TexasCHLforum.com

Slowplay wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Slowplay wrote:What is the objective of trying to make people believe that liberals support gun rights? I know what the danger is, if people believe that.

I read this article the other day on circumcision that I think perfectly exemplifies why....

I should have been clear that I meant the objective in the political process and not for individual decisions. To advance your example of deciding on circumcision a few years, the story about Little Red Riding Hood may help demonstrate the point I was trying to make.

Ahhh. Sorry I misunderstood. I understand what you mean now.

Slowplay wrote:What is the objective of trying to make people believe that liberals support gun rights? I know what the danger is, if people believe that.

I read this article the other day on circumcision that I think perfectly exemplifies why. A non-Jewish father was opposed to circumcision while the culturally Jewish mother identified circumcision as a part of her heritage. She really hoped she had a girl so she wouldn't have to face the issue. But she had a boy and had to face it. (Point one: she identifies with it, but really hopes to avoid having to really face it. Only when her own life circumstance forced facing it did she do so.)

She then sought out someone she thought would be most likely to be on her side of the debate and whom her husband would be likely to listen to, a female rabbi with a young son. (Point two: she is not looking to face the issue at all, but to win the argument by numbers and emotion by carefully choosing allies.)

A midwife friend of hers writes her and is adamant that she look up information on circumcision. The mother repeats to the midwife friend the same line about being Jewish that she has stuck with all along. The midwife points out information from Jewish mothers who chose not to circumcise. Now the mom starts actually listening. (Point three: the midwife is in a factually better position to know about circumcision and to give information on it, but she still would only listen to the rabbi because her counter-argument until this point was that she was Jewish. When the midwife points out that other Jews have made this choice, it completely destroys her argument and she seeks out how they thought and why they could call themselves Jews when their sons weren't circumcised. She would listen to facts from them because they also identified as Jewish moms.)

Once she read the accounts of Jewish moms not circumcising, then she would read the other information about the medical, scientific, and ethical debate on the topic and think critically on each and make an informed decision. (Point four: Her husband had made those same arguments many times before, but she didn't care then. Her counter was that this was the Jewish thing to do. Once that was broken down, then the others could be. So much so that she joined a very small minority within her faith tradition and now is encouraging others to do the same.)

So having voices who are liberal, women, minorities, homosexuals, students, professors, atheist, and whatever other categories people identify with as their reason for being anti-guns I think will have the same effect. It's just like that YouTube campaign the Mormons are running right now. Make it where people can see themselves in the "club" by showing them other people like them already there. They'll listen to what those people have to say on how they got there, even if the exact same information has been ignored 20 times over from other sources because the very presence of these people shoots holes in their theory.

In the same genre of conversations, I recently witnessed one that went about like this:

Person 1: You know a store is redneck when they close on Sunday so they can go to "church."
Person 2: You gotta love conservative "family values" where you know daddy is going to get caught with his pants down.
Person 3: Yup.
Person 4: And what store is this? So that I might never go there.
Person 1: Such-and-such store. A friend dragged me there. :(
Person 4: ‎Why?!
Person 1: She had to buy something they had. I don't know why she couldn't buy it at such-and-such chain...
Person 4: Because they don't go to "CHURRRRRCH!" HEATHENS.
Person 1: Yup. Such-and-such chain is going to hell. Everyone knows "going to church" means sitting in front of the TV watching the Nascar with a 24-pack of Budweiser.
Person 3: While the wife makes food and serves the male.
Person 4: Don't forget they have to clean their guns.
Person 2: You better not forget, heathen, or you'll be backhanded like you women deserve.

These are people who go to church every single Sunday to a mainstream Christian denomination. They weren't really commenting on religion (that being something they share), but on conservative politics. A store closed on Sunday led them to say those who identify with conservative politics are adulterous, abusive, hypocritical, redneck, sexist pigs who do nothing but swill beer and watch cars go around in circles. And because of that, they're boycotting the store that's closed on Sundays.

If a store closing on Sunday brings up such "logic" and follow-through, I can't imagine what they'd say to someone who actually does clean guns, watch Nascar, or drink Budweiser. Nothing such a person says is going to be listened to, I can guarantee that. Who would care what an abusive jerk had to say? Anyone identified, in any way, as being a conservative obviously would fall into that category in their minds. This is what they think of anyone who isn't a criminal, but wants to carry a gun. It doesn't matter what your religion or if you like Nascar or if you abuse your wife or if you're even heterosexual. You're still one and the same to them.