The Left Has a New Strategy to Infiltrate the Gun Conversation

Although the article points out the fact that these questions shouldn’t be asked to gun owners because they don’t facilitate good conversation, the article reveals the inherent inability of the anti-gun mindset to understand gun ownership. The writer of the article explains to his readers how gun owners take gun ownership very seriously but fails to articulate any meaningful way in which the anti-gun readers can recognize their own views as being out of touch. The entire article focuses on how to engage with gun owners rather than recognizing the flaws in the anti-gun argument. Engaging for the purpose of adopting a different view on the topic of guns is not even a considered option.

Grayson acknowledges that there is a “stigma they often face,” when referring to gun owners. The writer comments that certain statements “may just alienate gun owners and shut down any chance of meaningful dialogue.” Typically, anti-gun folks are not looking for “meaningful dialogue.” They are looking for weaknesses in the argument and although this article comes off as conscientious, its intent appears to be more of a strategic measure created to enter the pro-gun conversation in order to change minds.

Throughout the article, Grayson implies that gun owners tend to be emotionally reactive to questions regarding their gun ownership. This reveals a human trait that is prominent within the liberal mindset. The truth is, gun owners will most often simply dismiss and ignore the person asking such questions rather than responding emotionally. It appears the writer is further revealing his lack of awareness and intent to fully understand others.

The writer makes a point that negative comments directed at gun owners make it hard to find “common ground.” This statement reveals ignorance on the part of the writer and appears that even after this decades-long battle for gun rights, he believes that there is “common ground” to be found. Gun owners are wise to this “common ground” tactic. “Common ground” only means one thing: compromising the 2nd Amendment. Although anti-gunners should know that gun owners are fully aware of this strategy, they keep trying to encourage compromise via the “common ground” tactic.

The writer peppered the article with terms like, “understanding,” “meaningful dialogue,” and other nomenclatures, implying that anti-gunners really want to engage in the conversation for honest purposes. The writer’s real intentions, however, could not be hidden when he discussed things like “the importance of safe storage and training.” This statement clearly gives away his intent to lecture, even though the article is presented as ways to understand gun owners. When anti-gunners talk about “safe storage” and “training,” the conversation typically includes some sort of mandatory requirements backed by legislation and enforced by home inspections and government oversight.

Of course, no anti-gunner would be satisfied without using some of the typical anti-gun talking points. In this article, Grayson couldn’t resist, using the most propagated term the political left has ever created when he mentioned discussing “the complex factors behind gun violence.” The terminology used by the anti-gun crowd gives them away every time. The media has been very successful at indoctrinating a portion of America with terms like “assault weapon,” “ghost gun,” “weapons of war,” and of course, the big-daddy term of them all… “gun-violence.” When these terms are used, you can bet, the person using them is not interested in a “meaningful dialogue.” When referring to the “complex factors” behind so-called “gun-violence,” Grayson reminds the reader that the objective is to look for “common ground in addressing them,” not even recognizing that there is no such thing as “gun-violence” to begin with and also failing to recognize that what he is really talking about is “human violence.” Anti-gun folks never address human violence and what causes it. Their focus is always on the gun because their minds have been trained to see guns as the “cause” of violence.

Although throughout Grayson’s article, the reader is encouraged to believe that the reason questions should be carefully articulated when engaging with gun owners is due to curiosity on the topic, the intent appears to be nothing more than a way for anti-gunners to get more involved in the dialogue for the purpose of changing minds and pushing for more gun control.

Gun owners can smell an anti-gun grifter a mile away, and this article stinks to high heaven. Although it comes off as an attempt at building a bridge between the two very contrasted sides of the conversation, the article is an undeniable, albeit very carefully crafted, attempt at pushing propaganda and creating a mini tutorial for anti-gunners in their pursuit to convince gun owners to compromise on the 2nd Amendment.

The anti-gun crowd has been rejected and removed from the firearm conversation because their intentions have repeatedly been found to be nefarious, but this doesn’t stop them from trying. They are like the person who is not invited to the party but can’t resist the impulse to bang on the door in the hopes that they will be let in.

Message to the anti-gun crowd: Gun owners are not avoiding conversation with you because we are “offended.” We avoid conversation with you because you have shown us that you can’t be trusted.

Final note from the Author: ChatGPT suggested that “Tyler Grayson” is a name unfamiliar to other writings and stated that MSN doesn’t typically produce its own news content and may have used AI to generate the article entitled “16 Things You Should Never Ask Someone Who Owns a Gun.” The article reveals a common strategy used among anti-gun advocates, and in this case possibly an idealism now embedded within AI. MSN provided no links to an “author page” for Grayson.