“Progressives” And Straw Men

I was thinking of making this a Quote of the Day, and I’m glad I waited to expand on it.

Another interesting thing: Antis are really, really bad at “Red Team Thinking”.
They really have a hard time understanding or considering the pro-gun position.

This is where subject ignorance and stressing of emotion over logic really becomes a weakness.

And it’s telling that the average gunnie can explain the anti-gun position better than the anti-gunner.

Jack has it right. While the linked article was probably one of the best-written anti-gun rebuttals I’ve ever seen, even in my first skim my thoughts were “Oh man I can tear this argument apart!”

Now also expand on HOW I got to reading that article. I spend about as much time reading anti-gun articles as pro-gun ones. I found that article on Joan Peterson’s twitter feed. The other article I mentioned in that post was ALSO found and delivered by Joan.

If you don’t read anti-gun writings, you should ask yourself “WHY?”.

Hell there might be an off chance they get something right. Technically Anti-Gunners and Pro-Gunners are on the same side. We both claim to want to make our nation a safer place! Second it helps us get inside their head, see what motivates them, and see what angles they are attacking us from.

The attack side is the simplest. You read the latest anti-gun talking point or sound byte, and come up with a counter argument, then keep that in your back pocket for the next time it crops up when you’re talking with people. A strong defense is a good offense. If they can never achieve their goals our struggle becomes a war of attrition where we can slowly make in-roads while they are powerless to defeat us.

Still wars of attrition are the worst wars, and the same goes with political struggles. Why ride down the slippery slope slip-by-slip when you can make REAL progress?

Hence why you get into their heads. See what they’re saying, see what they’re demanding, see what they’re wishing for, and put that all together. Antis WISH for a safer America, but we can counter that we’re LIVING in a safer America with less gun control and more armed citizens. They don’t like that counter, because I personally believe they only care about banning guns, and safety is just a tool they’re using to gain that goal. Still the hard-line true-believer anti-gun activists are VERY few. If these are the ONLY people we have to deal with, then our fight is essentially over. No the rational people who support gun control DO care about safety, and they DO care about the other talking points the antis bring up.

Its true, “Gun sales with no questions asked”, “Military-Style Assault Weapons with no purpose other than killing”, and “High Capacity Magazine Clips”, are ALL very scary-sounding, and they get people’s attention.

Of course WE are ACTUALLY talking about the ability to sell your own property without having to involve a third party demanding your time and money. Also said sales are still subject to federal law and criminal charges to an illegal transfer. I’ll remind all that a bill was presented to allow non-FFL holders to run NICS checks on their own without involving the time and resources of a gun shop, and without any fear of a back-door registry. The Anti-Gun people HATED it.

We aren’t talking about “Military-Style Weapons”, because frankly most firearms from Grand-pa’s bolt-action deer gun, to any slide-action shotgun, to any pistol or revolver from the match-lock to modern plastic guns, and even some rather tiny CCW type pistols have seen action in military fire-fights and have been in the hands and holsters of soldiers guarding posts. Further guns like the Barret M82 and the Armalite AR-15 were designed as civilian sporting rifles first, and modified and/or adopted for military use at a later date. Also “High capacity” magazines somehow aren’t an issue when the cop walked up to your car door when he pulls you over for speeding with 6 17-round Glock 17 magazines on his belt, but they’re scary when I have one sitting in my gun safe?

And we can argue if your AR-15 is a gun for killing, target shooting, hunting, or just a collector’s piece, but since we, and any other nation I can think of, has laws where you can legally kill another human being for self-protection, or protection of others, there’s good cause for having a gun “designed only for killing”.

You may not be able to turn the average person who doesn’t like guns into Ted Nugent with these counter-arguments, but you can certainly clip the bloom off the rose of gun control if the person you’re talking to has any interest in listening.

Now this “Red Team” mentality of the “Progressives” isn’t just for guns!

Look at that sketch! It is CHOCK full of straw-men! First up, most activists, no matter what cause, aren’t so easily duped as this straw-man, second ironic that the “supportive” girl-friend was Hispanic. You know, that block of people who make our Catholics look like middle-school atheists trying to piss off their religious parents. You think a real Hispanic lady would be THAT concerned about an abortion mill? Hell do you think she’d be all that concerned with people getting contraception?

“Progressives” live in their own little world, and in that world they claim to defy the laws of physics and nature so that when they “Argue” with the other side they’re right!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to “Progressives” And Straw Men

  1. AZRon says:

    The “progressives” are not our biggest foe. We know where they stand and how they vote. (yeah, they crap on the Constitution, but they’re still good for a laugh every now and then)

    The larger problem is the truly ignorant among the masses. They are easily led by a hysterical, agenda-driven, nationwide media. If they vote at all, they vote with emotion rather than facts. They make sure to fill in every checkbox, whether or not they are familiar with the issue expressed on line 17.

    As an example: Yesterday, a guy that I’ve known for 45 years came over to pick up his taxes. After our business was out of the way, we started to shoot the breeze. We talked about his cars and my guns. This man is a 63 year old, blue collar, middle class, never missed a day of work in his life kinda’ guy. He’s not a gun guy per se, but he has owned firearms in the past. In fact, I bought his last firearm ten years ago. (a sweet Mossberg 144 LSA)

    He, like the rest of the ill-informed, was under the impression that every AR, AK, HK…etc., was a machine gun. This is what we’re up against. Sadly, facts come hard to a pre-washed brain that’s been fed only media emotion. Two possible remedies are a mugging, or a range trip.

    I don’t sweat the grabbers (they always trip themselves up when facts come into play) nearly as much as I do the ignorant. Them [email protected](kers vote…OFTEN!

    • The Jack says:

      That is *exactly* how the Federal AWB was passed.

      The Antis said it was about machine guns, the media agreeded, and people who didn’t know any better went along.

      That’s why informing people, even basic terms can bring huge dividends.
      It increases the odds that they’ll realize they’re being lied to.

      And what does it say about a political movement that depends on keeping people ignorant of the very thing they seek to control?

      • Weerd Beard says:

        I was below voting age when this turd passed, but I was more than pleased because you don’t NEED a Machine gun or a grenade launcher! (and Yes I thought this bill applied to the M16 and the M203)

        Honestly it was discovering the truth behind the 94 AWB was what turned me over. Fuckers LIED to me, and I don’t take kindly to liars. Of course before I swapped I decided that the NRA must be as big a liars as the Brady Campaign….except I couldn’t find any, and that was as a guy who still wasn’t cool with people carrying concealed weapons or owning AR-15s.

        I’m still amazed at how many people AREN’T bothered as much as I am about the level of lies from the anti-gun side.

  2. Archer says:

    Get into their heads, learn their talking points and justifications, and use them against the antis. It’s good strategy.

    For some reason, this reminds me of the climax of the movie “8 Mile” (which if you haven’t seen, you’re not missing much). The main character spends the whole movie being made fun of for the same things, over and over – we’ll call these the “parroted talking points” – until the end, at a rap contest where the contestants are supposed to “diss” on each other. He gets up and executes a rap going over all the talking points and challenging the other guy to come up with something new, ANYTHING new, and wins because the other guy doesn’t have anything else except the talking points.

    This is why the antis don’t want a debate. They don’t want a “discussion.” They don’t have anything but emotion-driven talking points – which sound great in an echo chamber – but we can shred those to pieces using logic AND emotion without breaking a sweat. They ONLY way they can win is to silence our voices and disseminate lies.

  3. TS says:

    The problem is those progressives don’t live in their own world. They live in ours.

  4. The Jack says:

    On a related note, there’s this bit on Ace of Spades.

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/347983.php

    Note the dicotomy between those that feel with their “gut” on guns and end up being proven wrong, and those that are more rational/permissive end up being proved right.

    And that doesn’t even get into the whole classism of “People in public housing shouldn’t have guns because people in public housing are more likely to be criminals. “

  5. TS says:

    I hate how liberals try to make abortion out at a “men vs. women” issue. There is no gender gap in polling. What do they think goes on when a young woman gets knocked up after a one night stand? Does the man say, “oh you’re having that baby so I can pay child support for the next 18 years”, or does he say, “let me get my keys so I can drive you to the clinic”?

    • Weerd Beard says:

      And then there are people like me who see even an early Embryo as a human being and entitled to all the rights of a newborn baby, or the people who see abortion as an abomination to God. Its not like these points of view are gender-based.

      Also as you said, dad’s of accidental pregnancy aren’t keen on getting a new dependent they didn’t want in the first place. But the gender thing complains that men can’t be pro-life because they don’t have to carry the baby. Still I know a woman who aborted a pregnancy in high school, and the whole procedure was no joke…so by that logic, shouldn’t men also not be pro-choice because they don’t have to go through the trauma of having an abortion?

      • TS says:

        Indeed, and those polls show the most extreme positions favoring women (no abortion under any circumstance).

        Granted these are polls, which I don’t place a lot of value in, but it’s better than anecdotes.

  6. TS says:

    Then there’s liberals like this, who protest things that you would think liberals would be all for:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/25/google-bus-protest-swells-to-revolt-san-francisco

    “Damn ‘richies’ living in their 900 sqft apartments riding the bus to their 70 hr/wk jobs. Must be nice.”

    Honestly, some people will complain about anything.

  7. Pingback: Quote of the Day: Timothy Bal | Weer'd World

  8. Pingback: Bloomberg Shifts Focus | Weer'd World

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *