We need to stop the infighting and stand together.

[Redhorse]

Earlier I was apart of a discussion about the current controversial actions that took place (and the aftermath that followed) regarding the Open Carry Texas Protest. I, like many other posters, was right in the middle of it without ever completely thinking what all the infighting could actually accomplish. What this discussion made me ultimately realize is there is, in fact, a lot of infighting that takes place within our community and maybe it's time we all took a moment to think about what it is really accomplishing. Finally, I came across a great article that talks about this and makes so very good points. A great read.

An Open Letter to the Gun Community: STOP THE INFIGHTING!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Good find. Unfortunately, it is human nature to temporarily align with those with whom we have something in common only to have the perception of threat against us recede somewhat and then decide that our erstwhile allies do not have enough in common with us, and the coalition disintegrates before we get where we need to be. That said, I am not above addressing a gun owner/supporter who will either preemptively cave or else genuinely believe in 'reasonable restrictions' which are less restrictive than Nancy Pelosi's or Dianne Feinstein's 'reasonable restrictions'. So far as I am concerned, the central point needs to be that the only reasonable restriction is restricting the government from putting its accursed fingers on our rights.

 

[ModernGunner]

This civil exchange of ideas led to Texas’ open carry advocates making changes to their demonstration policies to reduce the number of long guns carried into private businesses while still maintaining their ability to get their political point across.

The author makes some good, generally agreeable points.

The 'challenge' is going to be the 'all or nothing' types. Like OCT. Their concept appears to be, "If we don't get our way, the we'll create enough havoc that none will get to carry. We'll ruin it for everybody, that'll teach 'em!" Petulant child-types likely shouldn't be carrying, anyway.

They appear to forget they're not the only ones with rights, however much they propound their indifference of the rights of others. When a gun advocate makes an irrational statement to the effect of "I don't care about others rights, or what others think, I have the RIGHT!", even the rights of other pro-2A advocates, they fail to realize they're alienating the very folks whose support they need and require.

Likewise, one who carries to make some 'political point' probably shouldn't be carrying at all. Carrying a firearm isn't a 'game' and they're not 'toys'.

Great and grave responsibility comes with carrying a firearm, whether one chooses to 'accept' that concept, or not. No amount of rhetoric or 'podium pounding' will negate that responsibility. Accept the responsibility and act accordingly, or don't have firearms. 'Petulant children' need not apply.

 

[45 LongColt]

A good article, thanks for posting the link.

 

[Redhorse]

I just feel this is important for all of us to read so we can set aside our differences to fight future gun control. If we start splintering now, soon our whole base will shatter.

 

[Dead Duck]

1911

 

[rob63]

We are never all going to agree on every issue and I believe internal debate can be very healthy as it strengthens your arguments. I would suggest that it is actually one of the reasons we keep winning in the mainstream. The anti-gunners have weak arguments because they never challenge each other. The biggest problem with our own debates is that once the actual arguments have been stated it then degenerates into name calling and it is very difficult not to return the favor when the lunacy starts. I suspect the appeal for no infighting is doomed to failure anyway just because there are always a handful of people in any group that seem to really enjoy irritating others and they will find a way regardless.

 

[MPD742]

I too thought the article made some good points. My guns are for self-defense, hunting, recreation and work. When we, the community, use guns for demonstration purposes to gun laws, we would be wise to think twice and search for better solutions.

 

[findingZzero]

[video=youtube;qr1Gjwf_kWg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr1Gjwf_kWg[/video]

1. never trust info from dead people stuck in limbo
2. Sounds like a Kumbaya moment to me.
3. Libertarians would never go along.
4. Bunch of socialists...
5. I'd rather die alone. Wait, we all die alone.
6. Did I mention they are all dead?
7. ?

 

[dak109]

Depending on your age you may remember that the anti's almost succeeded with this years ago. The NRA did a good job of bringing us all back together. Divide and conquer is a very old tactic. I used to not give a damn about AR's and other black rifles. Now I do. So we must all stick together even if we don't think we will ever want "x" type of gun. If we allow them to ban any of them it will only be a matter of time before they come for the ones we already have, or may decide we want later in life.

 

[gregkl]

Everyone has opinions and they can lead to infighting. Part of the issue is speaking on forums such as this one. We say something. The reader interprets it one way though that may or may not be what the writer intended. Then the OP has to try to re-word what he/she was trying to say. Having a face to face conversation is much easier. Lively debate is much better when you are together.

That said, we are all entitled to our own opinions, we do not get to choose our own facts.

One things that raises an eyebrow for me though is the frequent use of "our rights". People seem to think that rights can't/won't be changed or even taken away. We may have certain rights, but we can lose them.

 

[KG1]

I'm betting this unification thread will end up like the other threads.

 

[2A_Tom]

"One things that raises an eyebrow for me though is the frequent use of "our rights". People seem to think that rights can't/won't be changed or even taken away. We may have certain rights, but we can lose them." Quote gergkl

Our rights are unalienable. Our rights can and have been infringed. They can only be taken by force of superior arms.

That is why we must say NO MORE COMPROMISE. Resist all assaults today so that we needn't take up arms in defense of our Rights tomorrow.

 

[snowwalker]

We have COMPROMISED on many levels 1934, 1968, Brady, schools, NICS, and many other nibbles here and there with another one added today by the Supreme Court. What have we ever got in return? NOTHING! My compromising days are over. If I want to by a gun for my son or daughter I will, laws be damned. Some things I think are kooky and asinine, but if it works for you then go for it, but I can still have my opinion. RIGHT AND FREE

 

[printcraft]

1911

You freaking wish. Glock.

 

[Redhorse]

1911

You freaking wish. Glock.

Semi autos that jam? Never! Revolvers!

On a serious note though, internal debate is fine and healthy, it builds critical thinking. However, the name calling, arrogance, and other negative connotations that follow are not healthy in no way. That is what I meant needs to stop. Don't get me wrong, I'm a realist and know it'll never happen, but pointing this out every now and then does help, in my opinion, diminish it by making us aware of our actions.

 

[88GT]

I'm betting this unification thread will end up like the other threads.

Ask and ye shall receive.

If by infighting you mean childish argumentative tactics that put more emphasis on "burning" the fellow on the other side of the argument, I'm fine with a cessation of hostilities. But if by stopping the infighting you mean someone has to give ground and accept less for nothing, **** no.

 

[Birds Away]

In this discussion it seems like everytime someone says "we have to stick together" it usually means they want us to agree with their willingness to compromise.

 

[Redhorse]

Ask and ye shall receive.

If by infighting you mean childish argumentative tactics that put more emphasis on "burning" the fellow on the other side of the argument, I'm fine with a cessation of hostilities. But if by stopping the infighting you mean someone has to give ground and accept less for nothing, **** no.

The first point of your sentence is what I meant by this thread. Meaningful, and civil, discussions are healthy, but when they turn into name calling and mudslinging, that's when they accomplish nothing. In all fairness, I haven't really seen this here but I have in other places.

 

[88GT]

The first point of your sentence is what I meant by this thread. Meaningful, and civil, discussions are healthy, but when they turn into name calling and mudslinging, that's when they accomplish nothing. In all fairness, I haven't really seen this here but I have in other places.

I was called a jackass and I didn't even participate in the events, just supported a man in his right to exercise his freedoms. If that makes me a jackass, I'll need to be changing my sig again. (And I really like my current one.)