By John Dingell III
The Washington Post’s fashion critic declared last week that “wear[ing] a MAGA hat is to wrap oneself in a Confederate flag.” It was a transparent attempt to justify the media’s vile disinformation campaign against a few Catholic kids from Kentucky.
She’s not alone in branding the hat a symbol of racism and white supremacy.
The red MAGA hat is the new white hood.
Without white boys being able to empathize with other people, humanity will continue to destroy itself. #FirstThoughtsWhenIWakeUp
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) January 20, 2019
The MAGA cap is both a recent and fairly uncommon apparel item even in Trump strongholds.
Classic NRA caps, however, with the organization’s block letters in gold embroidery are far more ubiquitous and have been a fashion staple of rural men for more than 30 years.
Red and blue NRA seals appear on far more automobiles than there are actual NRA members, even in urban areas.
It’s hard to tell which the media hate more, Trump or the NRA. The left and their MSM accomplices have been waging a campaign against symbols they disagree with for about five years with a fair degree of success. And they’ve worked hard to other-ize gun owners, particularly since Sandy Hook.
Given the rabid nature of the anti-gun left, it’s not unreasonable to expect that NRA hats and stickers will be next on their demonization agenda. Just in time for the next big federal gun control push.
But when gun rights activists wearing NRA hats or t-shirts are accosted by “gun safety” proponents, they should be careful control their facial expressions. As Nathan Phillips found out, video cameras are everywhere now and facecrime is the new hotness.
i’m triggered by people walking around with their pants hanging at their knees, shaking their butts, and playing ghetto-blasters @ ear-splitting volume.
…better not say anything, though…you know how that goes….
suggested email to Tx state “preservation board” re confederate sign removal in austin:
Now that the evil Confederate item has been removed, perhaps there will be room for a more diversity-serving replacement. Something celebrating the brave muslims who were no doubt at the Alamo. You know, taqiyya-bama said they have always been in the warp and woof of America – or something like that. Or even a statue of Lenin, Austin being what it is. Maybe an illegal alien statue in place of Audie would appease Tragic/Travis County, or a guy with his pants hanging down to his knees. Think of the possibilities.
The particular sign removed from the Capitol was not because it was a Confederate monument. Confederate monuments still dominate the Capitol grounds. The Monument to Confederate Dead is still the first thing you see when you enter the grounds, and the largest of the monuments. There are also many monuments to specific Confederate units and a large Seal of the Confederacy is still displayed on both North and South entrances.
The sign was removed because it stated that the civil war wasn’t about slavery, which is demonstrably false in the case of Texas. Texas’ own Articles of Secession, written at the time as justification for separation from the union, specifically state slavery as a primary cause.
“The sign was removed because it stated that the civil war wasn’t about slavery, which is demonstrably false in the case of Texas. Texas’ own Articles of Secession, written at the time as justification for separation from the union, specifically state slavery as a primary cause.”
[What follows is actually directly related to what is happening today]
The actual cause was the attempt by politicians to alter the US Constitution without benefit of formal amendment. At the time, slaves were legal property. The anti-slavery people were abolitionists, but not necessarily integrationists. The free States were trying to limit the rights/powers of new States as to the legality of slavery (the Constitution stated that any new state would enter the union with all the rights and powers of existing States).
The US Constitution apportioned representatives to the House based on population. The intent, among other things, of the anti-slavery States was to limit the ability of slave States to gain and hold the majority of seats in the House of Representatives (for apportionment only, slaves were 3/5s a person – a means to slow down the growth of slave State representatives) through importation of more 3/5s persons so as to raise the number of House representatives.
Eleven (some claim 13) slave States determined that using simple legislation to limit constitutionally protected property rights was an abrogation of the compact establishing the union. Such abrogation was considered justification to withdraw from the voluntary compact. (NOTE: four slave States did not secede).
It is of particular interest that: a) the slave States did not pursue the matter in the Supreme Court; b) the free States did not sue the slave States in the courts.
The direct relationship between the fight over the Second Amendment, and the fight over slavery, fall into two categories: a fight over property rights; attempts by the “anti” forces to avoid a constitutional amendment. Attacks on the Second Amendment are also attacks on property rights.
@Sam: “Attacks on the Second Amendment are also attacks on property rights.” That is true; and, in some debates, it makes sense to make that point. However, it’s sort of an incidental point that detracts from the main issue.
Our property interest in our guns and ammo doesn’t rise to the level of significance as our property interest in our homes, farms, tools-of-trade and the like. Moreover, through eminent domain, our governments CAN take our property for “public purposes” if they pay us. So, it’s a weak argument.
The centrality of the right-to-arms is self-defense, and that included self-defense against a tyrannical government. Sovereignty of the nation-state is vested in We the People. Without arms to keep government officials in awe of their principals, the sovereignty-vested-in-the-People principle would be hollow; absolutely meaningless when push-comes-to-shove. Whomsoever sat in the seat of government power could force his (their) will on any minority or even a majority. Even the ballot box couldn’t be relied upon. It matters not who votes; it matters only who COUNTS the votes.
Once the 2A is kicked-out from the underpinnings of our system of government, the whole system collapses; or, is vulnerable to collapse. Our People – if they were homogeneous in sentiment – might live with one another for a thousand years without strife. (You may laugh now.) More likely, within a century, our People – who are heterogeneous in sentiment – will devolve into a tyranny of a majority. Or, a coalition of factions able to form a short-lived controlling number of seats in Congress, the Presidency and SCOTUS.
So long as the 2A is alive, such a majority (or coalition) would impose it’s tyranny at jeopardy to their lives.
Arguably, an incident of this sort arose in the Civil War; the consequences of which we should not wish to repeat.
This is the compelling Constitutional interpretation to give to the 2A. It’s a “cornerstone” to our system of government. It is not merely a property right to be arbitrated by compensation in an eminent domain “taking”.
“So long as the 2A is alive, such a majority (or coalition) would impose it’s tyranny at jeopardy to their lives.”
We all wish that were so. However, have you talked to any politician who thinks gun owners represent a threat to tyrannical/rogue government? Represent a deterrent to government overreach? They laugh at the idea the government would ever become something that would justify an armed rebellion.
What they fear is the rogue individual with a gun (and us, the potential rogue person with a gun who will snap without warning and start shooting random people). Seeing no threat of rogue government, the very idea that a bunch of deplorables with firearms will save the country is lunacy to the politicians.
Defending the country from tyranny is the truly weak argument. It doesn’t resonate with politicians, and I suspect not with the vast majority of citizens, either. The self-defense reasoning is the only thing that might be defendable enough to ward off some further erosion of the Second Amendment, but only if we can develop an emotionally compelling sales pitch.
I largely agree with your arguments. I wouldn’t try to debate with police. Some support the 2A; and others oppose it because they think the badge on their chest makes them all-powerful. There aren’t really enough cops to try to win over (who are not already sympathetic) to worry about.
The 2A as a cornerstone of our system of government is an argument to be made to those few voters who can still think clearly enough to recognize what is happing (had historically happened) elsewhere. E.g., those who see what the lack of a gun-culture and lack of civilian guns has done to the people of Venezuela. There aren’t many of these people – who can think – but when you spot one, THIS is the argument to make.
Most importantly, it is making an argument about a sympathetic poster-child. What of the woman who fears for her life walking to her car at night? What of the woman who faces armed home invaders? Such arguments resonate with the emotional who can’t think rationally.
“Most importantly, it is making an argument about a sympathetic poster-child. What of the woman who fears for her life walking to her car at night? What of the woman who faces armed home invaders? Such arguments resonate with the emotional who can’t think rationally.”
That’s what I’m talking ’bout.
Sam, it’s an interesting argument, but I don’t think it quite parallels. The abolitionists, all the way back to the founding of our nation, weren’t arguing that the slave owners couldn’t own property. They were arguing that people could not be property in the first place.
“They were arguing that people could not be property in the first place.”
Indeed they were. However the constitutionally troublesome part was that the constitution did not. Thus, slavery remained legal, and slaves remained property. A federal law even declared that runaways were to be detained and returned to their “rightful owner”.
It is also important to note that for the first two years of the civil war, restoring the union, not freeing slaves, was the justification for the war. Indeed, even the Emancipation Proclamation recognized that Lincoln (or the federal government) had not legal/constitutional power to free the slaves – the Proclamation applied only to slave States in rebellion; four slave States remained in the union, thus the Proclamation did not apply to them.
The “antis” viewed slavery as a moral issue, the “pros” viewed slavery as a constitutional right. Seems to mirror the 2A situation today.
I think that you are wrong about the 3/5ths of person status of slaves being a way to slow the growth of southern representation; just the opposite in fact. The North had a significant population advantage over the generally agricultural southern states. Slaves, being slaves, were not considered “persons,” and therefore were not counted as a part of the population for the purpose of determining the number of representatives. This left the south at a significant disadvantage in the House. The 3/5ths provision was intended to somewhat equalize the disparity.
The 3/5s applied only to apportionment for Representatives. The North did not have an impossible population advantage. The importation of slaves, and births of slaves was a threat politically. The South could ramp up importation at will.
Black people were not considered 3/5s human (until revisionist history beginning in the 1960s). Indeed, black people are not mentioned in the original constitution (neither is slavery). The Northern States (abolitionists) at the founding wanted slaves to be counted as nothing, zero, invisible because of the vast numbers that could be considered as “population”. The Southern States wanted slaves to be counted as whole persons (so as to use them as “population” for apportionment.
Here are four articles you may find enlightening:
“Article 1, Sec 2
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ”
https://americanvision.org/3918/the-original-constitution-and-the-three-fifths-myth/
https://blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
As far as I know there were no Muslims at the Alamo but there are American Muslims buried at Arlington National Cemetery. I suppose you will tell me that since they are Muslim American they don’t count. I remember reading and or hearing statements by people saying the same thing about Black Soldiers who fought and died for both the Confederacy or the Union. Its no surprise many of them were wearing Maga hats while making such statements to me.
@Vlad Tepes — As far as you know, that is no at all what was implied here. Furthermore, I rightly and sincerely doubt that anyone wearing Drumpf gear said anything of the kind to you, or even anything remotely similar.
dingle-balls/dingell & militant-a**hole/milano can put it where the moon does not shine
jwt: tell someone who gives a s**t. some in america jump up in the air anytime someone from a “protected class” is “triggered” – i don’t.
I’m telling the guy who clearly gives a shit enough to comment.
consider: kkk founded by dhimmi-rat party, no living slaves or slave holders today.
i honor the buried muslim & black people in arlington or elswhere, they served this nation. so did i, but i don’t whine & get to have something removed because i got “triggered” – a 10% person of color (poc)
Will NRA Hats Be Branded the Next KKK White Hood?
Yes.
Along with thousands of benign items that aren’t overtly anti white, anti straight, anti Christian or anti 2A.
really taken aback to hear media types saying a MAGA hat was justification for an irrational response…but even an NRA hat can trigger some disapproving…even fearful..looks…
I wonder when someone will sell a hat reading:
“Deplorable
Christian
NRA
GOP
MAGA”
Or, how about a blue hat reading:
“Make America Venezuela Again”
Which would sell more?
I wonder when a true American patriot will stand up and call out at the NRA as the traitorous scoundrels they are:
“In one email, an NRA employee appears to help Butina make travel arrangements for a delegation that included former NRA president David Keene, future NRA president Pete Brownell, NRA fundraiser Joe Gregory, NRA benefactor Dr. Arnold Goldschlager and his daughter Hilary, Outdoor Channel CEO Jim Liberatore, and prominent NRA advocate and Trump campaign surrogate David Clarke, then the sheriff of Milwaukee County.
Other emails suggest that the NRA would pay for travel expenses for two delegation members and provide formal NRA “gifts” for the delegation to present to their Russian hosts.”
This is bad because? The NRA meets with gun rights groups from around the world, including Canada and Australia. Why not Russia? They’re not on a restricted list, like Iran or North Korea. Butina is only accused of being involved in spying. Even if she was, how would the NRA know? They don’t have secret information. They would have been used as a conduit for introductions to political decision makers.
As discussed at length last week, being white and male is cause in and of itself to accuse someone of being racist and having “white privilege.” Being “manly” is definitely outre. (Why this is not seen as a racist attack is shrouded in mystery, but is apparently justified on the basis that we “deserve it,” and therefore it is morally justified to damn us for the last two thousand years of Western human history.
You can talk to Rep Steve King who represents 1/4 of iowans about that one. I know hgim well and there’s no way he is a racist nor white supremist. He’s guilty of not choosing his words well to a group dedicated to tearing down anyone who is not a Leftist.
If Milano’s first thouht in in morning is “White boys” in red hats she is definitely part of the Moms Need Action movement. The black and gold hats are UGGGG-LEE though.
“Will NRA Hats Be Branded the Next KKK White Hood?”
It’s just a matter of time until being a Caucasian male is considered the same as being in the Klan.
Already there. Especially if you are a straight white male.
so what are we to do?…break out the shoe polish?….no,wait…that can get you in trouble too…maybe we should just go around wearing hats and shirts that say “I’m sorry”…..actually I prefer the one I used to wear that said…”F_ck…the only thing missing is you”….
I brought this up last weekend at my NRA table selling/renewing memberships. The topic of the Covington kids came up and I made it clear that MAGA is now more universally-hated and politically incorrect than even the free NRA cap I’m giving them. I proudly wear mine all over the place- I know a pile of people here wouldn’t think of it.
BTW- the goofs I really like are the ones who want to get a cap but don’t want to join.
wearing one around town pretty much says “Hey!..look at me i’ve got a gun”…maybe it’s best to keep a low profile….
To whom? Does wearing a Budweiser cap suggest you’re drunk?
About 20 years back I had a MN State Trooper let me off for speeding with a warning. I was doing 78 in a 65 zone while in a hell of a hurry. His stated reason was the NRA Benefactor decal on my rear window.
I’m not buying it, nor worrying about it, if I were, I could hardly sit at 20 gun shows per week selling/renewing NRA memberships. For black helicopter folk, even the entrances to every gun show and shop must be monitored with facial recognition and all.
I think something like 50% of US households have at lest one firearm, so with or without the cap it’s a crap shoot if you’re worried about cops. Or bad guys, who will more likely leave you alone if they think you are armed.
Live your life…
A Bud hat would indicate that you probably buy and possess alcoholic beverages. If alcoholic beverages were a burglary target, it might be best to not advetise the fact. Guns are a burglary target, and someone could follow you home and rob the place when it’s empty. I dislike the cute “protected by s&w” and such signs for the same reason. It means there’s probably guns inside if you can hit the place when nobody is home.
There are no statistics to support your “target” argument. On the other hand, there are concerning crooks leaving intended victims alone if they even had an inkling that they might be armed. And these studies asked the crooks themselves- the ones behind bars for doing what you’re concerned with. Makes for good speculation with the old beer crowd, though. Every one of those boys knows some one who knows someone else who had a cousin who’s brother-in-law had it happen- just like that. Really.
So I’m armed. Half the time I’m open carry anyway, so the snowflakes are just going to have to cope somehow.
If Washington proceeds to screw up the concealed carry permit, they’ll be seeing A LOT more open carry anyway, with or without NRA hats.
Probably. But it seems to me the red MAGA hat is slightly more triggering then the NRA cap. They’ll brand both of them. They’ve already branded anything that’s not left of Bernie as racist/sexist.
The NRA has a new brand…its the brand of traitors…
Count on it,even though historically Negotiating Rights Away has been the best benefactor of infringing Americans 2 nd. amendment right the Left could have.
History
1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified.
The amendment reads:
“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.”
After That
1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church
and Gen. George Wingate.
After that, they start going the other way
The NRA actively supported the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The NRA actively supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938
The NRA actively supported the Gun Control Act of 1968
The NRA actively supported the misnamed Firearms Owners Protection Act including the Hughes Amendment (1986)
The NRA actively supported the final version of the Assault Weapons Ban (1994)
The NRA _proposed_ the bump stock ban
The NRA is actively supporting “Red Flag” laws at the state and federal level.
Go back and read the congressional testimony of then NRA president Karl T. Frederick during the hearings for the abominable affront to God and country known as the 1934 NFA. Frederick didn’t want us leaving our houses with a handgun, without being licensed i.e. a government permission slip. The NRA: the largest wealthiest most powerful gun control organization in world history.
GEE, Green Boy- you’ve just pasted your same ignorant list again. I’ve been telling you for a long time that you’re forgetting to blame NRA for Wyatt Earp making the cowboys leave their guns with him while in town partying since the OK Corral thing happened 10 years after NRA was formed. I’m thinking you never really typed up the list you constantly post in the first place so you can’t add the Wyatt Earp thing on your own…
Yours is truly a predictable and lazy, idiotic response to anything concerning NRA here. I’ve asked before for you to list those great legislative and judicial breakthroughs from GOA, NAGR or what ever group you might support. Still waiting. Even better, list those things YOU’VE done to promote or preserve America’s RKBA. (Your ignorant list doesn’t count.) Stay in the hills…
@Craig: You are right.
First thing to bear in mind is that NO organization is one-in-the-same entity over the course of its history. Look at AT&T. Why would we say that today’s AT&T is the same thing as the AT&T of 100 years ago? That’s nonsense.
Clearly, the NRA is a different sort of entity after the Cincinnati “revolt” than it was before Cincinnati. So, there is no point in harping about NFA’34 or GCA’68.
Likewise, there isn’t much of a point in telling minorities that the Democrats supported slavery and the Republicans supported emancipation. No one cares about what happened 100 years ago; nor 10; nor last year. This is the era of “what are you going to give me for free TODAY!” Nothing else registers.
What goes into the NRA’s policy and tactics is non-trivial. War never is trivial. The decisions NRA’s management and board make are not always right; but, it’s really hard to tell for sure what is the right decision at each moment in the middle of a war. Generals don’t often agree; why should politicians agree?
We should continue to criticize the NRA vigorously; it’s a membership organization and we are the members. At the same time, we should thank God that the NRA exists and that it is as powerful as it is on Capital Hill.
We PotG need to wise-up as political animals. The gun-controllers are at the top of their game and we are neophytes. We need to join NRA and vote and voice our opinions. That is the way to make for a more powerful organization more attuned to our sentiments.
Pissing and moaning impotently from the sidelines isn’t going to help. Far too many of us think doing so WILL make a difference.
Agree, Mark. You make way too much sense around here; no one agrees with everything someone else does or espouses, not one’s spouse, church, family, etc. You have to take the best route as you wander through life, and not being affiliated with the only Firearms ans Civil Rights group that even has a chance to make a difference in the end game is ignorant in the least, stupid at best.
@ Craig in IA
The OK Corral thing as you put it,was a Democrat versus Republican faction fight and I would have been against Earps use of it on Constitutional grounds.
Now as to the NRA,what is wrong with holding the NRA e officers feet to the fire over their supposed core issue,2 nd. amendment rights,much the same as holding our elected officials feet to the fire.
I am the NRA and I’m frankly tired of the betrayal of my rights by the organization I am a member of and would like to have a true premier organization that wouldn’t capitulate at the drop of a hat,10 gallon or otherwise.
Think whatever you want as that is our right,thankfully and good day.
The OK Corral shootout was a Democrat vs. Republican fight? Did you actually just make that assertion?
Read the history on the corral fight and then get back to me on that,hollywoods history isn’t the true history of the west.
i can actually claim to know more than a few in high places at NRA and have no problem speaking my mind when I’d rather see something different than what may be pursued at the time. They are always open to suggestions and criticism and do their best to justify their positions. History has also justified the majority of those taken as well. At least when I’m discussing this I will attempt to offer alternative suggestions- I can see no positive good coming form that stupid litany you cut and paste everytime NRA is mentioned on this site. Talk about lazy.
As to the OK Corral, I was dating Earp’s “ruling” of Dodge City and Tombstone, not the event. I used it because NRA had already been in existence when Earp and other western sherrifs and Marshals were making cowboys check their weapons. In keeping with your idiotic list, I’d think you’d want to blame NRA for allowing that, too- it’s about all you’ve left out. Get with Nanashi and confer…
You’re spot on Craig.
guess the NRA’s new motto might be “bend (over?) but don’t break (it off)?
That same exact cut and paste anti NRA screed, full of outright falsehoods has been cut and pasted here before and methodically and completely debunked
I have bashed the NRA before. But I will support them because of their passed support for Gun Rights for black people. That history is not taught. And accurate 2A history matters. If you are a supporter of the 2A. You need to watch the entire film. As far as I can tell the NRA still supports gun rights for law abiding black people. But as far as I can tell white Liberals don’t support gun rights for blacks.
In Search Of The Second Amendment 1 hour 51 minutes long. At time mark 1.22 hours “NRA supported the founding of a black rifle club.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5lKEodoQg
The true “next white hood” is the black face mask of the Antifa. The Klan wore the hood to mask their identities as they committed atrocities; that’s the same thing Antifa does.
It’s proud homosexuals like Alyssia Milano who have worked to disarm black people and supported the KKK when they burn a cross on the private property of a black person.
Just ask Tom ammiano the proud gay California legislator who supports the Mulford Act in California.
“It’s proud homosexuals like Alyssia Milano ”
Uh… her Husband of 10 years might be surprised by that assertion.
what do homosexuals have to be proud of?….just wonderin’….
Accomplishments in life that have nothing to do with their sexual preferences or orientation?
Just a guess.
“what do homosexuals have to be proud of?….just wonderin’….”
It must be a lot- Gay Pride parades are all the rage in the more enlightened big cities. Now, you try to organize a Herero-Pride one and see where it gets you. 🙂
WTF? No edit again- Hetero-Pride Parade…
I really can’t see why TTAG cannot return to the quick little edit feature. Do you need to “raise the dues” or something?
Homosexuals says the are “proud gays”. So I include it in my description of them. Is this wrong? And if so why?
I know many are proud gun grabbers.
“wear[ing] a MAGA hat is to wrap oneself in a Confederate flag.”
Really? Sounds like someone needs to organize a “million-MAGA-hat march” on Washington D.C.
don’t like white stuff? stop using toilet paper & find a “color-appealing” replacement
“Will NRA Hats Be Branded the Next KKK White Hood?”
Nah. MAGA hats are first in line for that honor. NRA hats may be an also-ran. Of course the single most attacked identification tag is being a white male.
But we gotta give the America haters credit for being consistent a bit. Once again they are attacking an inert object (hats).
“Of course the single most attacked identification tag is being a white male.”
So is black-face coming back as “social camouflage” or is that still racist? That whole Rachel Dolezal thing left me very confused, frightened and a little hungry.
Hungry? Did I miss a subplot involving recipes or something in that whole debacle?
“Of course the single most attacked identification tag is being a heterosexual, christian white male.” Fixed it for ya.
Speaking of attacks, how many white males were lynched in the south? At least they died knowing they hadn’t been offended by some celebrity.
Not sure on the hats, but other NRA branded items like shirts and sticker on trucks, I’d say they do NOT represent a racist group. Reason is, a lot of these folks, where I live, are Hispanic, Asian, or appear to have a multiracial background. Many of these same folks have a militray and/or LE background. We have a lot of military bases in Southern CA.
Yeah, we should do something about that. Who wants to be stationed amongst people who hate you?
Just for the hell of it, my old Bronco (wish I still had it) sported an NRA sticker on one back window and a Deadhead sticker on the other. Loved that truck.
In certain parts of the country this is already happening.
in certain parts of the country that NRA sticker on your bumper or back window can get you undue attention…
Honestly when I first moved to Upstate NY I really expected it to be bad on that. Thus far only really Albany Schenectady and Troy have been bad and more from the inhabitants than the authorities (with some exceptions in Albany pd). Once you are out of that little triangle NRA, repeal SAFE act, and FUAC till you hit NYC or Buffalo
Upstate NY is entirely different than NYC and (to a lesser but not insignificant extent) the other cities. It’s basically a red state (well… probably a kind of reddish purple state) imprisoned against its will in the dank torture basement of a, “he seemed like a pretty normal, quiet kind of dude,” sociopathic blue state.
Fellow upstater here, I have had NRA stickers on my vehicles for years. No one has ever vandalized my vehicle or even said anything to me, for that matter.
HP honestly it was my own damn fault leaving the hat visible near a SUNY lot. Napreso I am stealing that one
My 2 main caps are Cubs & USA…if you hate either EFFYOU. I don’t do MAGA or NRA ads.
New bar opening up near Wrigley. Sign says no cubs gear allowed. Hopefully cubs fans like me will get the joke.
Edit button please. Bar opening near Commiskey Park.
Real baseball fans are Sox fans. The Sox may suck but we know a lot more about baseball
What happened to the grey man?
The time for being grey has passed. It’s time to make a stand.
Not if you conceal carry. Wearing a Veteran t-shirt is about as far as I would comfotably go. Due to where I live, I would be harrassed if i wore one of my 2A shirts.
This “grey man” idea is suicide.
Imagine if we all went “grey man”. No one standing up for the cause of conservatism, constitutionalism, the right of self-defense. As the speech went: “When they came for me there was no one else to speak up”.
It’s incumbent upon us, especially those of us who are senior citizens, to speak up. We have already left an audit trail which can never be erased. They know who we are and where we live. And, we are mature enough to speak in measured tones.
Younger people, just starting their carrears, can and should watch their words; especially on-line. They are not mature enough to be meticulous about measuring their speech. One ill-tempered Tweet could kill their carrears. Nevertheless, they can march and wear caps. They can pay cash at gun shops and ranges.
Personally, I like to practice “Conspicuous Concealed Carry”. My favorite T-shirt has a dinosaur with the legend “Licensed to carry small arms”. People remark that it’s funny and leaves little doubt as to what that bulge in my right pocket might be. At the same time, I’m not flaunting my “piece”. It’s really hard for a Mom who Demands Action to complain that I’m scaring the children (or horses). Sends the message same as open-carry, but without the opportunity for the hoplophobes to complain. Best of both worlds.
Heh. I need to get me one of those shirts.
That sounds awesome. I’m not one for shirts with words, but that’s really cool.
My fave “dinosaur” shirt has Barney Rubble with a sword in his hand holding up Barney’s (purple dinosaur) severed head with the other and the body lying in a pool of blood. The title “There Can Be Only One Barney!” (Also a reference to the Highlander series for those of you who don’t get it all.) Wear it around in the summer and it still gets little kids coming up and pouting at you. I’d like to have one with Barney Fife on the back as well, having used his one bullet on Rubble, with a hole through his forehead.
If I was younger I’d have a bunch made up to sell at gun shows. After the Waco debacle, I had black baseball caps made up in official-looking “BATF, Tactical Unit, Waco, TX” on the front, then made “bullet holes” in them. Sold something like 85 dozen at the gun shows, the majority bought by cops.
Being “grey man” is about not standing out and not about making a stand. These are two different things. If you feel the need to make a stand by standing out, feel free to do so. Just make sure you understand the difference. I consider wearing an NRA hat standing out while not standing up, but that’s just me.
“I consider wearing an NRA hat standing out while not standing up, but that’s just me.” Well, that would certainly go right along with your desire to not stand out and not take a stand for a cause… There’s a lot of that going on around here- bitching but no action.
“Well, that would certainly go right along with your desire to not stand out and not take a stand for a cause… There’s a lot of that going on around here- bitching but no action.”
Where did you get that I have a desire to not take a stand for a cause? Oh, yeah, out of thin air. So, you just came here to bitch, right?
Well, let’s see- Chuck… Not to bang my own drum, but for something over 30 years I’ve spent a minimum of 20 weekends per year working gun shows and political events in IA and MN on behalf of the Second Amendment. No one’s paid for my time or mileage, food, etc. I engage about 5000 people each show on behalf of good people, as well as a lot of lazy and cheap people who don’t belong to a real and affective 2A organization. Gun Scabs. They get the benefits NRA and its paying members have maintained since 1971 and don’t have to put in any effort other than keyboarding around here and maybe leaving their basement once-in-a-while to sit around drinking someone else’s coffee or beer and bitch with them. Always in a safe and like-minded environment where they won’t be challenged or have to justify “their” principles which usually came from someone else anyway.
I also spend a fair amount of time each session at our Statehouse attending and testifying at committee meetings concerning proposed legislation as well as lobbying individual state law makers, trying to educate them on the consequences of their proposed actions. In addition I attend DNR and DPS meetings where new rules and regs are floated that affect us but do not require legislation- the normal onerous red-tape process. Those things are often worse than actual legislation and catch more Iowans unaware. Often quite costly as well.
And of course there’s all the calls and letters to my US Senators and Representative as well as attending town halls, again, at my own expense, both of time, money and personal reputation. To do all of the above I must spend quite a bit of time to research proposals and stay not just current, but ahead of it all. It’s a lot of work, easier now that I’m retired from my primary employment of 40 years. I used to manage it all along with an all day music studio at a small college 75 miles away once a week, as well as a tenured chair as a well-paid musician in a large regional symphony orchestra requiring every night one week per month for rehearsals and concerts. Didn’t leave much additional free time between September and June.
I’d do it all over again, and still maintain the schedule even though I am also representing some ignorant do-nothing-other-than-bitch types who’d scream bloody murder and wonder “where was NRA ?” if all the scenarios bantered around here ever became reality. I can see a bunch of you now, either frantically out back somewhere trying to bury your prized SKS or cobbled-up AK, or tossing your guns out the window of your truck on the Courthouse lawn in the dark of night so the “government” might not show up on your front lawn in a tank some morning around 5 AM.
“I’ve spent a minimum of 20 weekends per year working gun shows and political events in IA and MN on behalf of the Second Amendment.”
Thank you for your commitment, and all your efforts.
The NRA is in the sales business, and refuse to acknowledge it. Which is why it comes under such unsympathetic criticism. As a consumer, I observe the NRA is only selling, “It could be worse.” In a sales environment, the buyer is not mandated to purchase because the seller needs the money. Thus, when “the sale” isn’t working, it is required of the seller to determine the reason and adjust; not the other way round.
Part of the problem for NRA is mixed missions. It is possible to successfully sell multiple lines of product, but not if you pose yourself as primarily not a consumer product company/entity. In the instant case, NRA is caught between the prime mission (marksmanship), and the loss leader (civil rights). This is the kind of thinking that leads to destruction, such as what happened to General Electric (which became primarily a financial services heavyweight, while assuming their historic reputation in a completely unrelated industry would carry on as if nothing happened.
Assuming NRA de-emphasizes the marksmanship and firearm safety product line, what could NRA do to separate me from my money? Simple – declare that NRA will either assist, or lead in lawsuits fighting to extinguish gun control laws whenever they arise. Not slow the erosion of the second amendment, not prevent things from being worse (the “prevent” defense of the Dallas Cowboys never resulted in wins), but full on forceful legal attacks on gun control legislation, and personal suits against. those using color of law to deny an enumerated civil right.
The NRA, as currently organized and constituted, it the epitome of elites ruling the populace (membership). This arrangement cannot actually even pretend to be representing the consent of the governed. If NRA would announce a mission to body slam each and every gun control law, AND FOLLOW THROUGH, they might not have the ability to absorb the dues and donations that would follow.
Now, if NRA is unwilling to become the sword of Gideon, it should admit that civil rights is a hobby, and get back to their prime mission; the world will not end.
Well- I have a good idea here, Sam. If you want someone to be the “Sword of Gideon”, why don’t you do it? I’m sure we’ll all see a little article about it after you’re shot down in the street, or where ever you decide to start your little revolution.
The fact that NRA is still around after many, many battles is because its leadership has been smart enough to know when to push, whom, and how far at the time. It’s ridiculaous to go to a fight that you cannot win at the time. We’ve been over this ground before, but as it stands now, NRA is this country’s citizens best hope if maintaining the 2nd Amendment is the goal. (Of course it’s the same in the areas of training and safety as well but we never get much credit for those.)
GOA, NAGR, etc. are hollow organizations- lots of talk with absolutely no history of ever having affected our rights or issues positively. If they, with their “no compromise”, winner take (and also lose) all attitudes had worked the Congress over semi autos during Clinton era we’d have none today. In fact, just about every issue they’ve ever “championed”, where they think they could just go in to the Capital and threaten lawmakers only paints us all in a worse light and adds fuel to the anit’s fire. The MSM and Leftist lawmakers may be able to make NRA appear to be unreasonable but the American public isn’t buying it.
You are recycling the “We’re better than nothing” defense. The idea that NRA cannot stop the erosion of gun rights, but can really slow it down is not a selling point.
How about publicly putting every elected official on notice that any support of any gun law will result in NRA providing significant funding to primary the politician at election time? How about abandoning the notion that the Second Amendment is a second class right, and refuse to give a little to gain another loss?
Insulting the buying pool is definitely not the right avenue to persuade someone NRA is worthy of support. And that pretty much is what it has come down to – pay protection money, and I won’t insult you any more. Really? When you (NRA) have fallen to insults and threats, you have failed miserably at demonstrating the value of membership, the value of the product for which you want my money.
We the people, the public, the gun owners have no moral obligation to sustain a business that does not provide products we are asking for.
OK, so it was out of thin air, with quite a bit of prejudice I might add. Thanks for confirming that!
“You are recycling the “We’re better than nothing” defense. ”
No, not necessarily. I’m hardly promoting NRA membership to anyone by pointing out the obvious ineffectiveness of the so-called “no compromise” phonies who have never had an issue to the point where they’d be asked to do so. No one ever comes up with a list of their non-compromised actions other than claiming it to those they seek to “separate” from their money. Seriously, though, if the attitude and rhetoric used on this site by many of those “like-minded” posters concerning others they disagree with represented that of NRA, I wouldn’t be a member, either. “Jack-booted thugs” is about as far as “we’ve” ever gone dezpite constant MSM/Leftist accusations, and that itself was actaully a lifted quote from- (you ready?), a democrat from MI by the name of John Dingell. Check it out…
No one is asking Sam or anyone else to join NRA- why waste the time and capital? Being everyone’s everything is impossible. particularly when their cyicism suggests the fray is already over anyway and I wouldn’t think of asking people who didn’t want to join for a dime. It is interesting, however that when an obama gets elected, or when some dimwit shoots up his own school, suddenly hundreds of normally-uninterested citizens start flocking to my NRA recruitment table as they parade past with yet another AR-15 and a pallet of ammo and even more 30 round mags.
So, we’re all entitled to our opinions, at least at this point. I also drive a Buick, would rather live in Iowa as residency and Minnesota during summer, prefer to carry a 9 MM EDC, IWB, favor talk radio over network TV, etc., etc. A large factor in those is because of past positive experience, as I’ve lived elsewhere, driven many other brands of vehicles and have many other handguns to choose from any day I’d want to change. I also have previous experience with NRA; at my own statehouse; in my communities; at the national level; in training; in personally knowing many in its leadership, and in spending my most vauable asset, which is time. NRA, its leadership and the tactics and vision for the long-term fit my principles far better than any other organization that claims to be on a similar path which I’ve been made aware of. I hardly need anyone else’s validation for where I place my efforts or money. I just hope that all of those NRA bashers/skeptics around here are also investing time and money in the cause too, but again, my long experience in the game proves (not suggests) they do not. If they did, NAGR and GOA, among others, would also have 5+ millikon members as well and there’d be some real competition in the game.
And Chuck- “Where did you get that I have a desire to not take a stand for a cause? Oh, yeah, out of thin air. So, you just came here to bitch, right?”
Well, sorry, pal- I posted a rather lengthy synopsis of activities I engage in on a regular basis and you didn’t, so all I have to base judgement upon are your “my daddy can beat up your daddy” words. It’s strange how even with adults, that’s often about all they have.
“Well, sorry, pal- I posted a rather lengthy synopsis of activities I engage in on a regular basis and you didn’t, so all I have to base judgement upon are your “my daddy can beat up your daddy” words. It’s strange how even with adults, that’s often about all they have.”
I am sorry, but I will not use my lengthy resume for putting myself up on a pedestal to talk down to people. You have no idea who I am, where I came from, and what I have done in my life, yet you say that I have a desire to not take a stand for a cause. You are quite wrong on that one!
If you have the decency, think about it for a moment! This is an anonymous messaging board. Why would I post about how I didn’t grow up in a free world and had to actually fight for my freedom? But then again, I will not use my lengthy resume for putting myself up on a pedestal to talk down to people.
Instead, I have been repeatedly posting here and on other boards about how people need to get involved and organized. It is pitiful to see how few people show up at 2A rallies, mostly because they are poorly organized and many people don’t know about them. It is pitiful to see how few people can write comprehensive letters/e-mails to their representatives that do not just simply scream “MOLON LABE”. It is pitiful to see how many people think that giving a few bucks to a gun rights organization (or one that pretends to be one) is somehow fighting for their rights.
FYI: I am an NRA Benefactor Life Member and the NRA has betrayed me in the very city I live in: https://tennesseefirearms.com/2017/01/nras-lawsuit-against-the-city-of-knoxville-over-chilhowee-park-ban-settled-not-good-for-gun-owners/. There is more to this story, but I doubt you even care.
“There is more to this story, but I doubt you even care.” At this point you’re right- certainly if you don’t bother putting forward your argument since neither I, nor anyone else is sure how NRA “betrayed” you. FWIW- I became a Benefactor member long before they offered the discounted title.
I consider posting around here as entertainment, primarily. I doubt it has much affect on anyone, one way or another. While there are some here who I know to be actively involved, I don’t believe the majority of posters (can’t say about those reading) are active in the battle at all- primarily spectators in a place where piling on is rather easy.
Well, it looks like clicking on the link I provided and reading the article by a state gun rights organization wasn’t even worth your time. Otherwise, you would know what this was about. The article clearly states what the NRA has done to backstab Tennesseans. The more to the story would be this: https://tennesseefirearms.com/2017/08/lawsuit-over-parks-ban-against-knoxville-to-be-dismissed-as-moot-because-of-new-tennessee-law/. Unfortunately for you, this would require clinking on yet another link and reading yet another article by the same state gun rights organization. There is even more to this story that goes back to the 2015 NRA Annual Meeting in Nashville and the behavior of the Tennessee Governor, but why bother you with this anyway. You just came here to bitch about others, while putting yourself up on a pedestal.
I no longer donate to the NRA, but I am voting in the Board of Directors election, assuming that my ballot arrives. It looks like I have voted for the wrong person last year, so I may not see a ballot this year. And, no, I have not moved. In fact, I still get the NRA postal mail spam, just not the ballot yet.
I read it- you think that requires me to automatically agree with you? When someone tells me they’ve “been betrayed” I’m thinking personally, individually. The state legislature is the cause of your “betrayal”, NRA didn’t vote on it one way or the other.
TN must not have a state firearms preemption law. That’s where I’d put my efforts if I lived there. Penny-ante laws to constantly combat the inevitable new ones that will be brought forward only add to what a legislature can do to you and continue to chip away.
Iowa, on the other hand, has such a law and it keeps regulatory agencies, city councils, etc, from doing this. No laws stronger than state law. It’s working. Oh, sure, the antis challenge it and Bloomberg, among others, is pouring in money in a constant effort to fund a suit to try to overturn it in our Supreme Ct. BFD. They will always attempt to do to the same to the entire Second Amendment and other parts of the US Constitution. Change without amending, which they cannot do. You need a different strategy.
“I read it- you think that requires me to automatically agree with you? When someone tells me they’ve “been betrayed” I’m thinking personally, individually. The state legislature is the cause of your “betrayal”, NRA didn’t vote on it one way or the other.
TN must not have a state firearms preemption law. That’s where I’d put my efforts if I lived there. Penny-ante laws to constantly combat the inevitable new ones that will be brought forward only add to what a legislature can do to you and continue to chip away.
Iowa, on the other hand, has such a law and it keeps regulatory agencies, city councils, etc, from doing this. No laws stronger than state law. It’s working. Oh, sure, the antis challenge it and Bloomberg, among others, is pouring in money in a constant effort to fund a suit to try to overturn it in our Supreme Ct. BFD. They will always attempt to do to the same to the entire Second Amendment and other parts of the US Constitution. Change without amending, which they cannot do. You need a different strategy.”
It seems you didn’t read it or read it and didn’t understand it. This entire issue was about a state preemption law!!! It specifically preempted local governments from enacting carry restrictions in local parks. The City of Knoxville disagreed with that and violated that law outright. The NRA sued, then did a lot of nothing in court, and then suddenly, out of the blue, settled. The settlement basically said that the NRA was OK with the City of Knoxville’s violation of state law. A few months later, this state preemption law was changed to make the City of Knoxville’s violation lawful. Most people in TN that are active in the 2A community believe that the NRA either facilitated this rewrite behind closed doors or at least did nothing against it.
So, yeah, we put our efforts in a state preemption law. It was written right before and enacted right after the NRA Annual Meeting in Nashville. It was thrown under the bus by the NRA and rewritten to an even worse bill right after President Trump’s election, when the NRA no longer needed to pretend that they are actually doing something. That’s when I stopped donating to the NRA.
Kinda got lost in the last two paragraphs, but probably my fault for doing this before the second martini. Anyway,
The point remains that NRA is poor at marketing, and is not making the “sale” to what should be a naturally large audience. You noted you are fine with the leadership and roadmap for the future. NRA is probably fine with both, also. NRA remains opaque to the rest of the world.
I want an organization that offers more than a fighting retreat. Already noted a few areas where the NRA could be a more attractive champion for the Second Amendment. Being politically proactive (not just backroom dealers) would benefit the nation, the gun owners, and the NRA. The bump stock debacle was entirely NRA’s doing. Instead of taking the offensive, the entire episode presented itself (whose fault is that) as a public cave to gun-grabbers. Hiding whatever strategy from the 2A supporters (and potential supporters) was not the fault of the anti-gun mafia. I still do not know what the NRA intended with their request for ATF review, rather than announce they would immediately seek an injunction against making any ruling that the NFA included bump stocks.
The NRA is at a plateau in membership. Why? What is NRA doing to expand membership, other than doing the same thing over again, expecting different results? Why is it that NRA cannot capture almost the entire demographic of 100 million gun owners? Or is the NRA hoping no one will notice that in the end there are really only about five to six million gun owners who support preserving the Second Amendment?
Farmers know about the need for crop rotation, but NRA seems content plowing the same field endlessly, yet not increasing the yield. Again, it is a sales proposition, and NRA is just accepting ongoing crop failure.
Just to make it clear, NRA has a willing buyer here, but is failing to their service worth the money.
“The NRA is at a plateau in membership.” I believe this is probably the crux of your last posting… I don’t know where you’ve been but it wasn’t very long ago that plateau crested the 3 million mark, then 4, now more than 5. NRA’s membership, and I assume the other non-affective firearms organizations as well always level off when there is no perceived threat. Oh, there’s a threat right now, and it’s real. but the average Joe Sixpack doesn’t see it on a daily basis because the majority of them and most Americans just assume things will go on as they are. You have to be smart enough to know that… People who spend time on this site may have a bit more insight (for some it’s more like “incite”) but that’s not the majority.
As with the rest of politics, the average American is pretty uniformed, and again, you have to know this. Breaking it all down to branding and marketing is all so “current events lingo”. I’m surprised you aren’t also upset with the NRA’s “culture” as well, paricularly as viewed from the Left. It’s all a good attempt at posturing to take away from huge accomplishments and a good over-all strategy. NRA has done a hell of a job maintaining our rights and increasing the possibilities for armed Americans, not given them away. I’m tired of pointing it out, but there are now over 40 states with “shall issue” concealed carry laws, more people than ever own and use firearms for self defense now than at any point in our history, and trying to get Americans to give all that up now isn’t going to happen.
I posted for you earlier- if you think you have the answer to not losing a battle once in a while when it’s inevitable so that you can stay in the fight, get right out there, form your little militia group and do some sort of armed march to the US Capital. It’ll make for good TV, at least for perhaps 15 minutes. It’ll even probably become a 2 or 3 episode made-for-TV event on ABC.
If, however, your group would have been speaking for all firearms owners and the Second Amendment, it’d all be over.
Forever. Done.
Intelligence is one thing- like the old NSC driving commercials 40 years ago concerning traffic safety: You can be right- DEAD right.
Thank God some of us seek wisdom over intelligence. Cheers!
“Oh, there’s a threat right now, and it’s real. but the average Joe Sixpack doesn’t see it on a daily basis because the majority of them and most Americans just assume things will go on as they are.”
“As with the rest of politics, the average American is pretty uniformed,…”
“Breaking it all down to branding and marketing is all so “current events lingo”.”
Charlie Foxtrot will answer for himself, but I noticed a common thread in your comment: ignorance (as in not having knowledge/information; “stupidity” is in knowing, but making foolish decisions, regardless).
If you want an organization/business to grow, how do you increase your market (buyers)? Do you consistently plow the same ground, with the same tools, or do you develop other methods? If you want to increase your influence in the political arena, d you plow the same demographic over and again? Is that any way to run a railroad?
In 2013, NRA told Congress the membership was ~4.5 million; in 2014, 5 million. Claims today seem to be ~5 million. Some reports indicate that in 2000, NRA membership was ~3.6 million. Given a potential a potential affinity of 100 million gun owners, a 5% market capture doesn’t seem much of an accomplishment. If you ran a business with such a sizeable potential market, and for four years your sales efforts were fairly stagnant, would you consider that a success? Would you retain your sales staff?
Yes, for organization/business growth, it is all about branding and marketing: “the message”; “the mission vision”. Having been closely aligned with multiple charitable organizations, the goals are often counter intuitive: comfort and protecting turf the primary goals – expanding while comfortable is not a priority. I cannot accept that NRA is much different.
BTW – rather than critiquing (you may call it “bashing”), and explaining why NRA isn’t appealing, I have identified a number of changes in/at NRA that would go a long way toward “making the sale” that NRA truly is the premier gun rights organization in the nation. The past is irrelevant; what is the company doing for its customers today? Many world acclaimed and world known American companies no longer exist today because they relied on reputations of the past to carry them indefinitely forward.
Non-free press, marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, fusionism, slavery, slave auctions, trans atlantic slave trade, plantations, cotton textile industry, corruption of education, corruption of history, income tax, federal reserve, central banking, IMF, league of nations, UN, atheism, eugenics, IQ tests, freud, berneys, propaganda, genetic databasing, google, facebook, youtube, wikipedia, racial law, the fall of rome, the holy roman empire, fall of roman empire, wars of absolutism, seven years war, rise of germany, fall of germany, ww1, ww2, cold war, korea, vietnam, mao, cambodia, trotsky, lenin, marx, USSR, armenian genocide, ukrainian genocide, global war on terror, afghanistan, iraq, egypt, tunisia, syria, somalia, yemen, jordan, kuwait, iran, saudi arabia, september 11th, #metoo, refugees, hollywood, FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, King george III, gun confiscation, gun control, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, pre-emptive warfare, racial supremacy, global theocratic government.
That was a list of “things” with one common thread.
And it rhymes with “booze”.
Dues
POOS
shoes!
It’s America. Wear whatever the fuck you want.
If I had the money I have some caps made with the image of the two eye hole Halloween ghost made with a big “CASPER” below it. Nah, caps with “PLANNED PARENTHOOD” one word on top of the other with a red diagonal line down through them.
I live in the once great state of California. I’m totally used to this. I put no stickers, where no hats, etc because where I live that is a good way to get your stuff vandalized.
…oh the party of tolerance. 🙁
Someone I know got his pickup keyed in Eureka, and his window broken, probably because he had an American flag decal in the rear window. Then again, Eureka is a weird place–half tree huggers and half loggers. and a bunch of transients who float through during the “harvest.”
This would certainly help with the NRA’s ongoing problems. One can always count on the unhinged left to increase the NRA membership and NRA donations. Not that the NRA is actually worth it.
PS: Many of those NRA hats are still made in China!
So is most of the free gear they hand out with your membership renewal.
As is nearly any and everything else sold in the US. Got into an argument with 2 idiots in Harley leathers claiming they’d never join the NRA because of the Chinese cap we were giving away. Dared them to take off their leathers, when they finally did, guess where they came from? Probably on the opposite side of the globe from Milwaukee. Boneheads…
It has amused me for some time that, in my experience, a great number of people who are extremely concerned about the concealability of their firearm choose to wear NRA gear and carry multiple knives with visible pocket clips while out and about in public.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with either of those choices. It’s just funny that they think they’re being so sniper about their gun while going out of their way to advertise that they’re carrying it.
Personally I find it much easier and more effective to dress like a normal person who doesn’t get a second glance.
“…a great number of people who are extremely concerned about the concealability of their firearm choose to wear NRA gear and carry multiple knives with visible pocket clips while out and about in public.”
Here in central Florida, a pocket knife clipped in a pocket is maybe 30 percent of all males walking around.
I doubt 30 percent of all males here are concealed carrying guns at any one time…
You’ll note I said “multiple knives”.
When I see a pocket clip I don’t think much of it. When I see 2+ I know what type of person I’m looking at and I know that the chances they have a gun on them are statistically way higher than average.
Well, not everybody who carries concealed even cares at all, except to desire to stay out of trouble for “illegal” open carry. TX was in that category for a couple decades, FL still is. My “SneakyPete” holster is pretty obvious, but it fit the “concealed” requirement while it was needed. Hell, it even says SneakyPete on it, I doubt there is an LEO in the country that does not know the wearer is armed. But it satisfies any law about OC, since you cannot see whether a gun is inside, or not.
I’m speaking specifically of the people who get all pissy and constantly say “concealed means concealed”, or rail against OC as unsafe and then still advertise that they carry.
The hypocrisy is funny. The fact that they don’t even realize their hypocrisy is totally hilarious.
I wear a Bush/Cheney 04 hat occasionally and get reactions from strangers. Some good, same bad, some asking to get their ass kicked.
The worst one was a guy in a parking lot of a food store that looked at me and said War Criminal twice. I looked at him and asked him if he knew Arabic and the Koran. “No, whats that got to do with Bush being a criminal?”
“Thanks to him you don’t need to study either.”
I’ve got an NRA symbol on my car. I get thumbs up mostly. Once a guy pointed to it and gave me the finger. I tested his brakes on the highway for him, pretty good condition they were in.
Brake-checking somebody is stupid. What if they hit you? You got time to deal with all that? I don’t.
“Brake-checking somebody is stupid. What if they hit you?”
You do understand it is quite easy to “brake-check” without touching the brake pedal, right?
Beat me to it.
These kids don’t know how anything is done
“You do understand it is quite easy to “brake-check” without touching the brake pedal, right?”
My favorite way of doing this is to gentle touch the brake pedal just enough to make your brake lights come on while hitting the gas. I used to do it to tailgaters when I had my WRX, still do it from time to time on my bike. The “OH FUCK!” Look followed by confusion as you put distance between yourself and them is priceless.
I plan on getting an IDF ball cap. That way I can piss off both sets of losers.
Compliment it with an upside down cross necklace and a t shirt with chuck schumer on it. You could get maximum benedict arnold style points then. whew
I’m just waiting for somebody to either try to take my NRA ballcap, or better yet, try to punch me.
Right after Columbine, some drone behind the counter at Starbucks said to me, “It must take a lot of guts to wear that hat these days.”
I replied, “Why? Who’s going to make me take it off?”
Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the Columbine murders happen while the assault weapons ban was in effect?
As a matter of fact, it did. It’s almost as if the “assault weapons” ban had zero effect on crime…
I also know that for the next quarter century after the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, criminal homicide rates increased.
That law clearly failed, just like Obamacare.
Oh, they knew from the outset that their laws will do nothing at all. They don’t care and cannot be given a reason to care.
Define “nothing”.
Is locking up black men for victimless crimes “nothing”?
Nothing that they claim their laws will achieve, anyway. They know full well what the truth is, and locking up blacks and Latinos for so-called victimless “crimes” was likely the goal all along.
It’d be surprising if we didn’t already know the nature of the state and its minions.
I am certain Kamala Harris knows.
Ah, yes. Kamala Harris, the drug warrior who wants you to forget her sordid, scandal-ridden record as a prosecutor. Who also wants to get rid of private health insurance and replace it with single-payer, which is effectively nothing because it’s worse in every conceivable way imaginable.
FYI- it also happened “during a time” when it was also illegal to murder other human beings. How’d that one work out? Ockham’s Razor, and all that. Be nice if lawmakers could use the “principle”.
“FYI- it also happened “during a time” when it was also illegal to murder other human beings.”
Once recounted to Brother-In-Las the fourteen (maybe seventeen) local, state and federal laws broken by the Colombine shooters, and the Parkland shooters. Was attempting to demonstrate that the number and content of laws does nothing to deter a committed criminal. BIL countered that without guns, none of the other laws could have been broken. Reasoning was that all other personal weapons are too ineffective to enable mass killings; guns, not people were the cause of crime.
The simple answer is not speficially how one might choose to murder someone else, rather that it is not legal no matter the choice. The further outward the bands of explanation move the more chance there is for someone to come along with an excuse. Murder is wrong, at least in American society.
“The simple answer is not speficially how one might choose to murder someone else, rather that it is not legal no matter the choice. ”
BIL would agree. The disagreement is whether or not the murder would happen if not for guns. Mass murders with other than guns is extremely rare. So, BIL concludes that if people could not get guns, they wouldn’t commit murders with guns. Because the guns are available, people are driven to murder. As self-contained logic, BIL is quite satisfied. And that is the problem.
Asked BIL how he would eliminate guns since there are so many the hands of gangs and other criminals. He responded that disarming the law abiding citizens cuts off the supply of guns to bad guys. Also, disarming the law abiding citizens stops the mass murders because few mass shootings (if any) are committed by gangs or thugs. Then, let the police handle the bad guys. This will work, he says, because good people don’t go where bad people congregate, thus good people will be at almost immeasurable risk of being attacked by guns. When I mentioned the CDC recognition of the number of DGUs per year, BIL countered that guns are just too easy to use; he has never heard of a school mass shooting committed with a hammer.
The difficulty here is that BIL is using logic, rather than emotion (no guns equals no gun crime – in places where good people go). He cannot shift to a different basis for his logic. A person who survived a suicide attempt told me that when you have decided to kill yourself, it is the only logical action. By rejecting any other alternative, your logic shifts to a different basis, where the necessary outcome (suicide) eliminates any other mode of thinking – the logic basis shifts so that people not contemplating suicide make no sense.
Maybe this latter is why we have so much trouble penetrating the opposition.
“Logic: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning.” (Merriam Webster)
The “logic” you are attributing to your BIL concerning firearms is, in fact, pure emotion. The same is true for one who attempts suicide as the only option- the “conclusion” reached does make perfect sense to that person at the time but is rarely logic that would be considered universal by sane and univolved people.
As with these ever-longer responses back and forth to try to justify a specific, often hair-splitting POV, the inevitable result of bringing forth more and more situations serves primarily to create exceptions to the established logical order/rule for the sake of argument. The bottom-line and nearly universal rule in the civilized world is that murder is wrong. The victim, once dead hardly gives a damn whether the tool used to create the room temperature situation was a firearm, ball bat, bomb, poison, or any of an infinite number of methods to make it so.
BIL agrees murder is wrong, regardless of the weapon. He is of the mind that without guns, murders would be fewer, and mass murders almost non-existent. His “logic”, in a vacuum, is unassailable: no guns; no crime with guns. Nothing emotional about that. Remove guns from those most likely to commit mass murder and suicide (law abiding citizens), and you have a much safer society for “good people”.
Which is why I mentioned a shift of foundation for logic. It is hopeless to argue with him that shifting the basis for logic is illogical. If one subscribes to the basis that more people are killed by gunfire than with any other tool, removal of that one tool will almost entirely eliminate deaths by gunfire. Reasoning that such a result is impossible to achieve actually reinforces his mindset by agreeing that removal is an option, just too difficult to achieve.
One may declare that off-base logic is just emotion, but for the person holding an anti-gun viewpoint, the logic basis shift removes emotion and is founded on pure logic.
(It really is impossible to argue that removing all guns would actually result in violence committed with a gun; therefore, “no guns equals no violence committed with guns” is imminently logical, regardless of logic basis. It is this thinking that we are up against.)
How about trying this for logic: If it is hopeless to argue with him, why do it? You can apply that dictum to other situations as well.
“If it is hopeless to argue with him, why do it?”
Just for the entertainment. Just for the entertainment (which has to be rationed, or suffer the wrath of his married sister). Not only was the Super Bowl booorrrriiiinnnggg, but BIL was tense the whole time, waiting for me to somehow bring constitutional rights into the conversation. Having him in constant anticipation is even more fun, especially when “guns” never comes up during a visit (besides, it was his house).
Entertainment… That’s probably my primary reason for spending any time here.
Just change a few words.
Why does he think banning guns would lead to no guns.
“Why does he think banning guns would lead to no guns.”
1. Most “gun deaths” are not criminals or gangbangers or terrorists
2. Law abiding people will turn in their guns, because they are law abiding people.
3. The police can spend time looking for criminals with guns when they don’t have to worry about the average person (who make up the majority of “gun suicides” and mass shootings.
4. Even if police don’t get the guns from criminals, good people don’t go where criminals hang out, and with no guns for everyday people, the chance of being killed by a mass shooter goes way down to almost zero, and suicides would be avoided because most suicides are otherwise good people, and without guns, they won’t want to commit suicide.
5. Like socialism, gun confiscation just hasn’t been done right, by the right people, so even if it doesn’t work 100%, we need to try. Besides, If just half the guns were taken, half the “gun deaths” would be stopped.
You should have asked him if gangs get heroin and cocaine and meth from law abiding citizens.
“You should have asked him if gangs get heroin and cocaine and meth from law abiding citizens.”
BIL is pretty libertarian about drugs, as long as you do no harm to someone else while on drugs. Government shouldn’t tell you what to do with your body. Sorta like a woman’s choice about her body.
Well, Sam, your BIL is a moron.
“Well, Sam, your BIL is a moron.”
Actually, he is a committed anti-gunner. The kind of person we ignore and dismiss at our peril. His simple logic, no gun – no gun crime, is a big seller because it appeals to our innate “common sense” (take away the tool for an activity, and the activity goes away). It is his kind of logic that makes it impossible for us to convert anti-gunners. We lace a really good emotional appeal that can overcome the other emotional appeal.
Truth is, politicians recognize that there are more voters who are captured by emotion than actual reason and logic. The difference between pro-gun and anti-gun is that the anti-gun leaders, donors, political celebrities will never abandon the anti-gun position, but the pro-gun leaders, donors, political celebrities know the pro-gun advocates will never abandon the politicians who claim to be pro-gun, regardless of actual performance.
Well, Sam, I hate to break it to you, but your BIL does not argue from logic (and is still a moron).
He is not the least morally consistent, either. If he really believes that we should end the drug war, and on that much I can agree with him, because we should be able to decide what we do with our own bodies, then he should have some serious questions about people wanting to restrict how we defend our bodies — starting with himself. If he really well and truly believes we own our bodies, then he has no say in the means we choose to protect our bodies from outside attack. Neither does the government, according to his own “reasoning.”
It is rather curious, then, that he thinks the government should not assault us for what we put into our bodies (and he’d be correct in that assessment) but that it should assault us when we choose a method of self-defense that he personally disagrees with. Your BIL is a hypocrite (and still a moron) of the first order, and you should rightly hammer him as such.
P.S.: Somehow, this reply never got added to this thread and was instead posted on the very bottom of the comments section. Also, site admins, WE NEED THE EDIT AND DELETE BUTTONS BACK.
Say what you want about the NRA, I’ve always felt it’s worth being a member simply for the fact that there is no organization more reviled by liberals/Democrats/communists.
*Excellent* point!
Agreed!
To put a finer point on it, we need to remind the gun-grabbers who denounce the NRA that so many gun owners also denounce the NRA. These gun owners feel that the NRA is far too soft on gun-control.
OK, so you don’t want to negotiate with the NRA? Fine with us. You can deal with all those gun-owners who won’t negotiate at all! You think confiscation is like taking candy from a baby? Go ahead, “make my day”.
Full disclosure- as a sideline I teach trumpet and music at the super-liberal small college located in the same town as Brownell’s new retail store. Several times I’ve taken part in the hysteria-concerned community forums where the Second Amendment and firearms owners are being trashed. Low-hanging fruit for leftists and impressionable kids.
Not only do I take pride in standing up for us in the belly of the beast, it’s fun to dispute the crazy figures being bantered about by the leading profs. The one running the last show claimed it shouldn’t be too difficult to loosen NRA’s “strangle-hold on intelligent people who own guns” because only !2% of all gun owners are actually NRA members.
Say what??? I had to let them know just how insignificant their efforts were since the actual number is below 5% depending upon who’s figure one uses. Just put that stuff out there, the kids will suck it up. On the good side, I’ve never had anyone at the school give me any trouble for standing up for us and setting the record straight.
That’s the whole point, to be the controlled opposition of a “gun rights debate” that doesnt actually exist.
I wear an “Operator Operating Operationally” hat, available from the TTAG store.
Does it say H&K on the back?
“Does it say H&K on the back?”
It has “The Truth About Guns” embroidered above the adjustment band, an American Flag tag at the adjustment band, and it is made by Bayside (USA). Light cotton. No stiffener in the front (foam or otherwise).
Wow ,I didn’t know the TTAG hats were made in the good ole U.S.of A .. Now I want one, but then they’d have to send it to me and “they” would know where I live, can’t have that.
” “they” would know where I live, can’t have that. ”
Send it to a neighbor’s address. Not that I would actually know anything about that.
An NRA hat *has been* the equivalent of a hood.
The other guys use their approbrium n abuse to drive the NRA to squish. “You can’t help being One Of Them, but if you appease us enough, we might think your kind less deplorable.”
The game is to stand on what the symbol means to tbe wearer, decline to accept the smear. Andrew Breitbart was good at this. It’s also part of what makes them nuts about Trump.
No. The Democrats don’t want to destroy the NRA and never have. If they wanted to destroy the NRA they’d go after the leadership like they do with every single other organization the Democrats profess to hate. The NRA is their useful idiots (if not their controlled opposition).
So- hows that “going after NRA leadership” working out for you??? Must be lonely out there. I asked the other day and none of them have ever heard of you. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Exactly. NRA is controlled op and has been since it restructured after reagan banned people from open carry in state property in Cali. It blows my mind how dumb the public can be. As if anyone is actually going to launch a direct campaign and announce their attempt to disarm a population against their status quo law. That’s never happened, really ever. All gun confiscations have always been gradual, spanning at least a decade. “They” have never gone up the middle with it. Why would they? Their intent is to succeed and they will if people dont stop being brainwashed zombies and start doing their patriotic duty to resist.
controlled op? More bullshit. The NRA was not going to commit suicide trying to blocking something 90% of the public supported.
And that was what? 50years ago
The fact is NRA is more popular among conservatives than EVER. ALL the polls show that. Not everyone is so dumb as to attack the NRA when without them the Second Amendment would be toast. Even if a few dozen cranks are.
LOL, you win most idiotic statement.
In fact four separate efforts, spend over $26 million dollars were organized by top DNC people to defund the NRA by seperating it from corporate affinty and sponsorship. That is beyond the $1.1 billion raised and spent by gun control groups last cycle, with massive amounts of that spent on attacking the NRA.
The Democrats dont care about the GOA because those clowns help them, actually ending up increasing support for gun control on fights they interviene in.
Spend some time talking to legislators who have blocked gun control successfully in purple states (something tells me you dont follow that at all) and you will undertand why hte Democrats consider the NRA one of there top enemies.
Alternately you can continue ot cut and paste your same inane and debunked bullshit. Explain how you imagine the GOP has 60 votes in the Senate when it does not, explain how you think judicial appointments are irrelevent to the fight, or hold todays NRA accountable for something from 1934, or outright falsify the record from the 1970’s on.
The NRA sends me hats and I check the labels inside and they read MADE IN CHINA.
And NRA hat with a Chi-com made American Flag embroidered on it.
Yeah, that went into the sewer.
And yes, I asked them to stop supporting America’s enemy, but they won’t listen.
You do know you can refuse to take the cap, don’t you? (Probably never occurred to half of you not to take something you think is “free”. You know- like the RKBA?)
I’ve never seen an NRA mailing with a trinket being offered and no box to check that directs them to not send the item in question. Check the label on your clothes, the electronic parts of your vehicles, the aspirin and other dope in your medicine cabinet, everything else except (maybe) some of your guns- they’re all from China. When I was a young kid in the 1950s and 60s it all came from Japan with the same derision. Of course, that was all before Nikon, Yamaha, Lexus, etc.
I’m figuring most of the cheap NRA-bashers around here have at least 1 “prized” Norinco SKS they bought back in 1992 because they were only $50 then, and bragged about it. (I do.) Bet they never set foot in a Walmart or Target store, either.
“Of course, that was all before Nikon, Yamaha, Lexus, etc.”
There is a funny story about the intense quality control effort Japan made; about what actually drove their success.
Funny but true story along those lines: A retired cop friend of mine was sent to one of those old W. Edwards Deming workshops back in the 60s. Didn’t want to go, had no interest but the bosses made him go.
He got the conference started off right. The presenter asked, as a first question: “Can anyone name the man who had perhaps the nost tremendous influence on the Japanese economy?” Cop pal immediately started waving his hand in the air and when called upon he replied in a long drawl: “Col. Paul W. Tibbetts!” Took them a while to get back in order.
“Can anyone name the man who had perhaps the nost tremendous influence on the Japanese economy?”
Excellent !
And you’d haveto know the now retired cop- was the “Phil” (Hill St Blues) Desk Sgt for years- they could’ve modeled the character off of him.
“And you’d haveto know the now retired cop- was the “Phil” (Hill St Blues) ”
Had trouble with that actor in the role, for awhile. Prior, he was almost always a bad guy. Took awhile to adjust. Enjoyed the series. Didn’t understand why it fell in popularity.
Had a hot rod F150 , liked to drive fast, get pulled over, “Drivers license, registration, proof of insurance.” Joined the NRA, plastered my hot rod F150 with NRA swag, get pulled over, cops got his hand on his gun, first question”Do you have any firearms?” That was in the 90’s
Well, Sam, I hate to break it to you, but your BIL does not argue from logic (and is still a moron).
He is not the least morally consistent, either. If he really believes that we should end the drug war, and on that much I can agree with him, because we should be able to decide what we do with our own bodies, then he should have some serious questions about people wanting to restrict how we defend our bodies — starting with himself. If he really well and truly believes we own our bodies, then he has no say in the means we choose to protect our bodies from outside attack. Neither does the government, according to his own “reasoning.”
It is rather curious, then, that he thinks the government should not assault us for what we put into our bodies (and he’d be correct in that assessment) but that it should assault us when we choose a method of self-defense that he personally disagrees with. Your BIL is a hypocrite (and still a moron) of the first order, and you should rightly hammer him as such.
I understand you, but you are continuing to argue from your basis of logic (reality). As I noted, when BIL and others begin with no guns = no gun crime, the logic of gun control is inescapable, indeed, impenetrable. And that is the “reality” we are dealing with..
In one of my mandated studies of military and war, a statement that was astounding was something like, “You must fight the war your enemy is fighting, or make the enemy fight yours. Fighting the war you want when the enemy is fighting a different war will result in stalemate, at best.” The object lesson was Vietnam.
For the US, Vietnam was a “limited war”. Limited in scope, limited in objective. For the North, it was an unlimited war, a war for survival, with the only limit being “win”. Essentially, the US wanted to send a message that the North would suffer severe pain unless they gave up. The US never wanted to “win” anything, but to maintain status quo. Thus, the US failed to fight the war the opposition was fighting, and the restraint was exploited.
After fighting an enemy in the 1940s that was willing to sacrifice the entirety of the population in honorable death, rather than surrender, the US, 20yrs later, could not deal with that mentality. We were operating under a completely different reality (logic base) than the North Vietnamese.
The North had no intention of reaching a political settlement that did not result in owning the entire nation. The US, on the other hand was driven by the logic that the North could not be serious about a war to the death for a specific goal. Our logic was lost on the North, as theirs was on us. With that set of paradigms, who was the moron? Whose logic was stupid? Whose logic was correct?
So, the point of what I posted is that the pro and anti forces regarding guns are operating from two separate (and mutually impenetrable) bases of logic. We need to know and understand that because every moment, thought, dollar spent trying to convert opinions is reducing the resources we need to utterly defeat the anti-gun mob.
You may conclude that my BIL is a moron, but what is the value of that characterization? It does nothing to progress the pro-2A agenda, ignores reality, and underestimates the difficulty of winning handily, all along the line. We continue to waste ourselves trying to fight the war we want, while the opposition fights the war they want. We have a natural pool of allies (100 million gun owners) which we have dismissed as being unreachable, while exhausting ourselves trying to prove to the anti-gun mafia that we are right, and they are wrong. Our own logic is illogical.
Your BIL is quite literally immune to reason and evidence. There is no convincing people like him. We can only best use him as an example to show the yet-unconvinced and the other uninformed who are actually open to having their minds changed just how unyieldingly stupid and confused his “reasoning” is. People like your BIL are effectively the dictionary definition of unreasonable. He doesn’t want to be convinced otherwise, and no amount of emotive arguments and emotive anecdotes is ever going to change that. In fact, I rightly doubt that even being the victim of a violent crime in which a gun would have been undoubtedly advantageous would ever move him, as it has for so many others.
It’s true that you cannot reason someone out of an opinion that they’ve emoted themselves into, but, neither can you emote them out of it. All that can be done is seize upon any moment that their minds are open to change and begin chipping away at their preconceived notions. For some, that never happens. Your BIL is likely one of those. He is not arguing from any kind of logic at all. None whatsoever. His “thinking” is not grounded in the objective and it wreaks of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy. That is the “thinking” of gun-grabbers like your BIL, which is not any kind of “thinking” at all. It’s emotional diarrhea. There is no “reality” in that. There is no “his” truth, “your” truth, or “my” truth. There is the truth. It is objective and reductive by its very nature. Gun-grabbers reject this inconvenient fact outright. If not, there would be no gun-grabbers to start with because they would know not to argue with us because we’re right.
If he doesn’t even respond with the painfully obvious inconsistencies and contradictions in his beliefs, then he’d clearly rather die than be divorced from his dystopian delusions. There is no point in arguing with someone who — whether they know it or will admit it or not — wants you and your family to die, and that’s ultimately the result of his favored policies. About the only thing that will ever convince him is for those laws to come back and bite him in the ass. Hard. By then, it’ll be far, far too late. And that’s only if he’d actually recognize it, which I doubt, or acknowledge it if he did, which I pretty much rule out altogether.
And he’ll still probably try to find a way to blame us (and you) for it, somehow.
We have to pick and choose our battles, and wasting our finite resources on Adamantium walls that surround the feeble minds of your BIL is not worth the effort. He is lost and shall remain lost until such time that he wants to find his own way back, and it will only be then that we’ll have any hope of bringing him back to the world of the living.
Put the CDC numbers in front of BIL. Asked him to decide how many lives were saved as a result of however many DGUs he believed actually happened. He was at a loss, so I recommended he accept that the number of lives lost to gunfire was at least equal to the number of lives saved (~33,000). He could not accept that number of lives saved. So I asked that if he could accept the CDC low estimate for DGUs, and that at least one life was saved for each DGU. BIL said that could not be because if there had been 250,000 successful DGUs, it would have been all over the news. I responded that the CDC was a trusted source for so much health data, why would he doubt their estimate of DGUs. BIL said CDC was the premier source for disease, but they were completely inept about guns. Then I asked him to explain what the purpose of 250,000 DGUs would have been, if not to save lives. He said that not all the DGUs saved lives, some number were unsuccessful. I asked him to pick any number of successful DGUs he believed actually occurred, and the number of lives saved he believed. BIL declared that no more than 1000 DGUs actually happen, and less than half saved a life. Seizing the opening, I noted that without firearms for self-defense, those 400 (or less) people who successfully saved their own life would be dead, and that people like him thus had blood on their hands for wanting even those 400 to be dead. BIL then raged that no one has the civil right to be judge, jury and executioner; everyone has a right to a trial, so those 400 who remained alive were guilty of murder and had no right to be walking around, avoiding jail. Then I asked, “What happened to ‘if it saves one life’, a process or action was worth it’?” Finally BIL said those actions saving a life were actions that did not result in taking another life. Finishing my slice of pizza, I pushed away from the table and said, “You and all the gun grabbers are declaring that it is mandatory for innocent people to submit to being murdered because you would rather more people be dead than admit firearm self-defense is an individual, human right.” I had to forego a number of family gatherings of pulling his strings after that (wife was livid about me making her brother say stupid things).
Wifey can be as livid as she wants. You exposed her brother’s deeply-flawed and deeply-troubled “thought” process. A “thought” process that should be equally disturbing to her as it should be to anyone else.
Anyway, that’s pretty much been my entire experience with arguing with gun-grabbers. They reject any source that they often appeal to once it’s discovered that the statistics they cleave to don’t actually support their position after all, which is most commonly the CDC. Once they realize that they have no empirical data to support their position, they instantly devolve to making more equally vacuous emotive (non)arguments blaming crime victims for being accosted by street urchins. They quite often even go so far as to call the victims themselves murderers for merely defending themselves. That is when I also tell them, as you told your BIL, that they’d rather innocent people die than recognize the efficacy of keeping and bearing arms and that there is effectively no right to self-defense without it.
Truly, these people are irredeemable in their current state.
You have revealed the base motivation of the anti-gun cult.
Your BIL sides with violent, aggressive criminals, like those who murdered Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, who murdered Jamiel Andre Shaw, or who murdered those students at Stoneman Douglas High School, or those who murdered people in Nanking in the 1930’s, or people in Auschwitz in the 1940’s.
Now check out this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hlFbHxXcZY
“I was raped every single day. Sometimes, twice a day. And it was every bit as horrific as you can imagine”- Elizabeth Smart
It is fairly easy to deduce what your BIL thinks about that. He thinks Smart should not have even thought of escaping, that she should have just lay back and enjoyed it. He thinks Smart should still be laying back and enjoying it.
I frequently participate in discussions in Usenet newsgroups. I remember over a decade ago reading someone writing that gun control is based on dishonesty, invincible ignorance, and sheer malice.
Your BIL proves that statement.
NRA hats just show you know nothing of the compromise the NRA has stood for over the decades.
Get a Gun Owners of America hat and show that the Second Amendment is not up for compromise!
a ridiculous but genuine anecdote along such lines: Back in the 1960s, a retired officer buddy of mine was sent to one of those old W. Edwards Deming courses. He didn’t want to go and had no interest, but his supervisors forced him there.
He got the conference off to a good start. As a first question, the presenter asked, “Can anyone name the man who had possibly the most profound effect on the Japanese economy?” When called upon, cop friend quickly began raising his hand in the air and answered in a deep drawl, “Col. Paul W. Tibbetts!” It took them some time to get back on track.
That’s pretty much how my encounters with gun-grabbers have gone. Once it is revealed that the numbers they cling to don’t truly support their stance after all, which is typically the CDC, they dismiss any source that they frequently resort to. When they come to grips with the fact that there is no evidence to back up their claims, they quickly revert to creating further, similarly emotional (non)arguments in which they accuse crime victims of being harassed by street children. They frequently even accuse the victims themselves of murder for only exercising self-defense. When I do that, I also inform them—as you did with your BIL—that they would prefer that innocent people perish than acknowledge the effectiveness of maintaining and using weapons of self-defense
Most the rank-and-file fear the street thug and the gangbanger.
Sadly and tragically, they have compelling reasons to do so.
I do note there is a faction of the anti-gun cult that is pro-crime, and they lead the cult.
You might come to the conclusion that my BIL is a stupid, but what good does that say? Along the way, it undervalues the challenge of winning handily and does nothing to further the pro-2A agenda. While the adversary wages their own battle, we continue to waste our energy trying to win the conflict. While we spend ourselves trying to convince the anti-gun mafia that we are right and they are wrong, we have a natural pool of allies—100 million gun owners—that we have rejected as unreachable. Our own reasoning is flawed.
Comments are closed.