Misrepresenting facts is one of those things that will catch up with you eventually. In the example I outlined, I’m not asking anyone to misrepresent facts. Whether or not an establishment posts because they’ve had a problem with that kind of thing is a reasonable perception. The integrity issue is purely a personal one, as to whether you’re comfortable using a line of argument you don’t really believe in.

And nothing you’ve said has convinced me that there are not other means available other then lying or distortion.

Nor am I sure that an approach that resorts to deception would ensure that our rights are protected.

Look at the backlash anti-gun advocates are suffering now as their lies are exposed. People are learning that semi-automatic rifles aren’t “assault weapons”, aren’t scary “spray and pray”, aren’t being used in many crimes. Risking that sort of backlash could result in greater restrictions, not fewer.

Do we have the numbers to matter? I tend to doubt it. Boycotts are notoriously ineffective. You have to represent a significant portion of an establishment’s business for a Boycott to even be noticed, and if it’s not noticed, it’s not going to work.

Or a letter to the editor stating why we wouldn’t give business to a place that doesn’t support our rights.

Perfectly acceptable to do, but again, will it achieve the end? Ultimately what a business cares about is losing money. But they also care about bad publicity, because it usually leads to the former. I wouldn’t pooh pooh this tactic. It’s worth trying.

As others have said, I want people who haven’t made up their mind to know, not just think, but to know there is a clear and distinct difference between pro-rights and anti-rights group. For me, that distinct difference is the ethical nature of our behavior.

it may have been unethical for HCI and the other gun control groups to confuse the American Public about all manner of things such as plastic guns, “cop killer” bullets, “assault weapons,” and what have you. But in the 90s, they were surely nursing their conscious through legislative victory after legislative victory in state after state.

If you believe in the Bill of Rights, and truly believe in preserving them, you’ll resort to unethical means to preserve it if there’s no other means at your disposal. As I said, I am not interested in feeling good about myself, or patting myself on the back for my upstandingness, I’m interested in preserving the Second Amendment and the shooting culture for future generations. If I have to play dirty to do that, I will. I won’t unless I have to, but I will if there is no other alternative.

Certainly you can try expressing those ideas using a more direct and honest approach. If it works, then that’s the ethical means to use, but what if it doesn’t?

Then we use alternate means that are still honest, open, and in line our principles. Why not try a boycott or taking your business to places that do support our rights.

Or a letter to the editor stating why we wouldn’t give business to a place that doesn’t support our rights.

There are other ways that aren’t dishonest.

As others have said, I want people who haven’t made up their mind to know, not just think, but to know there is a clear and distinct difference between pro-rights and anti-rights group. For me, that distinct difference is the ethical nature of our behavior.

Certainly you can try expressing those ideas using a more direct and honest approach. If it works, then that’s the ethical means to use, but what if it doesn’t?

I may have misunderstood your earlier comments about offering another consequence to a ‘no guns’ sign, for it sounded as of you were doing it without letting the establishment know you were a 2A supporter – which I believe to be dishonest.

But your reply to Bob_S about backlash leaves me confused.

I think it’s incumbent on us (if we’re trying to expand someone’s thinking) to be upfront. We can let people know that we’re firearm owners, but also point them to an alternate perception they may not have thought of.

Exactly. Alinsky was not a fan of using violence as a means because we had not exhausted the use of other means of achieving an end that would be effective and also ethical. But Alinsky would probably agree that the only thing that keeps civilization together is the fact that “the only thing preventing people from robbing, enslaving and murdering is a fear that they can’t get away with it.” He had very few delusions about human nature.

I doubt I would agree with Alinsky’s politics much. In fact, I would likely be his enemy. But he was a serious man, a serious thinker, and very, very effective and influential, and for that I have to respect him and his ideas.

“Considering what’s at stake, yes winning trumps integrity.”

The problem is that there seems to be a confusion between little “i” integrity and big “I” Integrity. the tactic you suggested was designed to introduce doubt into the mind of a person who may have unthinkingly joined the side of our opponents. it’s hardly the sort of “lie, cheat, and steal” approach that would bring us discredit.

in order to change somene’s mind, you first have to open it up to the possiblity that it is wrong in the first place. you have to inject doubt to do that. for those who are unable to be less than perfectly truthful in their dealings with others, by all means, don’t bother trying. I, on the other hand, have no problem saying

“It makes me uncomfortable that you think you have to put a sign up like that. What does it say about the kind of place? They don’t have a sign up at , maybe that’s a safer place.”

because i know that others really feel that way. i’m just helping them out in a way that helps me out too. we don’t need to convince everyone. we only need to prevent the property owners signalling us that we cannot legally arm ourselves.