POLITICAL STRATEGY --- BE A CHUMP

[Rastus]

We have the national debate on the 2nd Ammendment as a model.  

When we learned that dialogue with anti-gunners was a fool's game and went in a direction other than useless debate with anti-gun demagogues the tide turned.  When the focus went local instead of national things happened.

Is it possible to repeat the ongoing 2nd Ammendment success story as it applies to the low life political thugs and opportunists running our country into the ground?  [Edit Follows:  Like Pelosi, Reid, BHO, Kerry, Rangel, Biden, Feinstein..etc....these guys want us to keep talking while then continue to progress and move on in the background with their agendas that are crashing the nation.  Edit Ends]  How would you go about it?

[Rastus]

OK.  So it's not a completely unbiased poll.   

What did you expect?   

[MikeBjerum]

I will discuss and debate with anyone that wishes.  I have learned to not get emotional, and to not fall into justification mode - when they start ranting "Why do you need that?" I reply with "Why should I not be allowed to have this?".  When in doubt fall back to the Constitution and ask them "Why not?".

I do not take the offensive on the Second Amendment.  I will wait until someone else brings it up, and then I will take if from there.  However, I do recognize a sign on the door as a shot across my bow and the signal that it is my turn to speak.

To not participate in the debate or to push back at the infringements is to admit and accept defeat.

[jnevis]

I have had long conversations (OK, about 30 min or so) with our local state delegate about CCW and self-protection here in MD.  Although a Dem, he has a record of co-signing and supporting 2A legislation here.  The problem isn't where I'm at it's Annapolis and Baltimore since that's where most of the people are. 
On the national level, our "represntatives" are definately anti's and will respond to letters and emails in typical "I understand but don't care" since they are elected by the same loosers in B'more and Annapolis.  But at least they understand that people are involved and have views their willing to remind them that they are supposed to be following the "will of the people."
Hoyer and Mikulski have been gradually winning by less and less, at least since I've been back.  But it's also dependant on the canidate they are running against.

[Rastus]

Interesting results.  About a third think talking will work, a third think not and a third think it's too late.

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

If you really want some small chance of getting an Anti to reconsider their position, never let them know you are pro gun.

Instead talk to them as if you are a "true believer" who has some doubts.  Like No Gun signs making those areas Victim Zones.

One of the concerns you might express is that you would not put a sign proclaiming you were unarmed on the front door of your house, so you wonder if  "we" aren't doing the same thing with NO GUNS ALLOWED signs.

With them trying to Re-Convert you, they become open to logically thinking about your arguments in order to counter them...and don't start the discussion being closed minded and defensive.

 

[Pathfinder]

If you really want some small chance of getting an Anti to reconsider their position, never let them know you are pro gun.

Instead talk to them as if you are a "true believer" who has some doubts.  Like No Gun signs making those areas Victim Zones.

One of the concerns you might express is that you would not put a sign proclaiming you were unarmed on the front door of your house, so you wonder if  "we" aren't doing the same thing with NO GUNS ALLOWED signs.

With them trying to Re-Convert you, they become open to logically thinking about your arguments in order to counter them...and don't start the discussion being closed minded and defensive.

See, now, right there is the fallacy in your argument!  Haven't found an anti yet who is capable of that little seismic shift.