Advocacy organizations can play an important role in any public debate regardless of their size. But the trick is to figure out who you’re really talking to and whether or not they will listen to what you have to say. If Moms wants to have a real impact on the argument over guns, why don’t they talk to gun owners and stop wasting their energy on convincing people who don’t need to be convinced? And you don’t talk to gun people by throwing up a website or a Facebook page and ‘invite’ them to post a comment or engage in a chat. Maybe that strategy works when you’re selling a product, but it’s rank arrogance to confuse marketing a product with marketing an idea.
Mike Weisser
December 29, 2013
The Confrontational Gun Control Strategy That Just Might Work
[The anti-gun people have an incredible amount of arrogance. And ignorance. And profound disregard for the U.S. Constitution.
Don’t expect them to ever understand why they do and should loose the battle they are fighting. They have mental problems and even as they are swept into the dustbin of history by the legislatures and the courts they will still believe they are right. Their mindset does not, and will never, have a significant difference from that of the KKK of the last century. We are the “gun n***ers” of the 21st Century and they want us “put in our place”.—Joe]
“And you don’t talk to gun people by throwing up a website or a Facebook page and ‘invite’ them to post a comment or engage in a chat. Maybe that strategy works when you’re selling a product, but it’s rank arrogance to confuse marketing a product with marketing an idea.”
An “online demo” or a “try it before you buy it” strategy works for selling a new commercial product, but when the “product” is gun control, there’s no equivalent strategy. They can’t/won’t put together a realistic online demo, and “you have to pass it to find out what’s in it” doesn’t fly anymore (it really shouldn’t have EVER flown, but that’s an argument for another time/place).
It may be “rank arrogance” to equate one concept with another, but that’s their MO. It’s what they do. “We choose to disarm and it works for us, therefore you MUST disarm so it will work for you.” Sound familiar?
But it DOESN’T work for them. They and their children are helpless victims. They’re just too fucking stupid to realize it. Eventually Darwin will solve the problem for us if we’re not forced to solve it ourselves first.
Should be “if” not “I’d”
Fixed.
Most of the posted quote is fairly incoherent. This is the meat of it:
“If Moms wants to have a real impact on the argument over guns, why don’t they talk to gun owner…?”
I assume they want to further the violation of a constitutional right. OK, let’s put that into perspective by changing a few words;
If the KKK wants to have a real impact on the argument over uppity niggers, why don’t they talk to the niggers?
Or
If the Third Reich wants to have a real impact on the argument over the Jewish Problem, why don’t they talk to the Jews?
Well, we KNOW what the KKK’s “talking to” black people meant, and we KNOW what the Third Reich’s “Solution” to “the Jewish Problem” was, so…
Who wants to have THAT “conversation”? You know; the “conversation” with people who are convinced that you are the cause of the world’s crime problem? Hint; that’s not a conversation. It’s a war.
Conversation? They ban you and block you as soon as they identify you. They even kick you out of their crass political rally/fundraisers disguised as “memorial services.” There’s no conversation to be had with people that want us silenced if not dead.