United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Well, the pro Second Amendment crowd is certainly divided, and if we do not come together, we will soon be conquered. Yesterday [April 15], I wrote an article that clearly stated in the very first sentence that it was an explanation of the legislation from Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation. Yet, many people read were the title before running out to proclaim that Cheaper Than Dirt was anti-Second Amendment.

Today [April 16], I published the second part of the series in which David Kopel of the Independence Institute outlined some of the problematic portions of the bill. Does that make the parent organization pro Second Amendment, or is it just part of the stated mission of providing content and analysis of products and events surrounding our community? Cheaper Than Dirt’s Shooter’s Log is a content site designed to make information readily available to members of the community. Occasionally, someone will interject a personal opinion, and to do so, is the very definition of a blog. The term “blog” can be used as a noun meaning a journal or as a verb meaning to add or maintain content.

Unfortunately, it has become the conduit by which those who profess to support the Second Amendment look for information to divide our community. I have seen this at the street level, trade shows, shooting events and around the campfire—both from industry insiders and enthusiasts.

Why do we fight for gun rights for every deserving member of our beloved firearms community with such a passion and then seek to tear them down at every turn? If someone did not get to buy the product at the price they thought was appropriate, the company is anti Second Amendment all of a sudden? I watch as one gun retailer claims the other is not patriotic because their ammo selection is different or a national retailer makes a personal decision as to which products it carries. That’s what businesses do on a daily basis. It is a business decision not a statement of philosophy. If a manufacturer is not producing the product as fast as the consumer would like, how is there suddenly a conspiracy afoot? It may not meet with an individual’s personal preference or politics, but how does threat of boycotts and vitriolic speech against our community members—whether commercial, nonprofit or personal—advance our Second Amendment rights? It does not. It does however divide our community and make it easier for the gun grabbers to advance their gun control agendas. We are dividing ourselves and letting them focus on conquering.

How hard is it to find a ton of posts tearing down the NRA, NAGR, Second Amendment Foundation and every other pro gun organization? And why? How does that advance a pro Second Amendment agenda or protect our rights? Those who take the time to read the articles in their entirety will plainly see our intent is not to tell you what to think (although at the least a minority have tried to make a career out of claiming just such a case). Instead, as a blog should, we want to present the information so YOU can make an informed decision. To do that you need to see all sides of the information. After all, if you can be trusted with making a life-or-death decision with a firearm for personal defense, shouldn’t you also be trusted with judging how and when to use the information on a blog without censorship?

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (9)

  1. Dave, I realize that writers sometimes choose controversial article titles in order to gain an audience. HOWEVER, I can not tell you how many times I have seen the Left use these very words COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT to advance their agenda. PLEASE refrain from giving them any extra ammunition in the future. Words DO have meaning, BUT sometimes they get twisted to have a different meaning.

  2. When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

    The title “I support Toomey-Manchin and you should too” is supposed to be seen as neutral and “just presenting the facts?” How dumb do you think we are?

    You didn’t even read the bill, you just listened to Gottlieb. That’s ok, I can see why you trusted him given his past record.

    Admit your mistake. You look worse trying to weasel your way out of this.

  3. Thank you to all for the replies and taking the time to give it a read!

    Information is a powerful thing. As I said, we are all competent and responsible enough to pull a trigger, so I do not believe we need a filter to only get the most conservative messages. We need as much information as possible. I regularly monitor conservative and ultra liberal websites and news channels. I do not believe or agree with the liberals, not even 10 percent of the time, but I must be open to understanding their messages and points of views to understand the logical errors, and to anticipate their moves in the future.

    You are right; we are on edge and very touchy right now. However, being divided as we are, how hard would it be for liberal, gun control activists to infiltrate our boards and divide us further? Imagine a liberal backed Operation Chaos and how vulnerable we are. Anyone with the slightest shred on information can declare a person or company as anti Second Amendment and our ranks are all to willing to follow them and spread their message. We are like sheep headed to the slaughter. People are following without thinking first.

    Too many people within our ranks are declaring themselves the holders of the keys to the Second Amendment, ranking people and business with “F” ratings on the Second Amendment because of one act; most often an act that has been misconstrued or taken out of context, a rumor started by an ex-employee with an ax to grind — and some of our most vocal blindly repeat it. That is how we are going to lose our gun rights. The antis are letting us do their work for them.

    I had the opportunity to interview legal scholars from both sides of this debate and ask both the easy and hard questions. I am not out to cause hate for either side; both care deeply and are fighting for our rights. Both have a track record making them worthy of our praise and gratitude and in my opinion beyond reproach in their dedication to preserving the Second Amendment.

    However, they happen to see this issue differently, but if you slow down and read it, they are not that far off. David Kopel has focused on two main issues, FOPA for New York and Massachusetts and the “potential” for hidden dangers in the language. Both are very valid concerns that we need to be vigilant to.

    Alan Gottleib on the other hand, is looking at the added protection in the other 48 states, laying the building blocks for future legislation, and restoring the gun ownership rights for veterans who were unjustly stripped of their rights. Also, he sees it as a way to keep Schumer’s proposal from reaching the floor. Are any of you really against those points?

    I see strong arguments on both sides. Does Kopel’s concerns make it a poison pill that kills the good provisions? That is for each individual to decide. It is merely my job to present the facts so they can make an informed decision. However, even Kopel stated the bill was not hopeless, nor did he discount its merits. He just said it needed to have the language reviewed with a fine-tooth comb back in committee. It is the people on the Internet that made it sound like the bill is anti Second Amendment, not the analysis of the legal scholars.

    However, I can look at the back end of our site and see the numbers. Currently, people are reading the Gottlieb article over 10 times more tan the Kopel piece, which means, unfortunately, they are only armed with half of the information….

    We need to educate our Second Amendment brothers and sisters, not berate them. I would much rather stand beside a Second Amendment advocate that I did not agree with on every single fact than across from them. How about you? ~ Dave Dolbee

  4. It does not help us any when groups like the NAGR and some times the GOA attack the NRA either. GOA not so much but ol Dudley Do Right of the NAGR attacks the NRA every chance he gets which I think is wrong. In fact I would not join his group for just that reason. How do these pro gun groups expect us to be united in the cause when they cannot be? Think about that!

  5. Going to have to agree with the above poster. That was probably not the best article to publish when we are all fighting tooth and nail to protect our second amendment rights.

    During the Feinstein debate I called my state Senator’s. When I urged the staff member who answered the phone to pass along my message to support our second amendment rights I was met with scorn.

    The other side is uneducated and has been subject to so much propaganda that they truly believe that playing Ostrich will cause violence to go away. They just want big brother to take care of them rather than taking responsibility for their own safety. The new bill, while carefully worded to make pro2 people think they are winning back rights, is a foot in the door that will lead to a National Registry and then one day they’ll be at the door taking our guns.

    We have more than enough legislation. How about simply enforcing the laws we do have rather than making new ones to restrict our freedoms?

  6. Regardless the language used or the innapropriate title, there’s got to be a basic inability in the reading comprehension of any who cannot understand understand four simple words every child learns within its first three years of growth.

    “…Shall not be infringed.”

    Where is there any part in that clause representing any form of registration or background check? Where is there any indication that a gun owner who does not register their weapon can be fined or imprisoned?

    Ya wanna know what divides gun ‘owners’ from shooters? Gun ‘owners’ don’t know what “…shall not be infringed” means. You want to close a divide? Take a class in reading comprehension rather than try to reduce our rights.

  7. My thoughts exactly Jeff. I have no problem agreeing with Mr. Dolbee about most things (hell, he’s my hero) but by only reading the title or not… yesterdays article title and the ways in which the two were presented were confusing, at best. I was simply offering that as constructive criticism.

    It’s a touchy time though… so I also agree that this time is better spent constructing ways to become solid, not divided. Project Appleseed, Oath Keepers, The Survival Podcast, Free State Project… those are some (definitely not all) that are really getting it together. They need to grow. The best way to keep our rights is to know them and use them!

  8. I do see the value in “tearing down” organizations, if what you mean is that we shout “YES” and “NO” at things said and done in the name of our common concern.

    How else will the NRA know they’re going a bit off-message? How will SAF know how many dozens of sweepstakes mailers to send us?

    As for a retail concern, it would be in the best interest to make only the most conservative possible statements, wouldn’t it? With this sh!t-storm raging, we’re all on edge. And to see a headline which basically says, “Here’s why I like gun control, and you should too!” (from you) is just tossing a box of ammo into a bonfire.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.