Ammo For Sale

« « EPT Robbery | Home | Facebook Marketing » »

Naughty or nice

A bit of a dust up over whether or not we should be nice to our political opponents. Some are for being nice. Some, not so much. Others think it’s a joke.

Joe notes being civil is the far better path. After all, look what our political opponents do.

Me? I will be polite, courteous, hold open doors for ladies, call people sir or ma’am. But I will work to destroy them politically. And smile the whole time I’m doing it.

22 Responses to “Naughty or nice”

  1. Weer'd Beard Says:

    I’m with you, Unc. Certainly we need to be careful how we engage these jerks, given that they would prefer to write us off as a bunch of racist, violent, white male troglodytes.

    But we all know who the real violent ones are.

  2. Jay T Says:

    As I stated in a follow up post to the one you linked to here I attempt to never be rude to anyone. I’m respectful because I was taught to be that way. Yet, when it comes to people who attempt to take away rights and restrict freedom, I do not advocate looking at them as just a bunch of good guys with their political opinions. That may work well in an issue over road expansion but we are talking about a group, Brady, that has sought to fundamentally alter our human right to self defense.

    My argument to Sebastien is over this issue. While I understand the approach of not yelling at the Brady’s in public, which I wouldn’t do anyway, they ARE NOT just political opponents because self defense trumps politics. Why would I want to treat them the way Sebastien suggests?

    One of our problems is failing to call a spade a spade. I’m all for thoughtful discourse but if anyone expects me to look at Peter Hamm the same way I do Clint Smith they are nuts. Respect? I’ve shown them enough respect by not trying to restrict their civil rights. Why don’t they do the same?

  3. Miguel Says:

    “While I understand the approach of not yelling at the Brady’s in public, which I wouldn’t do anyway, they ARE NOT just political opponents because self defense trumps politics.”
    Jay, I am about to hate you. You summed it up succinctly.

    I am more for the punishment approach against acerbic anti-gunners. Policy and laws were created to restrict the possession of firearms by law abiding civilians and no doubt that this has caused deaths. And while I am willing to accept the fact that initially there were no evidence that less guns created more crime, we have now 20 years of serious research and statistics proving otherwise. May it be political idiocy or outright power grabbing, the people favoring strict gun control laws and total banning are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and possibly conspiracy to commit genocide. Uganda is doing that just now by using the full force of its military to disarm its citizens. Weapons recovered under this system have been destroyed under the eyes of the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and these weapons were recovered “supported by tanks and helicopter gunships, is burning down villages, sexually torturing men, raping women, and plundering what few possessions the tribespeople own. Tens of thousands of victims have been turned into refugees. Human rights scholar Ben Knighton has used the term “ethnocide” to describe the army’s campaign.” I am quoting from an article in Gun Rights Examiner posted yesterday.

  4. Mike Gallo Says:

    No matter what, I know one thing: arguing over “getting personal” is asinine at this point. When your opponents started the conversation by basically calling you children, it’s already personal.

  5. Oscar Says:

    Nah, I’m with Saul Alinsky on this one: ridicule is a potent weapon.

    Ridicule them, ridicule their assertions, ridicule their philosophy — highlight their stupidity at every turn, and LAUGH.

    When they are seen for the pathetic jokes that they are, they will lose what little influence they have left.

  6. Tam Says:

    Circular firing squads are so much more fun than the other kind!

    (Protip: Ideological purges work best when launched after the revolution is won. 😉 )

  7. Jay T Says:

    Miguel: Bravo.

    Tam: Point taken.

  8. Hyman Roth Says:

    Imagine you are driving on the highway, and you see a car with a flat tire on the side of the road. There is an Obama ’08 bumper sticker and a CeaseFire (or Brady Campaign) sticker on the back bumper.

    Do you stop to help?

    Does the time of day or weather/temperature affect your decision?

  9. Huck Says:

    Respect is a 2 way street, and since culls like the Bradys dont show us any why should we treat them with respect? I, personally, have a real problem with asshats who catagorize us gun owners as criminals and thugs just because we choose to excercise our god given rights guarenteed by the COTUS. I personally consider people like the Bradys to be the crooks, since they work so hard to ensure that thugs have a large supply of helpless victims available.

    Hyman, my answer to your question is NO! If I KNOW that someone is a lib I would’nt give them a cup of my own piss if they were dying of thirst.

  10. Ted Says:

    Hyman, I’d say yes, and handle it this way. Get the tire changed, be polite and professional, all that good stuff. If you get the chance to tactfully bring it up and not creep them out, let them know that they just got help from a gun owner and 2A supporter. We might not win fast, but winning one person over at a time will help.

  11. Sebastian Says:

    Nah, I’m with Saul Alinsky on this one: ridicule is a potent weapon.

    I think you should use it. I certainly have been with Abby Spangler. Anyone who puts themselves out publicly for a position opens themselves up to this. That’s politics, and isn’t personal if done correctly.

    I advocate being civil. Not nice. They are still our opponents.

  12. ATLien Says:

    they’re against the constitution, and that means they’re traitors.

    they deserve horrible flaming death.

  13. Kim du Toit Says:

    I’m only respectful when arguing over details with like-minded people, eg. .45 ACP vs .40 S&W; hanging or firing squad for Saul Alinsky and his crowd; PTR-91 or FN-FAL.

    When it comes to arguments with people who have radically opposite philosophies to mine, screw ’em. No holds barred.

    In the example of the Obama-supporting gun-grabber with the broken-down car, I’d drive on by and hope he gets crushed by a runaway 18-wheeler.

  14. Hyman Roth Says:

    Ted, I wish your method worked. But I have encountered too many leftists that adamantly refuse to acknowledge facts no matter how overwhelming. Good manners, logic and respect are alien concepts to them. They ignore inconvenient facts better than any ostritch (example: global warming rallies held in the snow). Leftist nut flies a plane into an IRS office? Leftist nut shoots up the Pentagon? Both written off as “right wingers” by the left.

    I have to conceal my 2A support (and vote for McCain/against 0bama) from co-workers for fear of being labeled & ostracized (they are cool with the midget tentacle-porn thing though). But even Dem congressmen are trying to distance themselves from the leftist agenda, for fear of losing re-election.

    Maybe it is time to attach a price tag to leftism for the garden-variety liberal. Rather than being limited to the stop or drive past options in my scenario, maybe there is a third option: pause to roll your window down and tell them that “since they do not respect your constitutional rights, that you cannot be expected to help them”, and drive away. No taunting or laughter, just a matter-of-fact explanation.

  15. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    Respect is a 2 way street, and since culls like the Bradys dont show us any why should we treat them with respect?

    Incorrect. In a public forum respect is a 3 way street. The real battle is not between you and the other person. You are as unlikely to change their mind as they are to change yours. The real battle is for the onlooker: The undecided who is watching.

    And when that person is trying to figure out who to trust and who’s perspective is a crock of sh!t you can bet it won’t be in favor of the guy acting like a flaming f*cknozzle.

  16. Hyman Roth Says:

    Yu-Ain,

    John McCain lost the 2008 election because he fought fair and acted like a punching bag while his opponent fought dirty, lied, cheated, and slandered him & his campaign. Despite all of the evidence in front of him, McCain was willfully blind and lost the election because of it. And due to his incompetence, I (and every other American) has to deal with the least-qualified president in history.

    0bama & company behave like (in your words) “flaming f*cknozzles”, yet he won. If acting like him is how I win support from those people, I don’t want it.

    Why should any of the commenters here lift a finger to help someone who voted for the guy who cornholed our 401k’s and is lining up the Bill of Rights for the same treatment? Whether it is because they are too dumb to see 0bama for what he was, or because they are fellow-travelers/true believers is not important. They are part of the problem.

  17. Jay T Says:

    Sebastian:

    You advocate ridicule, no problem with that, but you want to look at Peter Hamm and the Brady’s as just political opponents. Why didn’t you ridicule Hamm when he posted on your blog? Is the woman you singled out any worse than the anti-rights freaks at Brady?

  18. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    John McCain lost the 2008 election because he fought fair and acted like a punching bag while his opponent fought dirty, lied, cheated, and slandered him & his campaign.

    No, John McCain lost because he was a bad candidate whose entire brand was “I’m a war hero and attack Republicans”. It wouldn’t have mattered how he acted he still would have lost. Hard ball, punching bag, still losing.

    Frankly, Jesus Christ Himself would probably have lost if He had an ‘R’ behind his name.

  19. Hyman Roth Says:

    Yu,

    Bad candidate or not, McCain could have won. Bush 43 won twice. “R” does not equal loss. McCain (my last choice, btw) could have won if he actually competed. 0bama has so many skeletons in his closet, and such a thin resume, it was more than possible for him to lose.

    McCain blew it, and his own campaign finance regulations hamstrung his fundraising.I have no illusions about him being a great president. But he couldn’t be as bad as what we have now.

  20. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    “R” does not equal loss.

    Very rarely has a political party maintained the POTUS for 3 terms. Reagan-Reagan-Bush was the exception, not the rule.

    This has nothing to do with McCain. Strike 1.

    Add in the 2006 mid-term losses.

    Again, not McCain’s fault. Strike 2.

    Add in 8 years of hammering by the media (one wonders where the weekly, if not daily, soldier death count went after Nov 2008).

    Not McCain’s fault, either. Strike 3.

    Add in that Obama beat Hillary (not exactly Mrs. Punching Bag, her) by running as the “More Anti-Bush Than Thou” candidate.

    Nope, still not McCain’s fault. Strike 4.

    Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

    Add in things that were his fault, like 10+ years of stabbing republicans in the back, M-F laws, etc. and you think *tone* was going to be enough to pull his ass out of the sling?

    Please. He was done for from the word “Go”. He had as much chance of beating Democrat to be named later as Bob Dole had of beating Clinton.

    2008 was a referrendum on the entire party. They were sent a message in 2006 to shape up, and they didn’t do it. When your entire party gets decimated, it’s not the fault of one person. Backlash, like mother nature, is a bitch.

    Even now, the only thing redeeming the Republican brand is the poor performance of Obama, not anything the Republicans are doing right. They still suck, they just suck less.

    So in general, “R” does not equal loss. But in 2008 it sure did.

  21. Hyman Roth Says:

    Um, Yu…

    Nothing that I wrote can be interpreted as claiming that “tone would pull McCain’s ass out of the sling”.

    Against a well-qualified Democrat, McCain would have had a harder fight to win. But against a lightweight like 0bama, a win was more than possible. Except McCain chose not to campaign. Never raised 0bama’s viting record or associates…

  22. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    And I think that wouldn’t have mattered.

    In 2008, because of all the externalities and backlash against republicans as a party Jesus H Christ (R) loses to Hairy Mutt (D).

    McCain, whom dems would never vote for and whom the Republican base loaths, had no chance.

    And while Obama is certainly proving himself to be highly incompetent, he was far from a lightweight when it came to campaining. He did, after all, kick Hillary’s ass and as I said, of all the things she can be called, a punching bag isn’t one of them. So the contention that Obama was an easy opponent is not supported. If he was, Hillary would have wiped the floor with him.