How to recognize the tactics used by anti gun activists in their plan to ban guns.

[lawodevolution]

Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” KKK and Neo-NAZIs own guns and would support a ban on guns in the inner city so that minorities couldn’t own guns. The Brady’s themselves own guns, yet are willing to ban others from owning guns. This is another deceptive method to get you to support their Agenda. They want you to feel they are on your side, so you can either back off or aid them.

Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the even so soon after X" which would require that such event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place.

Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a person’s view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.

Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about “assault weapons ban” while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They can’t seem to figure out the difference between a “magazine” and a “clip”.

Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.

Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.

Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.




Feel free to post up other tactics you've noticed.

[NaturalHigh]

1. All of the above.

I will never vote for any candidate who threatens more gun control.

[veganlush]

2. two different things

Gun fetishism and second amendment rights are two different things. When the authors of the amendment wrote it, the state of the art of weaponry was guns. If it was meant to provide the citizens with a means to over-throw their government of, by and for the people, than they would have meant that citizens always must be armed equally, at least, to the standing army. That would mean that there should be NO restrictions at all on weapon ownership. Everyone should have access to every conceivable weapon. And where does it say that "shall not be infringed" allows for restrictions for children, the mentally ill, criminals, etc...I know this has been discussed before. That is immaterial.

[lawodevolution]

10. "Everyone should have access to every conceivable weapon." Or perhaps the government should be

limited in the types of weapons they possess. Many people on this website would like to see nukes be disarmed.

[DBoon]

13. Gun fetishism is protected by the first amendment

as in freedom of religion

The strange supernatural powers ascribed to gun ownership can only be a type of religion. Owning a gun supposedly wards off crime of all sort, neutralizes any government opression, and creates a self-reliant and responsible citizenry

As a recovering Catholic, I am very familiar with the supernatural powers ascribed to saintly relics. The magical powers of gun ownership are very similar.

Own as many guns of whatever type you wish. They are useful for self defense in certain situations. The Second Amendment protects this right of ownership. Just don't pretend they are some sorcerer's sword that wards off evil.

[lawodevolution]

16. Yet gun hate is only powered by FAITH and pro-gun activists are the ones using

disprovable data to show that their views are correct. Anti-gun folk act just like religious fanatics, non of your arguments are based on truth or fact, all based on lies and faith or emotions.

[TPaine7]

17. That's all we (or at least the vast majority of us) claim:

...They {guns} are useful for self defense in certain situations.

We agree so far.

Just don't pretend they are some sorcerer's sword that wards off evil.

Find one (1) example of anyone making such a claim here, or of any person of any stature in the pro gun rights movement making such a claim--that isn't obvious satire or sarcasm--and I will apologize profusely on that person's behalf. Otherwise, you're debating a straw man.

[shadowrider]

19. Just don't pretend they are some sorcerer's sword that wards off evil.

Show me one post, just one, and you can go back years if you'd like, by a gun owner on this forum that has said that. HINT: You won't

But I'll wait anyway

[Callisto32]

62. STRAWWWWWWWWWWWWW MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN

[YllwFvr]

41. i thought it referred to

the citizens militia being armed the same as a standard infantryman

[GreenStormCloud]

67. Gun fetishism????

So you open your discussion with an insult.

[Hoyt]

3. Oh, yea, keep those guns flowing. Encourage them in every waistband and every public place.

Would like to see a little concern for those who don't want their children seeing folks walk around in public with guns in the 21st century.

Heck, I don't want to see it either. Keep the tacky/nasty things at home in my opinion.

[rrneck]

7. oh good! The fashion police are

here to raise the intellectual bar.

:rofl:

[lawodevolution]

11. Good example of Hate/Fear/Anger

"Heck, I don't want to see it either. Keep the tacky/nasty things at home in my opinion." Some people feel this way about dildos, exposed legs, condoms, etc. You joined their ranks.

Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a person’s view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.

[Hoyt]

18. Ah, poor gun wearers are "discriminated" against. Next, you'll be saying greedy banks are victims.

Give me a break. You are not being discriminated against because some of us don't think people should pack in public places.

Fact is, we don't need guns in public. And, they are nasty looking when tucked in the belt of some tea-bagger who thinks toting will save the day.

Try going without a gun in public for awhile. You'll survive and find it feels pretty good.

[shadowrider]

20. The ONLY people that wear their gun in their belt

are thugs who can drop the gun with no proof (other than gunpowder residue on their hands) they ever had one.

RESPONSIBLE gun owners keep them in a holster, just like what I do.

[Hoyt]

22. Discuss the issue, not whether some gun toter sticks a holster in his belt.

The fact is, many of us don't want people walking around with a gun in their pocket, a holster clipped to their belt, a holster strapped to their leg and/or ankle, a shoulder-holster, or wherever the wearer thinks he looks best when standing in front of the mirror admiring himself before going to pick up his child at nursery school and taking him to a friendly restaurant full of children.

Leave em at home.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. And other people don't like interracial or obviously gay couples walking around

It's up to you to adjust, not others.

[shadowrider]

39. You insinuated it, I have the right to refute that statement

[X_Digger]

43. And allow you to 'frame' the debate as you wish? Fat chance. n/t

[rl6214]

47. Just because you said "fact is"

Dosen't make it so. In fact, most people that say that don't have facts on their side and are full of it.

[lawodevolution]

21. thanks for the new category

loose association: Trying to associate guns, gun events, gun rights activists or pro gun groups with something they are not associated with in any way that people in general may consider to be evil or bad such as Evil Banks, Evil people, bad events or anything negative even though many people don't view guns in a negative way or gun owners as being evil. An attempt to label guns, gun owners or pro gun groups as evil by loose association with that which is considered evil.

[Hoyt]

25. You are the one who proclaimed "discrimination."

Heck, some public gun wearers on here have even had the audacity to compare it to the Civil Rights movement. Please.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. I invite others to read *your* post #22. Would you like your prejudices encoded into law?

[Hoyt]

31. Sure, encode them for me.

[lawodevolution]

28. it is like the civil rights movement

Making personal attacks against gun owners, trying to censor our heritage and culture. Trying to label us and motivate people to hate and mistreat us. Yep, it's the new civil rights movement. You may not agree with it, but the KKK and Neo-Nazis didn't agree with the last civil rights movement and perhaps KKK members didn't consider the advancement of rights of african americans to be a civil rights movement.

I'm asked to tolerate and respect the cultures and heritage of others, I do, and I expect and demand the same respect back toward my heritage and culture, in which gun ownership and gun freedom are very important.

Just to remind you, it is the fault of gun control supporters that this is turning into a civil rights movement. If you were not fighting a culture war against us, this would not be happening.

[Hoyt]

30. Sorry, nowhere close to the Civil Right Movement.

"Culture war" over your walking around with a gun in public -- Christ man, get a life and leave your guns at home. If you can't do it, seek help or find a 61 year old lady who can protect you without resorting to carrying a gun.

Keep guns at home. That's where they belong, not in public.

[lawodevolution]

32. your response is identical to what a KKK member would say to an african american during the civil

rights movement. The KKK member would view no need to consider fighting for the liberty and freedom of african americans to become a civil rights issue.

Your culture war against gun owners created the civil rights issue of gun ownership, of course you are against calling it a civil rights issue as you think the gun culture should be smashed and destroyed.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lawodevolution]

36. " you have a problem and might not be fit to carry. "

racists also tried to decide what rights in which the people they were fighting a culture war with could practice and under what circumstances. Others found that having black skin was enough to fit your "not be fit to carry." assertion while it seems you base it on political view, those who disagree with you are those who might "not be fit to carry".

Let's see KKK, tea-baggers and public carry, loose associations that have nothing to do with each other. KKK was in part responsible for laws in the south banning open carry.

This isn't just a carry issue, it also involves bans and control on accessories sold.

[Hoyt]

37. I'm through arguing whether your need to carry is equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement. It's not

I'm betting you aren't old enough to really understand the Civil Right Movement, or you would not espouse such BS. Your need to walk around in public with a gun ain't nearly the same as people being lynched for looking at a white person, denied an application for a job, segregated in separate and unequal schools, told they can't vote, denied entrance to public universities, etc.

[beevul]

49. Best post ever by a pro control person.

You say "I'm through arguing whether your need to carry is equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement"

Then immediately follow it with "It's not". :rofl:



Its no wonder why nobody but your own trust anything you (anti-gunners) say.


I think that about says it all. Thank you for the demonstrative post. :rofl:

[Callisto32]

64. "You never 'served' so you can't have an opinion on war!!11!"

Same shit, different topic.

[beevul]

48. We have a winnah!!

"you are against calling it a civil rights issue as you think the gun culture should be smashed and destroyed."


Bingo.

[krispos42]

58. You are not being discriminated against because some of us don't think people should pack in public

True. Until they begin passing legislation that turns an opinion into law, enforced with the power of the State.

[Callisto32]

63. No, greedy banks are empowered by the same government you want to control them to

debase the currency.

But on to the topic of guns... If we don't need guns in public, I guess the police will be the first you disarm. That is, after all, the most overt display of weaponry in public.

I go without a gun in public a great deal (most) of the time. There are also times that I choose to go armed. Carrying a gun does not make me feel safer, or less likely to be the victim of a crime, it merely gives me an option.

[spin]

33. Let me point out to you once more ...

experienced legal firearm owners use holsters.

Criminals just stick the gun in their waistband. That way they can throw the gun away while they are running and not have to explain an empty holster.

[Hoyt]

38. Who cares, neither should tote in public.

[spin]

40. That's just your opinion ...

Your opinion and $5 will buy you a beer in a bar, (maybe two if you go to a dive).

[X_Digger]

42. That would which tactic? Attemped Shame?

The OP really should have put numbers to these, so that we can shorthand them when we see em.

[oneshooter]

59. Ever been to Israel? Lots of weapons in the hands of civilians. n/t

[sharesunited]

4. Is it a lie to point out that the "in popular use" standard of 2A rights protection

carries a horrible incentive?

It promotes the proliferation of deadlier weaponry in a scramble to bring worse harm into popular use and under less restraint.

It is a perfectly legitimate objective of public policy to turn that menace around by expelling the more deadly from popular use.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. More support for racist and classist laws from you

[sharesunited]

6. All races and classes benefit alike by the reduced risk of bullets entering their bodies.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Your ignorance of history is breathtaking

[lawodevolution]

12. Just like how the 500 people chopped up in nigeria in the march/2010 genocide who were disarmed by

their government benefited from not owning firearms and ammo as the madmen with machetes circled their village.

[sharesunited]

45. I'm for machete control too. But there's just too much machete love over there.

Sound familiar?

[aquart]

9. Hysterical, much?

Do we file this with shrieking propaganda?

[lawodevolution]

14. what kind of propaganda?

[Lurks Often]

15. Looks like your post falls under the Throwing Up Smoke Category

common among those who can not defend their position based on verifiable facts.




Edited for missing word, originally stated: Looks like your post falls under the Throwing Up Category

[Katya Mullethov]

23. Vomiting is a survival reflex in some species

And is advocated by any number of humans .
Advocated for other humans , but not for the advocates themselves of course .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oux_W279_y4
" I can throw my purse at him "

[Callisto32]

65. I actually know a guy who resisted a mugging by trowing his umbrella and running.

It may work.....

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. Two examples of "Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism" amongst Prohibitionists:

1.The attempt to relabel gun control as "gun safety", and


2.The Newspeak regarding people that legally carry guns in public. Exapmles:


The Oldspeak-"Gun carriers will attempt to intervene in crimes (and/or kill over parking spaces), and their will be shootouts."

Well, that became an obvious nonstarter, so now we have-


The Newspeak-"Gun carriers will attempt to intervene in crimes, and fail." This was popularized by a DUer, and has now gained

new adherents since the Tucson shootings.

[Katya Mullethov]

29. The " Guns Fuel" meme was masterful fail , on a global scale

Presented here , so that one might carefully choose a good think agency with the proper state credentials
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=guns+fuel+mex&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=guns+fuel+mex&psj=1&fp=fd0f73886609171d


Did this actually cost any tax dollars ? Or can you do it all with just email and a fax machine ?

[lawodevolution]

34. updated list

Can't edit the OP anymore


Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” KKK and Neo-NAZIs own guns and would support a ban on guns in the inner city so that minorities couldn’t own guns. The Brady’s themselves own guns, yet are willing to ban others from owning guns. This is another deceptive method to get you to support their Agenda. They want you to feel they are on your side, so you can either back off or aid them.

Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the event so soon after the shooting" which would require that the pro-gun event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place. This also requires an implied loose association between the pro gun event and something bad which is listed below as another tactic.

loose association: Trying to associate guns, gun events, gun rights activists or pro gun groups with something they are not associated with in any way that people in general may consider to be evil or bad such as Evil Banks, Evil people, bad events or anything negative even though many people don't view guns in a negative way or gun owners as being evil. An attempt to label guns, gun owners or pro gun groups as evil by loose association with that which is considered evil.

Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a person’s view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.

Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about “assault weapons ban” while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They can’t seem to figure out the difference between a “magazine” and a “clip”.

Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.

Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.

Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.

[X_Digger]

44. Got a couple more for ya..

The Lovejoy: No matter what the restriction is, it's justified by a plea to save the children.

Imagery is optional:




and..

Forced Teaming: An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends.."

[Katya Mullethov]

46. You know...... some of my best friends

Shoot colored rifles .

[lawodevolution]

54. merging those with my list

[beevul]

50. Another one...

Implied need for justification of need of ownership.

"why do you need X"

[Hoopla Phil]

52. Ah yes. As it is being used it this thread. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x362015

[lawodevolution]

53. good idea, adding it

[Hoopla Phil]

51. And lets see these applied here shall we? link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=361489&mesg_id=361489

[lawodevolution]

55. updated list v3

X-digger, the once you called "forced teaming" is like empathy, I added your discreption in there, here's the new list.






The Lovejoy (by X-digger): No matter what the restriction is, it's justified by a plea to save the children.

Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.
Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""

Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the event so soon after the shooting" which would require that the pro-gun event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place. This also requires an implied loose association between the pro gun event and something bad which is listed below as another tactic.

loose association: Trying to associate guns, gun events, gun rights activists or pro gun groups with something they are not associated with in any way that people in general may consider to be evil or bad such as Evil Banks, Evil people, bad events or anything negative even though many people don't view guns in a negative way or gun owners as being evil. An attempt to label guns, gun owners or pro gun groups as evil by loose association with that which is considered evil.

Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a person’s view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.

Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about “assault weapons ban” while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They can’t seem to figure out the difference between a “magazine” and a “clip”.

Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.

Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.

Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.

Forced justification (beevul): This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. "Phelpsing" - loudly and repeatedly proclaiming the moral and/or. ...

...psychological deficiencies of gun owners.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. The Baghdad Bob - Deny that new gun control measures are being attempted

Thanks to DUer Katya Mullethov for this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=367545&mesg_id=367561

[X_Digger]

60. How about..

Not sure if this one counts as a separate one, but the..

MGAFYGAE -- "MY guns are fine, YOUR guns are evil."

Black powder guns, revolvers, traditionally stocked shotguns, deer rifles, even 1911's- "But I {or Dad, or Granddad, or Uncle Duke} had / have one of those, so they're perfectly fine. The rest of your guns? Ban 'em."

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. That's a good one. A variant is the "Uncle Ruckus"

Claiming to be a gun owner and/or very familiar with guns, and yet continually putting down other gun owners

[jeepnstein]

66. They're called "Fudds".

While I personally have nothing against Elmer Fudd and his War on Rabbits, his human counterparts are obnoxious at times.

They'll wax poetic about how this or that firearm is beyond reproach or ban because it has some sporting use. They constantly want to make the 2nd Amendment about hunting. Most of them will own a pistol or two but it's usually some kind of marginally useful thing that they've buggered to death after reading too many gun magazines.

When I was a brand-new Deputy Sheriff I had to buy a new duty weapon. My choice was, and still is, a Colt Officer's .45 ACP. Before I picked it up from my dealer I had them do a thorough inspection and adjustment. Their gun smith was a Colt armorer and he made the trigger absolute Series 80 perfection. So I stroll in to pick it up and there's a couple of Fudds standing around drinking cofee, wearing flannel shirts and hunting coats. One of them started on me about how I needed this or that special modification or doodad before the thing would really ever amount to anything. The owner of the shop jumped in and stated clearly that what I was buying wasn't a toy like they were accustomed to seeing, that it was a serious tool for serious business and his gun smith had it ready for me to be willing to bet my life on it. They didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

We get Fudds on this board every once in a while spouting off all sorts of downright dangerous information and cite their experience as a hunter as their authority. Every once in a while a politician will get a hold of a Fudd and have him go around talking like some sort of expert.