrily clenching our fists and acting like the stereotyped people the left has made us out to be.
KittySlayer
Grandmaster
NPR is spending the next hour whining about the ad Thursday morning at 10:00am.
So on their "1A" program they are whining about the "2A". Without #2 there is no #1.
So on their "1A" program they are whining about the "2A". Without #2 there is no #1.
Almost all leftist I know are all about the open palm of giving.
With the radicalization and entrenchment of both sides, I'm sure many are more militant, yet still most are too busy using their hands to dig into your pockets.
As for "getting ornery", I'm not sure that's the right tack. We've been making great inroads in the past decade - constitutional carry, getting close on removing surpressor controls, etc., etc. Why risk risk derailing this?
I heard the promo, I'll try and listen later today.
I'm sure that concept will be lost on them.
Likewise. I rolled my eyes, and declined to engage, specifically because of the inflammatory rhetoric. (Now don't anyone go rolling their eyes at me; I just thought discussion/refutation of such rhetoric was better left to the Castile thread.)
You know what, I was actually going to start a whole new round of nonsense, going over my statement and trying to figure out how the use of murder instead of manslaughter makes a substantive difference when talking about a supposedly trained police officer who shot an innocent man at point blank range 7 times (and manage to miss him twice... putting those bullets into the back seat where a young girl was sitting).
But, I realized that isn't relevant to this conversation at all. The whole point of this conversation was how the NRA initially made no statement at all and then only after large numbers of NRA members demanded that they did, they issued a non-statement, stating they needed to wait until the facts were out. Then, a full year later, issue yet another non-statement about how "this was regrettable... but really, just buy our Carry Guard insurance, it's great". In the mean time though, they created this ridiculous ad with Loesch that we are talking about.
So, get bent out of shape over the definition of manslaughter and murder if you want, but I still stand by my earlier statement... the one after I lost everyone because I used the wrong "m" word:
Beowulf, while neither "side" wants to claim to support for the KKK or Nazis there's no denying what party(ies) started those groups. The KKK was formed by Southern Democrats and if you look up Nazi you'll see that it means "National Socialist Workers Party".
Very true (though one could argue that the Nazis didn't really fit the technical definition of Socialism with the government controlling the means of production, but fell more heavily into the classic definition of Fascism with the state heavily regulating private industry, but not controlling it).
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the Loesch ad or what we were talking about. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.
Ornery is fun. Fun is a great tack if it's inclusive.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
First, addressing 'they do it more' leads me to this conclusion: While, as pointed out in this thread, we have made a little progress, when considered over the course of a century, the fact that we have lost greatly while the left has gained greatly both in terms of the Second Amendment and the general course of our society, I have to consider it nonsensical to argue that our methods work and theirs don't.
Second, pro-2A people are forced into a certain amount of what you describe as tribalism. When one side, including and especially one of the two political parties which, for all practical purposes, have a duopoly on political power in this country, have openly declared themselves sworn enemies of our rights, it seems that our two choices are to accept this divide and live on our side of it or else capitulate.
Okay. Let me ask you this. What objective, important truth does this lead you to WRT the NRA? What statement would you have wanted them to make? What statement could they have made, politically?
I'll try to answer those questions myself. But first it requires seeing what is true about the circumstances. Castile wasn't "murdered" in any sense of that word. If any criminal charge fits, it would be manslaughter. I see no depravity of mind there. I see an irrational fear which led to an irrational action, which was shooting someone who was actually innocent (didn't need shot). I see some issues with competence of the officer as I've heard LEO explain. So those are what I see as some objective truths that fit into an opinion of how I would expect the NRA to react.
So let's talk about the significance of 7 shots; two missing. Is that actually relevant at all to any expectation of what the NRA should say about it? If it's relevant then it should be extraordinary for a cop to shoot someone who he thinks is reaching for a gun. But is that extraordinary? What are cops trained to do when they use deadly force? We've already established that it's irrational for the cop to have reacted like he did. But if the circumstances were such that it would have been rational, that is that Castile was actually reaching for a gun, would shooting him 7 times be extraordinary? Would it be against police training to shoot until the threat stops? If the only thing that makes it relevant to you is that Castile was innocent, it's really not the 7 shots that is relevant. It's the innocence of Castile. So why hyperbolize it? Why not just say what's true?
So. What should the NRA have said about Castile? It seems reasonable for them, being the controversial, maligned by mainstream, gun rights advocacy group, having experienced changing narratives with so many other police-involved shootings, to say they'll wait until the facts come out. So, they did. And I don't disparage them for that, per se. It's not what I wanted them to say, but it's reasonable under the circumstances to take a wait and see attitude.
So the issue I take with them now is that it should not have required members to remind them of their promise to say something after the facts are known. We had a trial. The relevant facts were exposed. There wasn't a guilty verdict, but that's irrelevant to their promise to say something.
What I wanted them to say from the start is something like,
"The NRA stands by the rights of every law abiding citizen to legally possess and carry firearms. A citizen carrying a firearm should not by itself be a reason to be shot by police."
That's it. That statement could have been said from the start. That statement could have been said at the end.
But if you wanted the NRA to call the cop a racist and then you want to claim that the NRA is racist if they don't say exactly that, is unreasonable. I think racial bias played a role. I don't think the cop was a racist. That hasn't been proven. I think what there is plenty of evidence for is that the cop was motivated by irrational fear. I see no reason for the NRA to make any statements beyond their charter, which is to advocate for gun ownership and rights.
How much progress we've made is irrelevant to the decision to do what they do. It's not a reason to do it. If we're going to claim to be the moral side and that they're the immoral side, we've lost that argument if we then advocate for doing what we said was immoral, but it's okay for us because we don't do it as much.
So as far as making little progress, there is a pathology to that. And there are circumstances which lead to that which are more complicated to just say in a few paragraphs. But just touching on it, normal, logical, compassionate, everyday individuals have been busy building better lives for themselves to the extent that their freedom and abilities allows them to do. Meanwhile, as those sane people have been mostly minding their own business (notwithstanding Sunday laws, racism, etcetera), the Marxists were designing a revolution.
People are just now starting to wake up, even though some have been awake the whole time. So up until now it's been very easy to marginalize us. THAT's one of the reasons we've made no progress. Another is that we've made it too easy for them to marginalize us because we've not learned how to communicate in ways that are inclusive. And there's a reason for that. Conservatives tend to come off has harsh and mean when they're not articulate. And conservatives tend not to be articulate, not because they've lower IQs but because it's not really a priority to be able to bridge gaps between ideological differences.
Things are a little different now. If it weren't for the internet and social media, the awakening would have come later and even if not later, would have been too little too late. But now we have some platforms that the MSM haven't figured out yet how to monopolize. And now that those platforms exist, people awaken even more when those platforms are threatened.
Not only that, but the community of people who oppose the rabid social justice is growing not shrinking. It's growing because the old differences between liberals and conservatives are losing focus because people are focusing on the more immediate threats, loss of personal liberty. The progressives are having a much harder time marginalizing us because it's not just us anymore. Progressives now have to marginalize groups of liberals who were once their allies until progressives went full on social justice stupid and started speaking out against free speech.
There are a lot of voices in both liberal and conservative circles (not so much in alliance with the alt-right) who articulate the virtues of individual liberty, from liberals to conservatives. I never thought I'd see those two factions work together against a common enemy, which seems to be collectivist, identity obsessed groups.
I'll address more on the tribalism later.
Find me the orneriest associated within any group, yet those who maintain full possession of their individuality as distinct from the crowd, and we will generate some creative fun even in disagreement.
