Boycott Shotgun News!

[Timothy]

Outstanding writing Warhawke!  A pleasure to read...

Well Done!

[tombogan03884]

Well done !

[PegLeg45]

All I can say is, "WOW! Great replies, Warhawke"......you speak your convictions well, most especially the last one............. and I applaud you for it sir.

[Clark Kent]

Well reasoned; well written, Hawke.  I haven't read the entire thread, but just now I read the first and last pages.  Thanks, Tom, for the kind remarks and the plug! 

I haven't bought Shotgun News for ages now because I simply don't have enuf time to spend on it.  When I subscribed, it was like eating potato chips - hard to stop once I started.  As to making a political statement by boycotting the publication or by boycotting its sponsors, I believe that's an overreaction to an editorial that simply raises some interesting points.  I spent a career working for newspapers, and I was often infuriated by the editorials that appeared in the papers for which I worked as a news reporter.  Most times, tho, the editorials bored me.  But I continued to do my job, gathering facts and trying to present them without injecting my own biases into the mix.   

I cherish the First Amendment as much as I do the Second.  I may disagree heartily with what someone says, but it's his actions, more than his words, that are more apt to move me to action.  If I disagree with an editorial, my response would be to reply in kind, with a counterargument.  I'd reply differently, tho, if a publication's entire viewpoint was tied to its editorial policies.   If an article is presented as objective, I reserve the right to determine for myself if it is, in fact, objective.  If I find a pattern of deception, i.e. articles presented as objective that really are camouflaged editorials, the publication suddenly reverts to toilet paper in my eyes.

The SGN editorial that launched this thread - I scanned it, but didn't study it - seems like a reasonable argument put forth by someone trying to present an open-minded point of view.  Open minds are our battlefield, folks.  If we run for cover the minute we see an opposing viewpoint, we lose face and, possibly, the argument that's at stake.  We can't let the enemy paint us as closed-minded cranks.  If we do, they use what can be our greatest strength against us, much as the jiu jitsu and judo artists turn a larger man's innate strength against him.   

We need to fight smart, keep our wits, stay agile and use a little humor if we expect to prevail in the battle for the hearts and minds.  We lose those, we lose our rights.

[tombogan03884]

Open carry as a Political statement is one of those things that we just WILL NOT agree on, like the usefulness of writing to anti gun publications and politicians. Some say it is a waste of time, others say that the venal SOB's will go where they see the most votes and the more Pro gun letters and information they receive the better the chance they will, if not change sides, at least be less active in trying to infringe our rights.
While I wholeheartedly agree with Warhawke on the issue, and support the "in your face" approach of people like The Nuge, I DO NOT agree that a boycott of SGN is appropriate.
It would be well to remember that the Founding Fathers did not agree on everything, the issues of fiscal policy and slavery come to mind since both debates led to armed confrontations, but they recognized that if they did not have a free country such issues were irrelevant.
By the same token SGN is dependent on the continued existence of our 2nd Amendment rights for it's very existence, if we occasionally disagree on methods, so be it. Every time we turn on one of our own it is a victory for the anti rights minority.
 I will point out that any military commander will agree that a multi prong attack stands a better chance of success than a single massive frontal assault, this is supported in the writings of Sun Tzu (The Art of War ) and Mao Ze Dong who in his book (On Guerrilla Warfare ) wrote of the need to consolidate quickly and gain LOCAL superiority, he also wrote about avoiding the enemies strengths and attacking his weaknesses.
While multiple approaches prevent our opponents from concentrating on a single approach of their own, a moments reflection will show that when our 2A rights are unassailably established and the anti's have gone down in final defeat most of our internal disagreements will become moot.

[Sponsor]

[warhawke]

I agree with the right of SGN to print what they please. I agree that Mr. Clayton to hold his opinion and to publish it. I agree that all of you have the right to disagree with me and my method of dealing with SGN and Mr Clayton.

I feel differently, I believe that when SGN and any other publication prints an editorial it implies agreement with the sentiment expressed, unless otherwise indicated and I refuse to support them with my money until they change their position. If they refuse, that is fine too, it is their publication to do with as they please. I stand by my statements, I believe SGN and Mr. Clayton are doing a disservice to the firearms community a disservice, just as the NRA has over the years, by not standing on principle and refusing to compromise with our enemies. As for the first amendment, it protects not just SGN's right to publish, but my right to disagree.