Our Facebook group, the Religion of Arms, is a very active group that is growing extremely fast and at times we sometimes need to stop to understand why we are doing this. Yesterday we had someone wrote a post that detailed their concerns and fears about recent events and instead of taking the time to try and dispel the fear members chose to attack this person. This was not the way that I would expect a free people to act or a group that is about protecting to respond to someone that is afraid.
How can we expect to change the view point of someone that is questioning their position when we demean them and verbally attack their position? This is what I witnessed happened to this individual. It made me ashamed that the people that I am helping to lead would do this do a person that is afraid and only wants to insure the safety of his children when he is not there to protect them. In light of recent events a lot of parents are scared of what could happen to their children when they cannot be there to protect them.
It should be expected that they would be scared these are their children. The media and the gun-control advocates are capitalizing on this fear to further legislation restricting our rights. The only way that we can counter this weapon is to neutralize the fear. The only way that we can do this is to first listen to determine what their fear is. We have to acknowledge this fear and then we have to listen to what they believe will work to neutralize the fear they feel.
Once we know this then can we start to work to address these fears and demonstrate why further restrictions will not be effective in changing what they fear. We have to do this without attacking their position or their views. If we demean them we further intensify their fear of guns and gun owners and that is the opposite effect of what is needed to defend the Second Amendment.
The definition of terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. While the means used last night do not completely fulfill this definition they do come close. I personally define terrorism as the use of fear (or terror) to achieve a political objective. Bullying is a means of instilling fear to get a person to comply with your demands. What happened last night was bullying and that is not something that we can tolerate when we are seeking to defend the Second Amendment. When we demean a person that has differing views and attempt to change their views by belittling their opinions we are acting as bullies.
We should avoid these types of interactions and we should rise above this. If we are not able to do this then we should disengage and move on. Continuing on will only serve to further damage the very movement that we are claiming to support. We have to be respectful and we have to listen only then can we engage in an intelligent manner to eliminate the fear they are feeling. Once the fear is eliminated then we can start to change their perceptions.
Our mission is to effect policies locally, creating lasting change nationally, developing enduring acceptance of the Second Amendment, removing the negative stigma associated with firearms. We will utilize grassroots efforts facilitating the organization and assembly of those that wish to impact political decisions effecting the Second Amendment, through community involvement and educating individuals as to the safe and effective handling, maintenance and use of firearms.
That mission needs to be what guides us in defending the Second Amendment and it has to be what is kept in mind when we are talking with someone that has an opinion that is contrary to the Second Amendment. If we keep this mission in mind and keep on task then we can change perceptions and we can defend the Second Amendment and the Constitution.