• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Gun ban movement and its Hollywood Allies assumed Hillary was going to win.

3) I don't agree with Crimefree's interpretation that gun owners drive people away. Rather its a leftwing media and politician cooperative that does this and they aren't going to change no matter what Gun owners do-as long as gun owners and the NRA vote for the type of candidates the MSM and the Democrat party oppose, the demonization will continue.

The mere existence of gun owners drive people away. There's a mindset on the anti side that on the macro scale can't be addressed logically, as it's entirely emotional in nature. I've got a friend who has known me and my family for over 15 years who would literally be too afraid to stay in the same room as me if she knew I was carrying.

When jurists like those on the 7th Circuit Court put in a majority opinion on a gun ban that merely having the public feel safer is sufficient to uphold a ban, then it isn't the gun people that are the problem.
 
First well done.

I beg to differ. Every letter of complaint to a network or printed media is calculated on some level that represents the public's willingness to write and complain. It takes into account those who will bitch to all their friends and not write.

This is a very valuable tool for firearm owners to use and an organised group of only a few can literally shut down gun control using the media or any one in specific.

I was witness to this in another country where a group of 20 or so guys read reported and countered every single gun control publication to the point gun control virtually stopped using the media. All that did was give those 20 firearm owners an excuse to write letters. The more letters there are the less chance they will be ignored. The state TV broadcaster calculated that each letter was equivalent to 5,000 people.

Publicity is the name of the game when you remember that for any newspaper the letters section is the most well read. Complaints are a valuable tool in creating or fixing public perceptions.

It is not useless and never ever will be.

Thanks for that.

I also make notes of all the sponsors and send them emails as well, voicing my displeasure and letting them know that I will not be watching this show any longer.
 
Thanks for that.

I also make notes of all the sponsors and send them emails as well, voicing my displeasure and letting them know that I will not be watching this show any longer.

My pleasure, there is nothing nicer to see than firearm owners taking responsibility for correcting the image gun control presents.

Good move on the advertisers who are even more weary of adverse publicity.

All we need is a hundred more and I guarantee the impact will be seen.
 
The mere existence of gun owners drive people away. There's a mindset on the anti side that on the macro scale can't be addressed logically, as it's entirely emotional in nature. I've got a friend who has known me and my family for over 15 years who would literally be too afraid to stay in the same room as me if she knew I was carrying.

When jurists like those on the 7th Circuit Court put in a majority opinion on a gun ban that merely having the public feel safer is sufficient to uphold a ban, then it isn't the gun people that are the problem.

I have an old grade school friend, who is the same way. She was a flight attendant for American Airlines out of SF, for 30 years...starting when she was 19. Having access to all kinds of business savvy customers on her Calif. to Texas route, she amassed a lot of stock tips and invested wisely. She is a millionaire, owns three homes in the SF Bay Area and one on the 17 Mile Drive in Carmel, Ca.
And yet, with all her experiences and savvy and intelligence, she comes unglued when I have a gun on my person... in her house, or anywhere around her. The fear is real and silly, as thou I had a poisonous snake, wrapped around my shoulders when talking to her. There is no intelligent conversation that we can have, on firearms.
I have several email addresses. One has the word gun in it and she has even gone so far as requesting me to not to use that email when corresponding with her. After she said that, I just stopped all contact with her.
 
except your arguments are as follows

1) gun owners have to accept all sorts of idiotic, unconstitutional, restrictions in order to appease the bannerrhoid movement

you are wrong.

2) the BM will not give gun owners any credit for compromising but will instead demand even more restrictions-just like the case in California

3) I don't agree with Crimefree's interpretation that gun owners drive people away. Rather its a leftwing media and politician cooperative that does this and they aren't going to change no matter what Gun owners do-as long as gun owners and the NRA vote for the type of candidates the MSM and the Democrat party oppose, the demonization will continue.

4) in other words, as long as the Democrat party keeps pushing gun control as a way of pandering to some members of the public, the BM will keep demanding more restrictions in order to pander and because gun owners and our organizations will vote against the pimps who pander, the MSM will demonize us.

I think Jet likes playing devils advocate.
 
I think Jet likes playing devils advocate.

I disagree, his posts suggests that he resides in a BM run state and wants the rest of us gun owners to live under the same idiotic laws he does. Its a variation of the stockholm syndrome
 
Snipped to save confusion.

3) I don't agree with Crimefree's interpretation that gun owners drive people away.

That is perfectly normal people do not like change, However you have explained your objections so that makes it real easy to respond.
Thanks.

Rather its a leftwing media and politician cooperative that does this and they aren't going to change no matter what Gun owners do

It is a very common misconception that the media act as they will. Common sense say no for the simple reason they are in business to provide a product the public will purchase. That is a lever, the only lever we have to exploit. Unless one throws unseemly amounts of money at the media there is no other way of firearm owners controlling what the media prints. Let me give an example from real life experiences. A newspapers runs a gun control op-ed or comment on something. The next few days it get a few letters pointing ouut the errors and that he reality is the news paper and gun control are complicit in endangering the public. It get ignored. Thereafter each time the number of letters increases as more people come on board. There is some number of letters that say you cannot ignore me because now the letters are also complaining about bias, Those letters or some of them will be published. The public now see your free advertising. Cost 10..20 minutes and data cost. Make sure the message is not one of winging about gun control or promoting guns or services, That message must be aimed at public safety and security,

Firearm owenrs simply cannot afford to buy media coverag it is goinge like this

-as long as gun owners and the NRA vote for the type of candidates the MSM and the Democrat party oppose, the demonization will continue.

Politicians without public support have nothing. It really is that simple. You cannot buy politics with hoping for sympathy. I'll put it this way. First principle of politice. The only currency of politics is POWER.

4) in other words, as long as the Democrat party keeps pushing gun control as a way of pandering to some members of the public, the BM will keep demanding more restrictions in order to pander and because gun owners and our organizations will vote against the pimps who pander, the MSM will demonize us.

Seriously political parties can only do what the public let them do. There is no greater power than the public.

As an example after Sandy Hook gun control made a huge push for bans and other laws. This fell through not due to any action by any firearm organisations. It fell through because legislation had not been prepared and public opinion had now swung form around 60% for more strict laws to close to 50%. That made any legislation a bad decision because of the potential to cause a back lash on the sponsoring party.

Unless a government is willing to take on citizens and defeat them with arms there is no option but to do as the public want. It is why gun control does everything in its power to obtain public sympathy and support.

I'm not sure how well this explains this aspect to you. Let me know if there are any doubts.
 
I disagree, his posts suggests that he resides in a BM run state and wants the rest of us gun owners to live under the same idiotic laws he does. Its a variation of the stockholm syndrome

Ask him ;) see what he says
 
Snipped to save confusion.



That is perfectly normal people do not like change, However you have explained your objections so that makes it real easy to respond.
Thanks.



It is a very common misconception that the media act as they will. Common sense say no for the simple reason they are in business to provide a product the public will purchase. That is a lever, the only lever we have to exploit. Unless one throws unseemly amounts of money at the media there is no other way of firearm owners controlling what the media prints. Let me give an example from real life experiences. A newspapers runs a gun control op-ed or comment on something. The next few days it get a few letters pointing ouut the errors and that he reality is the news paper and gun control are complicit in endangering the public. It get ignored. Thereafter each time the number of letters increases as more people come on board. There is some number of letters that say you cannot ignore me because now the letters are also complaining about bias, Those letters or some of them will be published. The public now see your free advertising. Cost 10..20 minutes and data cost. Make sure the message is not one of winging about gun control or promoting guns or services, That message must be aimed at public safety and security,

Firearm owenrs simply cannot afford to buy media coverag it is goinge like this



Politicians without public support have nothing. It really is that simple. You cannot buy politics with hoping for sympathy. I'll put it this way. First principle of politice. The only currency of politics is POWER.



Seriously political parties can only do what the public let them do. There is no greater power than the public.

As an example after Sandy Hook gun control made a huge push for bans and other laws. This fell through not due to any action by any firearm organisations. It fell through because legislation had not been prepared and public opinion had now swung form around 60% for more strict laws to close to 50%. That made any legislation a bad decision because of the potential to cause a back lash on the sponsoring party.

Unless a government is willing to take on citizens and defeat them with arms there is no option but to do as the public want. It is why gun control does everything in its power to obtain public sympathy and support.

I'm not sure how well this explains this aspect to you. Let me know if there are any doubts.

I see nothing that is useful for pro rights people to use in your "suggestions"
 
The mere existence of gun owners drive people away. There's a mindset on the anti side that on the macro scale can't be addressed logically, as it's entirely emotional in nature. I've got a friend who has known me and my family for over 15 years who would literally be too afraid to stay in the same room as me if she knew I was carrying.

When jurists like those on the 7th Circuit Court put in a majority opinion on a gun ban that merely having the public feel safer is sufficient to uphold a ban, then it isn't the gun people that are the problem.

The same or less reaction can be expected from every single person gun control converts. Now if that does not scare the crap out of people and get them to see the vital necessity there is for shutting down gun control propaganda by countering it then nothing will.

Ignoring the propaganda of hate and fear is like watching a ticking time bomb. Those two emotions have been the subject of the propaganda leading to every single genocide without exception. They cannot just be removed by a good talking to or reason or any from of logic. Propaganda appeals to the subconscious. That is like trying to communicate with a dream.
 
The same or less reaction can be expected from every single person gun control converts. Now if that does not scare the crap out of people and get them to see the vital necessity there is for shutting down gun control propaganda by countering it then nothing will.

Ignoring the propaganda of hate and fear is like watching a ticking time bomb. Those two emotions have been the subject of the propaganda leading to every single genocide without exception. They cannot just be removed by a good talking to or reason or any from of logic. Propaganda appeals to the subconscious. That is like trying to communicate with a dream.

What's the counter to well-financed propaganda?
 
sorry Jet, supporting the second amendment and opposing idiotic proposed laws such as the crap imposed on the sheeple in California is not Radical. Most americans believe that the second amendment guarantees individuals the RKBA. the radicals are people like you who think congress should be able to ban every gun it can get the votes to ban.

People that think banning guns is the answer, imagine the world would be like Teletubbies.
 
One of the things Glenn Beck preaches in his radio show is to get into the culture to promote conservative ideas in order to combat liberal crap like this.Because its the TV shows and movies that libs will use to brainwash the masses.

This is the 100% truth. How often do you see commercials? How often do you see pro self defense messages? I always found the crime shows funny. They all pretend gun owners and people who defend themselves are these ignorant morons who did something stupid. And then in the same stroke they will show you people who didn't defend themselves ending up as a corpse on a slab. Funny huh?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
and they were ready with propaganda films designed to help what they assumed would be one of the first policy actions of the new Clinton Administration-gun bans.

https://www.lifezette.com/popzette/blatant-gun-control-agenda-miss-sloane/

I never cease to be amazed at Hollywood's opposition to guns. They have made an astronomical amount of money from movies that present guns in a more or less positive light. Westerns, war movies, gangster movies, cop movies, etc. all involve guns and more often than not the bad guy ends up with lead poisoning (if only real life worked the same way!).
 
I never cease to be amazed at Hollywood's opposition to guns. They have made an astronomical amount of money from movies that present guns in a more or less positive light. Westerns, war movies, gangster movies, cop movies, etc. all involve guns and more often than not the bad guy ends up with lead poisoning (if only real life worked the same way!).


several reasons

1) the demographics of Hollywood. Hollywood was one of the first lucrative areas that Jews could access so Hollywood has a heavy Jewish presence. Jews have been voting Democratic for decades in the 75% of higher range. Ever since the Democratic party adopted gun control as a major strategy, Hollywood has been a major part of the anti gun movement. The vast majority of American Jews have come from countries where their parents, grand parents or great grandparents could not own guns and those who did were often their oppressors.

2) the mindset of actors. One of my best friends in college-later a founder of the Federalist society and a major league attorney on the right also held a SAG card since he did commercial acting in HS and in College mainly due to his father being a big time advertising executive. He knew many big time actors and actresses and noted most of them had a common desire to be "loved" by the public. He noted that such people tend to adopt political views that they think will make them well loved by the population and gun control is one of those positions.

3) a third reason is that those who are successful in Hollywood tend to be urban elites who live in areas where guns are not nearly as popular as rural America. Hollywood stars are insulated from crime and even those who own guns tend not to want others to do so. Disarming "commoners" has always been popular with elites
 
I see nothing that is useful for pro rights people to use in your "suggestions"

Do you now see why this is so difficult. Please take this in the spirit of finding solutions

You tell me there is nothing useful but do not address a single point and show why it cannot work. I'm going to tell yo that I now know you are expressing a belief which I will not get past no matter how hard I try. That belief is based on conventional methods and each one of those has failed abysmally. Each one has been tried in the US or other countries and has only one result,failure. This why I said toss everything you know because it is wrong.

I asked what will work because I knew there would be no answer. It is not possible to adjudicate in this way if you do not know what will not work and why, it is not possible to determine what will work if at the very least on understands the mechanism of past failure.
 
The reviews for this movie have not been good.
 
I certainly won't waste any of my money to watch it.

I see it has been declared a disaster. Box office income about 1.9 million.

Gun control film Miss Sloane stumbled then collapsed at the box office as EuropaCorp expanded it into 1,648 theaters this weekend, only to take in a reported $1.9 million.

This puts the total domestic intake for Miss Sloane at just under two million dollars, according to Box Office Mojo. Forbes summed it up by saying the movie “bombed” and that it was expanded “with tragic results.”

Gun Control Movie 'Miss Sloane' Bombs At Box Office

I'm not going to speculate what would have happened had the wicked witch won.
 
I see it has been declared a disaster. Box office income about 1.9 million.

Gun control film Miss Sloane stumbled then collapsed at the box office as EuropaCorp expanded it into 1,648 theaters this weekend, only to take in a reported $1.9 million.

This puts the total domestic intake for Miss Sloane at just under two million dollars, according to Box Office Mojo. Forbes summed it up by saying the movie “bombed” and that it was expanded “with tragic results.”

Gun Control Movie 'Miss Sloane' Bombs At Box Office

I'm not going to speculate what would have happened had the wicked witch won.

That causes me almost as much unhappiness as learning the recount in Wisconsin netted DT 160+ more votes!
 
several reasons

1) the demographics of Hollywood. Hollywood was one of the first lucrative areas that Jews could access so Hollywood has a heavy Jewish presence. Jews have been voting Democratic for decades in the 75% of higher range. Ever since the Democratic party adopted gun control as a major strategy, Hollywood has been a major part of the anti gun movement. The vast majority of American Jews have come from countries where their parents, grand parents or great grandparents could not own guns and those who did were often their oppressors.

2) the mindset of actors. One of my best friends in college-later a founder of the Federalist society and a major league attorney on the right also held a SAG card since he did commercial acting in HS and in College mainly due to his father being a big time advertising executive. He knew many big time actors and actresses and noted most of them had a common desire to be "loved" by the public. He noted that such people tend to adopt political views that they think will make them well loved by the population and gun control is one of those positions.

3) a third reason is that those who are successful in Hollywood tend to be urban elites who live in areas where guns are not nearly as popular as rural America. Hollywood stars are insulated from crime and even those who own guns tend not to want others to do so. Disarming "commoners" has always been popular with elites

It is sad but true Hollywood puts its money where it thinks the best return is. Since they are an insular nest of people living in fantasy they don't want bad guys tearing their celluloid walls down.
 
It is sad but true Hollywood puts its money where it thinks the best return is. Since they are an insular nest of people living in fantasy they don't want bad guys tearing their celluloid walls down.

That's very much like wallstreet --- they'll do the same exact thing regardless of who is steering the ship, they seem to make money. The connection between the two is $$$ and lots of it.
 
Hollywood has always created their leftist version of what they want to be. They were so intent on ensuring a democrat presidency regardless of the outcome of the 2000 election that they created "The West Wing" to live out their fantasy. This isnt the first movie that Hollywood has offered against gun owners and manufacturers. Runaway Jury was littered with anti-gun leftists (and litter appropriately describes the movie itself). The unfunny comedy “Is That A Gun In Your Pocket” was similarly meant to ridicule gun owners. But apparently they forgot the cardinal rule regarding comedy. Be funny. Be satirical...but be funny.

Ms Sloan was destined to fail. Leftist Hollywood actually believe theirs is the majority opinion in this country. So its not surprising that a movie against guns turned out to be a bomb.

Never fear...Im sure it will get nominated for an Oscar award.

Now anti-gun Hollywood can get back to making movies where anti-gun leftist 'stars' shoot people and blow **** up.
 
That's very much like wallstreet --- they'll do the same exact thing regardless of who is steering the ship, they seem to make money. The connection between the two is $$$ and lots of it.

On that I have to agree. Firearm owners often complain that the media is biased. It is but only as much as profits allow. Gun control gives them copy, sensational stories and tear jerking print selling follow up. Expecting the media to say no is not going to happen. Firearm owners have a choice feed the media machine with equally good copy and follow up or or do not bitch. Money wins hands down everywhere including research organisations looking for grants.
 
Back
Top Bottom