Lesson for All
This is a discussion on Lesson for All within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I am going to provide what I believe will be an interesting piece of analysis as it relates to Democrats, human psychology, and their relationship ...
April 3rd, 2013 10:14 PM
Lesson for All
I am going to provide what I believe will be an interesting piece of analysis as it relates to Democrats, human psychology, and their relationship to the 2nd Amendment. It may be a little lengthy, but please follow along and run this over in your mind.
Much fun has been made of our Vice President, about the great many missteps by Crazy Uncle Joe, especially in these forums as it related to his advice for Self Defense and use of shotguns. But beyond the obvious jokes, there is an important psychoanalysis we must do because it will help us understand our foes, their motivations and methods, but also help us explain to those on the sidelines, why the gun control folks are pulling a con artist fraud on the public.
We all remember Joe's first bit of advice to a woman who called about self defense. In his attempt to feign empathy with folks that own guns and appear knowledgeable, he advised owning a shotgun for self defense and that all you would need to do is fire a couple of warning shots into the air. It was very quickly found that this advice would get you arrested unless your lived in very remote locations or somewhere in Antarctica. Now, rationalization is an incredible strong impulse of human nature, no one is immune. One could understand if Joe would have made excuses about being taken out of context or being figurative or it being a slip of the tongue, yada yada yada. At the very least, one should have expected that as he would continue to be a point man for his side on gun control issues, they'd tighten up his rhetoric and talking points to avoid the "rake in their face" moments (a la Sideshow Bob). Most of us, when we make a stupid mistake, we normally learn from it and the related embarrassment, and not make it again. They did not do that. Instead, Joe and the Democrats walk right into another rake when Joe gives more shotgun advice that will also get your arrested and is the height of recklessness.
Fast forward to Colorado, where Democratic legislators have been lampooned for basically telling college students to pee on someone who tries to assault them and in one case, telling a rape victim, that she was probable better off just lying back and trying to enjoy it. I am paraphrasing and exaggerating a little, but not much. New on the pile, the Denver Post has an item that one of the Democratic legislators, does not know that a magazine can be reloaded. I guess since magazines are rarely seen being reloaded in movies, this might explain why she did not know.
Credit to Allison Sherry of The Denver Post:
The psychoanalysis here is that we have example after example that the gun control supporters have very little to no knowledge about firearms and their functions. Yet, they never step back and have that moment of introspection and say maybe I should slow down and make sure I know what I'm doing. Their hubris and maniacal adherence to modern liberal doctrine has them just charging forward headlong and headstrong, in spite of the fact, they've been proven to not know anything about the issue other than that doctrine of "we hate guns and guns are bad in other's hands". In more technical terms, this is extreme narcissism and obsessive compulsive.
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
What she didn’t appear to understand is that a magazine can be reloaded with more bullets.
These facts are leading a current purity purge that most media are not exploring other than the occasion story. Elected Democrats like Manchin, Pryor, Heitkamp, et al, will have to make a decision soon. Do they more fear the loss of big money democratic donors if they stand against gun control or do they fear the public will turn on them in sufficient numbers to end their career if they support gun control? The long term end game, is that when endangered species "pro gun" Democrats do eventually retire, it is highly unlikely they will be replace by a similar Democrat coming out of the primary. Simply, this mean that in near future, putting a Democrat in office means you have an automatic gun control proponent and vote. This will be something to discuss with people that like guns, but may tilt liberal or moderate on most other issues. Most of us in these forums vote for Republican, but as ambassadors of gun rights, we can win others to our side with superior arguments. We have the evidence, we have the logic, we will spread the message.
April 3rd, 2013 10:14 PM
April 3rd, 2013 10:26 PM
How, precisely, do you have a rational discussion; with the hope of convincing an irrational person, with logic?
If you could elucidate that nugget, we will all commence proselytizing door to door, giving away free tracts on the salvation of the world through the RIGHT to keep and near arms.
Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
"You are elected to service, not power.
Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
April 3rd, 2013 10:34 PM
But they don't hear logic. They have chosen their view, and that is that. Trust me, all has been discussed on how to trump them.
It's frustrating to try and educate those who refuse to be educated, yet know what's best for everybody.
Preaching to the choir. But you get an A for effort.
April 3rd, 2013 10:43 PM
<Spock voice> "Totally Illogical" Dems have no worthful data
Why Waltz when you can Rock-N-Roll
April 3rd, 2013 10:59 PM
I have to agree with Oakchas logic will not work with many of these people. I would add that both sides have their share of "Bidens".
April 3rd, 2013 11:15 PM
I ask questions. And I expect a response. My belief is that they will have to think about things a little differently if they have to formulate a response. Maybe think for themselves.
For example on Universal Background Checks: So do you think that I shouldn't be able to give my son a hunting rifle for his 18th birthday? Or that I shouldn't be able to leave my hunting rifle when I pass away? Why should the government get involved in that?
On magazines: How many bullets do citizens need? How many do Police Officers need? What's the difference (other than probability of being in a shootout)? How many attackers should someone be able to fend off? How long does it take to reload?