Reply #394: Heres what you don't understand... [View All]

Your average politically active gun owner is NOT...I repeat NOT...interested in vague or subjective terminology where a percieved right (lets not argue if it IS or is NOT a right here, ok?) OR restrictions/bans/unnecessary inconvenience is concerned.

The second you say something like "common sense" or "reasonable" its over, and your target audience is now making a target of you. The purpose being to take away your ability to wield or exert political force on that audience in any way, shape, size of form. Take a look at the last 10 years. This is EXACTLY what has been happening, and continues to happen. Once this is understood, it will become clear that the damage to the Democratic party from this issue is completely self-inflicted, and unnecessary.

At the beginning of that second, they of course want to know immediately what exactly constitutes "common sense" or reasonable. And rightfully so. Then, from the back of their mind comes the recollection that "common sense" and "reasonable" are warm fuzzy terms meant to imply that if there is disagreement with any "reasonable common sense" proposal, that the disagreeing party must not be reasonable or have any common sense. This tactic has insulted and alienated...too many potential Democratic voters. Immediately following that, comes the recollection that "common sense" and "reasonable" are terms that gun grabbers love to use, for precisely the purpose of painting their opponents as unreasonable, or haveing no common sense. Brady, VPC, CSGV, et al. As far as the majority of gun owners are concerned, they are the ENEMY. If you use their talking points, YOU become the enemy. It all comes crashing down, in 1 second. Now, that 1 second has passed, all of the above has happened, and You have lost before you ever got started.

Here, I'll put you in their shoes for a second...

What would you think if the someone started talking about "common sense" or "reasonable" restrictions on a womans right to choose? Hmm?

Obviously, you would want exacting specifics on what is meant by that.
Your perception is that "that someone" wants to limit the right of a woman to choose, just as it is percieved that the left wants to keep sticking it to guns/gun owners/gun culture.

Your perception would be that they were hiding their true intentions behind "nice" terms, like "common sense" or "reasonable". Otherwise, they would spell it out, right?

"In the world of gun owners, a control IS a ban."

"Why? That's what I do not understand."

Would you be for "reasonable" or "common sense" control of abortions?

I know, you want to know what is meant by "reasonable" or "common sense" control, and until its spelled out, and probably even AFTER its spelled out, the answer wouldn't be no, it would be HELL NO.
That would be MY answer, anyhow, taking about 1 second to decide. Add to this, that gun control seems to be unique in that year after year, its just never enough. Every year, there seems to be clamor for more, and more.

"We need to legislate more on x because the current legislation on X just isn't working."

Only in washington is it logical to add further control because control isn't working. It reminds me of the guy at the casino who keeps saying to his wife "one more quarter hon".

Where and when will it end? When will it be enough?



The facts of the matter is this:


The democratic party has alot of fence mending to do. History is NOT on its side where guns are concerned. The now expired assault weapons ban is one such example of this history. Someone, somewhere, decided to make up the subjective term "assault weapon", then subjectively define it as being basically an "offending looking, military looking, bullet hose that noone needs". Alot of folks on both sides saw it as nothing more than an attack on the "gun culture". There is no measure of how huge a mistake that was.

This party also has a VERRY public and VOCAL anti-gun minority (Shumer, Feinstein, Kennedy,etc) and just tried to run a presidential candidate with the WORST voting record in the history of this nation where guns are concerned. Every potential candidate, state or federal, is scrutinized heavily on their voting record by MILLIONS of potential Democratic voters on thier stance reguarding guns.

Those are HUGE obstacles to overcome.


How can it be done?

First, and most important. Forget subjective or vague terms/terminology. They do nothing but foster distrust. Period. Put yourself in the shoes of a gun owner, like the abortion excercise above, and this becomes crystal clear.

Second, the leaders of this party NEED to know WTF they are talking about where guns are concerned. We expect nothing short of that where economics/abortion/pick a subject is concerned. Why should guns be any different? The second any proposed candidate starts proposing something, and doesn't know WTF hes talking about, you have again lost the battle.

Third, any and all legislation, whether it be proposed legislation, or campain rhetoric, needs to be spelled out in its intent, and MUST be quantifiable...meaning NO VAGUENESS OR SUBJECTIVITY. Who, what, where, when, and especially WHY anything effecting, or potentially effecting gun owners should be done - needs to be explained in exactly that way. Gun owners are better than anyone gives them credit for, at correctly identifying solutions in search of problems, and mobilizing their ranks against such.

Fourth. The continual minimization of gun owners must stop. Gun owners are human, just like the rest of us. They sweat, live, die, love, cry, hurt, and have feelings. And, they don't forget who makes war on their way of life, even if its just a perception. This can't be stressed enough. The minute anyone starts throwing out labels like extremist, rambo, paranoid, loonie, or starts inferring that a gun is a penis extension, things get ugly. Its been said that many people voted against their interests in this last election. This is true, but I don't think that the depth of it is truly understood. Gun owners (in my experience) would vote to lose their houses, cars, left nuts, before voting against guns. They feel as though their backs are against the wall, and that they have no alternative. This has been the case for over a decade now. You face an entity that will fight like a cornered animal, using political force. Acknowledging this is paramount to making any inroads. Remember, gun owners don't NEED the Democratic party. Many would rather vote Deomcrat, but they don't NEED this party. This is the case in my situation. I would much rather vote Democrat, but I didn't vote this year, because I WILL NOT EVER vote for an anti-abortion candidate OR even a mildly anti-gun candidate. Those 2 issues are inseparable, and non-negotiable. Period.



Did that help any?