Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Survival/Preparedness Forum' started by LongGun1, Dec 26, 2012.
Yes but it always works when you appeal on people patriotism in the US.
So I see no harm in that.
I'm thinking this is good enough to send to everyone in your email contact list! I just did.
No harm in lying to appeal to emotion?
Yeah...because it's not like that's what we chastise the antis for doing all the time or anything.
Yes, but it's not like the antis are going to love us or respect us more for not doing it either. Just sayin'....
What matters is convincing the fence sitters. There are a LOT of people that are not completely stuck on one side or the other, and believe it or not there are people out there who will accept facts and listen to reason, given the right situation.
I could be wrong, but I do not believe that lying to them in an attempt to appeal to emotion is the way to go.
I understand the moral dilemma in this but this is a war of sorts and won't always be pretty.
Also the fact that it happened may be wrong but the idea that it would happen this way in an invasion of the US is not that far fetched.
Think about it there are nearly 1 billion guns in the hands of our citizens what do you think would happen to any invading force if only 10% decided to fight back.
Because the other side of the fence would never stoop as low as to lie to everyone they try to convince, right?
I am sorely disappointed.
No wonder the the public doesn't listen to us. We just lie. And openly admit it on public forums.
Maybe some day we will have strong enough arguments for gun ownership Rights that we won't have to lie to people to convince them.
If I can't make my argument or defend my position without lying (or shouting or fearmongering), then my argument and position are inherently weak.
That's WHY the other side does it - their argument is weak and their positions are indefensible. So they lie, they shout, and they play on the emotions of the ignorant.
It ain't rocket science and it works real well, real often. But so do other forms of bullying; and I personally have no desire to engage in those, either.
And it makes my 'job' of convincing people and bringing them over to 'our side' a lot easier when I don't have to explain why other gun owners and 2A supporters lied to them.
That quote has been attributed to at least a couple of high ranking Japanese officers..
..regardless what has been "refuted" on the internet!
Here is another....the fact Germany did not invade & plunder the wealth of Switzerland in either World War states volumes about this quote...
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-The Ten Manliest Firearms.html
I'm not advocating it one way or another but it seems like that method sure works for convincing a majority of the voters in the last few elections on every level.
What is acceptable to lie about, and what is not?
What do you do when trying to convince people to come over to 'our side', and they discover that something you are telling them is not true? How do you make them believe the rest of what you are saying?
How many people do you suppose know that something or other you said is false, and therefore cast doubt on the rest, even if they don't say anything? I do that all the time with people. They say something I KNOW to be not true, so the other things they say that I am not so sure about...I am automatically (and justifiably) sceptical
Sorry but saying things like the story with the Japanese general is neither really a lie or fear mongering well maybe fear mongering to a degree.
It is a way to illustrate in a way someone can understand the point and some meaning of 2nd amendment and our rights and what our forefathers had in mind.
That is the main reason we are supposed to keep and bear arms so we can protect us and this country from foreign or domestic enemies.
Quite simple really.
We do such illustrations every day with all kind of explanations to people to build a picture in the minds eye.
This is no different then someone telling you that guns are dangerous and kill people and tell you about Sandy Hooker or any other tragedy.
As straight forward it is to say I have the right to keep and bear arms because the 2nd amendment says so will not convince anyone as to why it says so and why it is important.
But yes you can tell literary any kind of story you like to illustrate the need you would like but I'm willing to bet that you too have done this in some way many times in your life about something if not about the 2nd amendment.
You can convince people without lying to them, and without fear mongering.
We aren't selling snake oil here.
We aren't selling a product that doesn't work.
We are 'selling' something wholly legitimate, that absolutely does not need to be sullied by lies, baseless appeals to emotion, or fear mongering.
Yes you are right that is exactly why the public doesn't listen to us because we may use a story to illustrate a point and they will go and goggle this said story to see if it was true.
We do have a strong enough argument but it is not all that easy to explain to someone without a illustration as to why.
Cause if someone doesn't already understand this right and is older then 12 how else can you make them understand.
Chances are the don't realize that there are evil people in this world and even in the USA that do not have their best interest at heart.
I will say it again. I don't advocate it one way or another. But it is very effective on the modern American and even if you are caught lying, it doesn't matter to most people as long as it is what they want to hear.
If your hypothesis is true, most politicians, including the President, would be out of work.
Morality is the only thing that separates us in this instance from those who do not have the hangups about lying to get what they want.
What is your source that quote did not occur or was not made by Admiral Yamamoto? A wikipedia article ( a notoriously bias source on politically sensitive topics) relying on a FactCheck.org assertion, based on one biased "historian"'s word? Hardly the best source either.
I suppose you also believe that Lincoln wanted to free the slaves so they could live freely in the US. Hint, that is not the case. He actually wanted to send them back to Africa or as a second choice to an American controlled Caribbean island.
You should carefully research your sources before you make assertions that something is a lie. It is more accurately a disputed quote. I can send you to many sources that attributed that quote to Yamamoto, why are they less reliable than FactCheck.org?
I've looked it up multiple times and have seen nothing but reports that it is not true.
I would like to see the sources that attribute it to him