GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-31-2013, 09:43   #1
BRabbit
Senior Member
 
BRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 958
My impressions from the Senate hearing yesterday on gun control

Alright, I watched all four hours of the Senate gun control hearing and it is quite obvious what the game plan is for the gun banners. The gun rights side did a good job presenting their arguments, and initially I was surprised that they were allowed to do so without much vitriol from the gun banners, and I was initially surprised that 3 of 5 testifying were pro-gun. I withheld commenting yesterday as I wanted to mull it over and think on all that I had seen.

The pro-gun people were articulate, prepared, and relied on facts to back up their assertions, while the anti-gun people relied on emotion, an attempt to falsely portray themselves as cordial and reasonable, and quite a bit of obfuscation as to their real intentions.

All of the anti-gunners made it a point to state their support of the 2nd Amendment and the rights of gun owners, even going overboard at times doing so, as when the one female Senator from Michigan spoke of the large number of hunters in her State, and how "the last thing she wanted to do was anger her Uncle Dick in his deer stand."

They (the anti-gunners), were attempting to reinforce into the minds of the uninformed that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was for Hunting and Self Defense, and that anyone who felt otherwise was an on the fringe nutcase. They did this by repeatedly speaking about hunting and how much they personally supported personal firearm ownership and supported the SCOTUS ruling in the Heller Case in DC, and by attempting to marginalize anyone who offered a reason to own a rifle similar to the AR15. They especially tried to marginalize the NRA with leading questions and innuendo when addressing Mr. La Pierre, smiling to his face while trying to trip him up and make him say something to make him (and the NRA stance on the 2nd Amendment as a whole) seem extreme. This was obvious when one of the male anti-gunner Senators asked Mr. La Pierre if he felt that the 2nd Amendment was to allow the people the means by which to defend against a tyrannical government. Only he phrased it as if amazed, and when he finally got an answer from Mr. La Pierre, he acted incredulous and addressed the anti-gun Police Chief from Baltimore (who was a prop by the anti-gunners to give the illusion that the law enforcement community was solidly behind them) with, "I just don't understand this thinking...that it is to protect against, fight back against the government or police" (paraphrased), to which the anti-gun Police Chief (Johnson I believe), agreed that he was at a loss to understand this thinking as well.

The pro-gun side did a good job, and the anti-gun side played their hand and clearly showed the tactics they will use. It was also apparent that they allowed the 3 to 2 stacking of people testifying to make themselves appear to not be the aggressors in this debate.

In a nutshell, they are playing nice to the cameras and attempting to marginalize and portray as extreme anyone who speaks about the real reason for the 2nd Amendment and anyone who believes in owing an AR style rifle, while at the same time trying to divide and conquer by kissing up to the hunting crowd, (They did this by all of them stating how much they supported hunting, and even had the female Senator from Hawaii talking about how many hunters her State had, and Mark Kelly speaking about how he and his wife were gun owners, how they had no intention of giving up their guns, and how he had recently purchased a hunting rifle from Wal-Mart.)

The trick for the pro-gun side (all of us included) to win this, is to not allow them to frame the debate by dividing gun owners. Talk to hunters and all gun owners, and instead of opening with the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment in your conversation, explain to them that the current tactic is a "divide and conquer" strategy, and that hunting and personal defense firearms are no more safe than the AR-15 currently being demonized. Use the new law passed in NY State as an example of the anti-gun crowds true intentions, and encourage them to join the NRA to help keep their firearms, whether they have them for hunting, plinking, or self defense. But above all else, DO NOT COME ACROSS AS EXTREME, as this is exactly what the anti-gunners want you to do to achieve their goal. Make no mistake, they think they will win, they have a strategy to do so, and they are dangerous because they are making a concerted effort to hide their true intentions/goal, and many gun owners will fall for their lies because they are smiling and "making nice".

That's it for my impression of the Senate hearing yesterday (Jan 30, 2013), and I apologize for any typos. If you desire, please feel free to share this to spread the word on what is the very apparent tactic (s) being employed by the anti-gun crowd, which coincidentally were all Democrat Senators and their mouth pieces (Chief Johnson and CPT Kelly USN ret).

Last edited by BRabbit; 01-31-2013 at 11:57.. Reason: corrected typos
BRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 11:19   #2
domin8ss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 413
It's funny that Congresswoman Giffords was very pro-gun until she got shot. She, and her husband, know the shooter was mentally instable at the time of the attack, yet they are supporting anti-gun legislation.
domin8ss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:03   #3
BRabbit
Senior Member
 
BRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by domin8ss View Post
It's funny that Congresswoman Giffords was very pro-gun until she got shot. She, and her husband, know the shooter was mentally instable at the time of the attack, yet they are supporting anti-gun legislation.
Getting shot in the head will tend to do that to you..Make no mistake - She will be a powerful opponent in this due to the emotional appeal to the masses. She is the nowadays equivalent to James Brady.

Last edited by BRabbit; 01-31-2013 at 12:38.. Reason: unsubscribe to keep from flooding inbox
BRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:07   #4
domin8ss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 413
Great.

Now we'll not only have the Brady Campaign, but the Giffords Group too.

Now I wish the NRA would be more diligent in taking my money. I wrote a check and mailed it off a few weeks ago. It has yet to be submitted for payment with my bank.

Last edited by domin8ss; 01-31-2013 at 12:09..
domin8ss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:15   #5
BRabbit
Senior Member
 
BRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 958
One can best convey the truth to the masses by remaining calm and rational, presenting the facts and not backing from the truth. It was pretty obvious that the goal was to get a reaction from the pro-gun "witnesses" yesterday in an attempt to paint them as "irrational" and the anti-gunners as the rational ones. To do otherwise would play right into their hands. Gun owners have to be smart to win this battle, and being vehement in response (especially on camera) risks appearing irrational and alienating the uninformed. The ones up there yesterday knew this on both sides and acted accordingly.

Last edited by BRabbit; 01-31-2013 at 12:38.. Reason: unsubscribe to keep from flooding inbox
BRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:16   #6
yoteseeker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5
CPT kelly makes me ashamed to say I military ret.
yoteseeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:20   #7
domin8ss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 413
Imagine how much worse it is to say you're Navy.
domin8ss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 13:56   #8
shnev
We The People
 
shnev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by domin8ss View Post
Great.

Now we'll not only have the Brady Campaign, but the Giffords Group too.

Now I wish the NRA would be more diligent in taking my money. I wrote a check and mailed it off a few weeks ago. It has yet to be submitted for payment with my bank.
That is because the NRA is quite busy processing all of the online credit card applications. It took my cc a week and half to hit. Say you, wait your turn!
__________________
What we do depends on how we feel about what we know.
Knowledge is power only if it is acted upon.
Wisdom is knowledge with understanding.
shnev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 14:00   #9
BigCity
Senior Member
 
BigCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRabbit View Post
Getting shot in the head will tend to do that to you..Make no mistake - She will be a powerful opponent in this due to the emotional appeal to the masses. She is the nowadays equivalent to James Brady.
Yet I thought I saw in their testimony that they both still own guns.
__________________
John
To remain free, one must have the ability to do so.

SigClub #412
NOT Obama for President...:thumbsup:
BigCity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 14:00   #10
SPIN2010
Searching ...
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: On the move ... again!
Posts: 1,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by domin8ss View Post
Imagine how much worse it is to say you're Navy.
We used to be able to throw them off the ship during an OSCAR drill ... iron ships and wooden men these days.
SPIN2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 14:12   #11
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
It is just a return to the old "Sporting purpose" tactic we dealt with in the 70's and 80's. The antis just figure that it's been so long they can try it gain.

Back then there were all kinds of politicians posing with "sporting firearms" to show they weren't after "all of them" they just wanted to take "the other guys guns".

Any gun owner who allows himself to be divided off because he doesn't own any of those "evil, bad guns" is completely ignorant about the GCA of '68 and doesn't realize that the "Saturday Night Special" he and his wife depend on for protection would have been banned back then because they too "Had no legitimate sporting purpose"

Almost two generations now have been kept ignorant about the history of attempts at "gun control" and the real agenda. The goal has never changed they just redecorate the windows once in a while.

Last edited by countrygun; 01-31-2013 at 14:12..
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 14:28   #12
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 18,772


While trying to portray themselves as "hunters", what they are really saying is: "Here are the type of firearms we will let you have.........for now".
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 09:44   #13
fuzzy03cls
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,744
My only question to any of the anti's would be why now? Why all of a sudden are they coming out to speak against guns & introduce gun bans? They had 4 years to do it. They had 2 after Gifford's. Why now? Why are they playing on the emotions of people after a national event to get THEIR aganda passed. Why now is the "safety" of our children so important?
fuzzy03cls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 10:38   #14
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy03cls View Post
My only question to any of the anti's would be why now? Why all of a sudden are they coming out to speak against guns & introduce gun bans? They had 4 years to do it. They had 2 after Gifford's. Why now? Why are they playing on the emotions of people after a national event to get THEIR aganda passed. Why now is the "safety" of our children so important?
(Psssst..hey buddy, I got clue for you.......It's called "empowerment" . You see, most gun grabbers are liberals , What could be more empowering for outright liberal idealists than to have that Marxist reelected with "more flexibility"? They feel all powerful with tingly feelings running up their legs, so the very first excuse they got they trotted out one of their pet projects. They saw the almighty "Obameister" shove his health care program through, in his first term, despite the opposition, he is indeed a powerful god and now, without reelection to worry about, his powers having been unchecked and his agenda unstopped by any power on Earth, they supplicants can lay before him all of their hopes and dreams, like wishes for him to fulfill. One of the wishes of all die hard leftists is gun control. "
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 00:04   #15
Manco
Member
 
Manco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 37
Parading a victim out for the masses always elicits an emotional response. Parading many victims out is just the beginning.
Manco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 02:32   #16
MarcDW
MDW Guns
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Maine USA
Posts: 5,078
I found it funny when that Senator form HI said how many hunters are in HI.
I was wondering, what is there to hunt in HI??
__________________
Glock Armorer - FFL/01/08/SOT
Importer of fine firearms
see
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
for current inventory
MarcDW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 07:54   #17
AIRASSAULT18B
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FORWARD AO
Posts: 52
You either taped it & replayed it or have a excellent memory. Excellent recall. I believe they are using Gabby & teaching her to make the short but to the point attention getting statements. I feel bad what happened to her but, also the exploitation for political reasons. I thought the NRA-Wayne LaPierre, the woman from the womans group who supports the right to bear arms & the Constitutional Professor destroyed the antis on the Senate Panel. I cant remember all their names as I was watching pacific time zone & half asleep. My impression is the police chief was angry & frustrated . Kelly is trying to blend in as a regular gun owner that just wants whats best for us.(YEA RIGHT) He let us know how legitimate he was by mentioning his purchase of a rifle at Wal-Mart many times. I noticed the all the antis on the panel used polls or info from one of the Brady affiliates & was corrected by the NRA using ATF/FBI stats.

There was a point where one of the antis got fixated on 100rnd mags & he went to the anti chief & received the answer he wanted then to the Professor who let him know you can not breakout parts of the firearm under the 2nd amend because you dont like it. Also I liked how the professor kept correcting the panel about the m16 family having a standard capacity of 30rds & most pistols 15+rds (meaning they needed to stop refering to any mags over 10rds as high cap).

They tried to trap Wayne into the only use of the ar15 according to the NRA was to fight against the govt & he gave the history of the why & how of the second amend & for a second the person asking him the question & the police chief said they could not understand that way of thinking trying to make him look extream. Wayne continued with modern day applications such as govt breakdown, riots, storms, etc which shut them down.



The lady representing the womens group was outstanding as well. The need of a assault rifle vs a shotgun for a woman was put to her by a anti on the panel who looked like he was confident she would have no answer. She then took him apart by citing the differences in strength between men & women to handle a shotgun vs ar15 & if the is multiple attackers the shotgun he described was one on the ban list & other shotguns would have reduced capacity as to render then marginal if there was more then one attacker.


All the progun Senators had facts,charts,photos of weapons showing guns with similar operating systems to the Ban list ones to show how idiotic this whole thing is.

The progun witness were highly knowledgable, calm in their testamony & effective with the facts.



The antigun Senators were angry. They did not have a firm grasp of the weapons or accessories they were trying to get banned. Many times seemed confused of the basic operation/descriptions of the items in question.


The antigun witnesses especially the police chief of Baltimore was angry arguementitive had a scowl on his face the whole time. Kelly is playing it safe although he did have to mention that there was a shooting in Phoenix during the hearing.



All in all I believe we have the better team to represent our rights.
AIRASSAULT18B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 13:41   #18
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCity View Post
Yet I thought I saw in their testimony that they both still own guns.
Sara Brady bought her son a rifle a few years back. It's OK for the ELITE to own firearms but you (us) PEONS aren't worthy.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 13:53   #19
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
It is just a return to the old "Sporting purpose" tactic we dealt with in the 70's and 80's. The antis just figure that it's been so long they can try it gain.

Back then there were all kinds of politicians posing with "sporting firearms" to show they weren't after "all of them" they just wanted to take "the other guys guns".

Any gun owner who allows himself to be divided off because he doesn't own any of those "evil, bad guns" is completely ignorant about the GCA of '68 and doesn't realize that the "Saturday Night Special" he and his wife depend on for protection would have been banned back then because they too "Had no legitimate sporting purpose"

Almost two generations now have been kept ignorant about the history of attempts at "gun control" and the real agenda. The goal has never changed they just redecorate the windows once in a while.
"When they came for my neighbor, I wasn't a Jew so I didn't say anything. When they came for the man across and on the other side of me, I was afraid to get involved. And when they came for me, there was no one left that I could call!"
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 21:46   #20
SIGlock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Rocket City, USA
Posts: 4,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCity View Post
Yet I thought I saw in their testimony that they both still own guns.
That makes them hypocrites.
__________________
Resisting Glock is futile.
SIGlock is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:19.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 700
142 Members
558 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42