PDA

View Full Version : 4 years of action


Jofaba
April 13, 2009, 08:26 PM
Based on recent reports of the back-down by Democrats and Liberals from the Assault Weapon Ban because of the obvious political suicide that it would be, I see it that we have less than 4 years to change the general public's view of gun ownership and rights before the attack can take place at full force later down the road.

We can either get banned by congress with the public's approval, get banned against the public's approval, or nor not get banned with full civilian approval. Only one of those options is a risk to us, because if we have the general public's opinion in our favor, then we do not need to fear a lasting or placed objection to our 2nd amendment rights.

As has been stated in previous threads, this is not our opportunity to "chill out". We need to take this time that we've been given to alter the general public opinion that guns are bad, that guns only lead to negative concequences, and that once we get rid of guns all will be good in the world.

We have less than 4 years to equate gun ownership with personal empowerment; we have less than 4 years to equate concealed carry with absolute protection; and we have less than 4 years to equate the concept of the gun with Americana/Irrevocable rights/Patriotism, and make sure that every citizen equates it with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I want to know what kinds of programs, events, parties, legislation, etc that we're willing to hit the roads with to ensure that the next four years ensures that we never have to fight for this right again.

I want the 2nd amendment right to become an inevitable and unavoidable right, something that we can finalize as done, agreed upon, and stamped into gold as an irrevocable truth and right of American citizens.

We can do a lot in 4 years, and if we take this seriously, then this may be our only and last 4 years to work within. We cannot rest or hiccup here, this is happening in real time. We don't have a buffer or the ability to experiment. The time; the only time we are afforded; is now.

So what do we do, what should we do and what can we do? What is your feedback, and CAN WE DO IT?

My response? Yes we can!

Jofaba
April 14, 2009, 07:03 PM
I have to admit I am VERY surprised not to see conversation taking place here. Well, okay. I'll start.

As I see it, our first order of business is to negate the power of the phrase "assault weapon". No one knows what it means who's against it, but it sounds scary and assault is a crime, so of course they should outlaw something that sounds like it should obviously already be illegal. We should be writing the NRA to invest in advertisements which debunk the phrase.

If the NRA or other lobby groups do not want to foot the bill, than we start a non-profit and foot it ourselves.

Directly related, our second order of business is to explain the difference between full auto and semi auto, and educate in how the phrases are used, especially in handguns which are sometimes called "autos".

Our third order of business is to make it our priority to reach out to our anti-gun friends to "give it a shot". Take them to the range, go through an EXTENSIVE safety course, not only because you should anyway, but so they see how "play time got checked at the door", and that "fun" and "responsibility" make for a great marriage.

I won't suggest this as an order of business, but I have an opinion here that I would like to get some response to. I think that we need to embrace some regulation. I personally believe that what I've seen of the Maine system needs some serious attention. Not only will it help clean up some loopholes, and pick up the sagging on things we may consider pretty common sense, but it will show that we support change, but change in a different direction.

Additionally, I think we need to push for a Federal Concealed Carry Permit which allows you to carry in every state, in every town, in every building, across the board. Zero restrictions. I think it should be a lot of work to get one, but once you do, you should be allowed to carry everywhere you're allowed to go unarmed. It should not be expensive. It should require regular updating. But most importantly, it should be designed to WORK, so if some FCC holder gets a restraining order against him and is quoted in police transcript saying "Ill kill you!" that flags the guy BEFORE he does it and ends up on the front page.

I really hope you guys start posting and discussing here. We need to come up with a strategy, not cross our fingers for four years or however long you think it'll be before the subject hits congress and argue our regrets away once it passes.

Shane Tuttle
April 14, 2009, 08:22 PM
I have to admit I am VERY surprised not to see conversation taking place here.

I read it yesterday and to be honest I was a bit gunshy to respond since it felt like it had political overtones to it.

As I see it, our first order of business is to negate the power of the phrase "assault weapon".

I piped up and openly griped about this by starting a thread of my own about the same subject. It didn't go over all that great. I was surprised to see quite a few apathetic responses.

I think that we need to embrace some regulation.

What regulations do you support?

Additionally, I think we need to push for a Federal Concealed Carry Permit which allows you to carry in every state, in every town, in every building, across the board.

I disagree. States should not be told what to do in this sense. The states should set the laws within reason without federal interference. There are exceptions, but to make a sweeping change like this all at once and to make all 50 states abide by this isn't right, IMO.

Jofaba
April 14, 2009, 08:44 PM
Well, it is political isn't it? It's politics that is threatening our 2nd amendment right, or at least threatening to threaten it. Was it the opening sentence about Democrats and liberals? I'm registered as a Democrat, voted for Obama, and have some pretty liberal viewpoints. It wasn't meant to be a slam against them, it's just those are the people pushing this legislation.

I piped up and openly griped about this by starting a thread of my own about the same subject. It didn't go over all that great. I was surprised to see quite a few apathetic responses.

I don't accept apathy as an acceptable response. I see this apparent "back burner"-ing of the issue as an opportunity that we cannot pass up.

What regulations do you support?

I am open to debating it, and what I support I would call "a work in progress". My opinions are already being (positively) shaped by having some engaging conversations here, as this forum is the first time I've had access to people with completely opposing viewpoints that actively engaged in friendly conversation and I love it.

That said, I think that you should either have to pass a basic safety class to own a firearm, OR should have been taught safety by a family member. A simple "yes, I taught him and hes safe" style letter, handwritten if you want, signed in witness of a licensed official and that would sit in place of whatever certificate of safety course completion that would otherwise be required.

I don't understand why some states have open carry free of legislation but those same states make you jump through hoops and pay high fees to conceal carry.

For states that require a class, such as Maine, to apply for a CCP, that class should actually teach you something, and not simply meet requirements. My class left quite a bit to be desired, and I still know pretty much nothing about some pretty important issues. I plan on taking a two day 10 hour long course which includes live fire at my gun range. The class I took was two hours long and mostly consisted of a guided tour of filling out paperwork.

I disagree. States should not be told what to do in this sense. The states should set the laws within reason without federal interference. There are exceptions, but to make a sweeping change like this all at once and to make all 50 states abide by this isn't right, IMO.

Just like I see the thinking behind anti-nationalized medicine (and have been swayed), I see your point. There should be a different approach, perhaps, but I don't think that to carry throughout the USA should cost you thousands of dollars a year (don't know the actual amount, but it's not even possible anyway I don't think, as Maine appears to be residential only, so if you're not a resident, I do not think you can carry here). And I don't think that a place like a Mall has a right to ban your right to carry if you are capable of doing so safely. I don't like the fact that an uninformed store owner can say that I can't go into their store. I respect their right to be anti-gun, but my idea of a federal concealed carry permit would put you up there with law enforcement in that regard, that you are above-and-beyond qualified.

azredhawk44
April 14, 2009, 09:40 PM
I think that we need to embrace some regulation. I personally believe that what I've seen of the Maine system needs some serious attention. Not only will it help clean up some loopholes, and pick up the sagging on things we may consider pretty common sense, but it will show that we support change, but change in a different direction.


I'm not interested in any more regulation. No, thank you.

I'm registered as a Democrat, voted for Obama, and have some pretty liberal viewpoints.

You come across to me like a "fifth columnist." You voted for the guy and party that wants our guns, then come here and tell us to initiate the compromise process so that we lose even more than if we dig in our heels and fight for all that's dear and holy.

No thank you.

I'll not be playing your game.

That said, I think that you should either have to pass a basic safety class to own a firearm, OR should have been taught safety by a family member.

Open to Jim-Crow-style abuse, nepotism, or abusive bureaucratic procedures to inhibit an inalienable right. No.


Additionally, I think we need to push for a Federal Concealed Carry Permit which allows you to carry in every state, in every town, in every building, across the board.

So that my Arizona one, perfectly secure in the AZ political climate, can be repealed under Federal Supremacy? So that "one of the parties" can decide to rescind that one across the nation rather than fight 40+ states individually?

No. There's already too much Federal concentration of power. No more. In fact, how about cutting Federal power to 10% of its current level, along with taxes? (Obviously not gun related, but considerably more sensible).

It lives under a bridge, folks...

Shane Tuttle
April 14, 2009, 09:48 PM
Well, it is political isn't it? It's politics that is threatening our 2nd amendment right, or at least threatening to threaten it. Was it the opening sentence about Democrats and liberals? I'm registered as a Democrat, voted for Obama, and have some pretty liberal viewpoints. It wasn't meant to be a slam against them, it's just those are the people pushing this legislation.

If the thread is to be politically focused, I must bow out. We're allowed to discuss legal and civil rights, but we cannot engage in political discussion. It doesn't have to do with me wanting to, because I do. It has to do with the forum rules.

I don't accept apathy as an acceptable response.

I don't accept it as an answer either personally. But the reality is people are apathetic to the use of the term. The only thing you can do is discuss the debate here, contact your local congressman, and don't give in to using the term when it isn't warranted.

That said, I think that you should either have to pass a basic safety class to own a firearm, OR should have been taught safety by a family member. A simple "yes, I taught him and hes safe" style letter, handwritten if you want, signed in witness of a licensed official and that would sit in place of whatever certificate of safety course completion that would otherwise be required.

IMO, this would be about as useful as your parent handing out your drivers license.

And I don't think that a place like a Mall has a right to ban your right to carry if you are capable of doing so safely. I don't like the fact that an uninformed store owner can say that I can't go into their store. I respect their right to be anti-gun, but my idea of a federal concealed carry permit would put you up there with law enforcement in that regard, that you are above-and-beyond qualified.

A place of business is the same as your own home. It's the business owner's private property. He(or she. I use he as a generic prose so I don't have to say he/she every time) has the right to impose whatever rules they want. I also have the right to shop elsewhere if I don't like his rules.

B.H.
April 14, 2009, 09:55 PM
I don't think that we need anymore regulations. We already have enough laws on the books which are hardly enforced. We don't need any more feel good legislation.

I don't think that they need any federal right to carry license. A great deal of states already have ccw and they have reciprocity with other states that recognize each others permits. There are some states out there that dont recognize other states permits but they should.

As far as the term "assault weapon" well that is any weapon that is used to assault someone. The media likes to use terminology that is misleading so they can frighten all the sheeple out there.

Jofaba
April 14, 2009, 10:01 PM
I agree that "new" regulation sound scary. A week ago I was for nationalized health care and now I'm not so certain. I actually love a response like yours because it makes me think of things differently, which is exactly what I am looking for personally.

I think some of the regulation on the books is horrible. Most should be repealed and discarded. Some should be reworded, and some should be put on the books that isn't already there.

Even that is open to debate. I've changed my mind on so much based on sane arguments here, and that's my entire point. I want to get conversation to that point, where we can debate and agree to some sort of conclusion, then fight for those rights.

I'm not sure what a fifth columnest is but I am not here on any special program or situation. I do understand wondering why I'd vote for a guy whos threatened to take away one of my most important rights, but as I've said in previous threads; I do believe that our voices can be loud enough to influence our president; that we have the power to "change his mind".

I recognize that abuse can happen and I am open to suggested alternatives. I hold no fever induced notions that I have the best ideas out there. I simply see a lack of leadership to move towards the best alternative and have decided to take to heading the voice and opening the wings. I hope that an entirely more educated person bumps be down and takes over, I am NO ONE. I have some half caked ideas and I beg that someone more informed takes over and helps our community. My entire goal of this thread is to get a better leader to step forward.

I do not want any federal ccp to overpower locally entrusted permits. I see it as a "level two" kind of permit. Only if you want it, and it lets you do the whole country. I do not at all think it should affect any current programs.

Al Norris
April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM
I think we need to push for a Federal Concealed Carry Permit which allows you to carry in every state, ...
We may travel from State to State, without having any other drivers license because the States themselves arranged for reciprocity agreements.

The Feds had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Why? There is nothing within the constitution that gives the Feds any such police power. Not even the Interstate Commerce Clause works at this level. Don't confuse individual licensing with commercial licensing... That the Feds can and do regulate.

So it is with concealed carry permits. Individual reciprocity agreements between the States are at work, in exactly the same manner. Yet, because it is guns and not automobiles, there are and will be differences.
I think that we need to embrace some regulation.
What more regulation do we need? Firearms are already heavily regulated by both the Feds and the States (and in many States, the local city and/or county).
I don't understand why some states have open carry free of legislation but those same states make you jump through hoops and pay high fees to conceal carry.
Which States are you talking about? I know it isn't Idaho, Montana, Wyoming or Arizona. We are open carry States and we have some of the most lenient concealed carry laws there are (Vermont and Alaska excepted).

As for actually answering your question, I can't. Not without a long dissertation on why and how concealed firearms were met first with public derision, then with legislative and judicial disdain. It's a history of highwaymen; Duels; Gamblers and such.

Given that the Bad Guys still carry concealed, it's no wonder that the States want to make sure you are in fact a law abiding citizen before they issue you your permit.
I read it yesterday and to be honest I was a bit gunshy to respond since it felt like it had political overtones to it.
Absolutely it is political. But it is calling for activism, which is perhaps the only real political thread that can survive in this forum (See my notes in this (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341101) sticky).

I may have more comments, later on.

Jofaba
April 14, 2009, 10:28 PM
I may be calling to arms on this subject as the originator, but I am more than willing to pass this on to a more willing leader given the opportunity.

But we do have an opportunity here. I feel that I can help us push towards a point, but there are probably better men out there with better ideas who can move us forward. Someone needs to lead us though, and we need to be active and know that our opinions are taken into account. Whoever moves us forward has to be for us and work for us. We have perhaps 4 years. We can't mess around. Someone take up the code of arms and command the spirit, or I will.

We have a real job here; this isn't some statement to be dropped a week later like an old thread that's lost interest. This is about our rights, our lives, this isn't a joke.

roy reali
April 14, 2009, 10:43 PM
We actually have two years. That is if the GOP can wise up. But don't hold your breath on it!

Jofaba
April 14, 2009, 10:46 PM
I say 4 years because that is presidential time.

Shane Tuttle
April 14, 2009, 10:57 PM
Absolutely it is political. But it is calling for activism, which is perhaps the only real political thread that can survive in this forum (See my notes in this sticky).

And I fully understand your sticky. My point being is with the overtone of political nature, I tend to stand aside for a while until other members chime in. I want to make sure that the discussion remains within the set rules before I jump in. In the past, I've had a bad habit of being an early participant of drifting threads off-topic involving political discussion. I found that if I read the OP and spend more time thinking an less time typing off the bat, I keep myself out of trouble.

I do not want any federal ccp to overpower locally entrusted permits. I see it as a "level two" kind of permit. Only if you want it, and it lets you do the whole country. I do not at all think it should affect any current programs.

If you want a type of "level two" permit, how is this really valid if the intent isn't to affect any current program? If a state doesn't have CCW, like Illinois, how does the "level two" federal permit hold water in that state without affecting their program?

roy reali
April 14, 2009, 10:59 PM
If the GOP could take control of congress, the point about the president is moot. As I said earlier, don't count these chickens before they hatch.

Jofaba
April 14, 2009, 11:06 PM
I think that every state should have a ccw permit and if they don't, I see that as proof that a federal all-around permit right should exist.

Shane Tuttle
April 14, 2009, 11:36 PM
I think that every state should have a ccw permit and if they don't, I see that as proof that a federal all-around permit right should exist.

But now you're back to having federal laws overriding state laws. Take a gander at the Constitution....

Jofaba
April 15, 2009, 05:31 AM
But now you're back to having federal laws overriding state laws. Take a gander at the Constitution....

Yes, it is a conundrum. Before I make another comment on it I think that I should reread the constitution and rearrange my program. It is easy to think you've got the best answer to a question but the constitution and the BOR is the core of our country and should be what guides us to the best answer, never something to bump against and try to twist for your own means.

EDIT: rereading this thread makes this post sound, at least to my early morning groggy mind, that I'm just swinging for the benches with a brand new bat.

What I mean by it, is that I entirely believe in the constitution and the bill of rights, and wouldn't want a "good intentions" idea to run against their grain. The BOR is designed to be amended and you can argue about how good/bad that is (it took away then gave us back liquor, you can stand on either side of that debate), but I think that it is perfectly worded in this case, I believe.

It is open for interpretation of course, those damn pesky commas, but that's why we have the judicial system.

johnwilliamson062
April 15, 2009, 09:36 AM
Introduce new people to shooting. It is really that simple. The VAST majority of anti-gun people I have met have never fired a gun.

cracked91
April 15, 2009, 10:33 AM
Well, its four years to stock up on as many soon-to-be-illegal weapons as you can

JWT
April 15, 2009, 10:46 AM
Introduce new people to shooting. It is really that simple. The VAST majority of anti-gun people I have met have never fired a gun.

Excellent idea. In the past week I had the opportunity to help introduce two women to shooting. Neither had ever fired a gun and both indicated an interest to try it just to see if they liked it. Spent an hour or so discussing safety and then took them to a local range. Both ladies enjoyed the experience and will likely take a formal basic handgun course and then decide if they want to get more 'involved' in shooting.

If they do, they'll almost certainly introduce their friends to shooting and in the process change how they view 'guns'.

Jofaba
April 15, 2009, 06:28 PM
Perhaps we need to look at what's been working to build support against gun rights. Lobby funded commercials, news station hour long "specials" with an obvious bias, and political responses to gun related tragedies. Add to this list, it's all I can think of right now as a launch point.

On a low funded personal level, I agree and said in my first post, getting anti-gun friends and family members to the range is the easiest and even funnest way to start turning the tide. One trip alone doesn't do it though. I brought my dad to the range and while he enjoyed himself, hes completely against me carrying. I've only been able to bring him once, so I've got some work on my hands. He's going to be a hard convert and I'll learn from that experience and share whether it's worked in the long run.

Once you get that friend or family member educated, and they've "seen the light", we need to get their friends and family members lined up for the next trip to the range.

Skeet/Trap might be a good group intro because it's a sport, it's fun, you can do it with a lot of people, and it carries a familiar competative edge that may be easier to ease the uninitiated into than target shooting. It turns "years long honed skill" into "learning curve".

Does anyone here have a clue what the NRA is up to internally? I'm a very new member and don't know what their program is like in regards to media and advertisement. Their statements are usually a little awkward and defensive. Are they putting together any decent media to launch online and on television to try and start removing the stigma associated with guns?

Marketing is very important. Every product that does well is marketed well. Ever service that does well is marketed well. Who'd have thought that an animated gecko with a British accent would make car insurance so much fun?

I know it may leave a bad taste in some people's mouths, but we need to start marketing the 2nd amendment. I don't mean commercialize it, I mean making sure that people understand that it exists, that it's not outdated, that it's something to believe in, protect, and exercise daily. We need actively retrain what happens to people's brains when they think of the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment is a brand of America. That's what we need to drive home, but even then it's just a statement and one that sounds like legal mumbo jumbo because people interpret it so drastically different depending on their own bias. We need to develop a message that connects, juice it with the personal touch of introducing friends and families, and the friends and families of those, to the sport and right of shooting and personal protection.

We also need to educate ourselves about events where private gun ownership saved lives. We need to know local events and more well known national events. Concealed and open carry has probably the highest stigma associated with it.

Shane Tuttle
April 15, 2009, 07:56 PM
Perhaps we need to look at what's been working to build support against gun rights.

Please don't take offense to this, Jofaba for it will probably label you in this crowd and I apologize in advance:

1.The elite media in general has been one of the biggest supporters against gun rights. Look no further than NBC and the top two head honchos that run it for example. Head over to the editorial section of New York Times, online at DailyKos.

2. The general public either got sucked in or was blatently supportive of Obama. Now, we're starting to see what damage his administration can and will do.

3. The current judicial branch legislating from the bench IMO is the most destructive of all. It's difficult, if not almost impossible to do much about the problem swiftly. Have a problem with the current elected official? No problem. Vote the person out. Have a problem with a judge? Forget it. Deal with whatever the opinion the court states. One of the only active changes I've seen is either the judge dies or retires.

Jofaba
April 15, 2009, 08:06 PM
I see nothing to take offense to.

Your points are valid but do not point towards anything we can do to prevent or kill this concept of gun control. I am no trying to negate your post, but you need to offer a solution, not just present problems.

Shane Tuttle
April 15, 2009, 08:14 PM
I see nothing to take offense to.

The fact you voted for Obama and now we're having to deal with his administration....

Your points are valid but do not point towards anything we can do to prevent or kill this concept of gun control.

You suggested to look at what's been working to build support against gun rights. I provided said examples, that's all.

I am no trying to negate your post, but you need to offer a solution, not just present problems.

I did offer solutions. Especially ones that you haven't instilled yet.

Jofaba
April 15, 2009, 08:25 PM
I'm sorry but I re-read this:

rights.
Please don't take offense to this, Jofaba for it will probably label you in this crowd and I apologize in advance:

1.The elite media in general has been one of the biggest supporters against gun rights. Look no further than NBC and the top two head honchos that run it for example. Head over to the editorial section of New York Times, online at DailyKos.

2. The general public either got sucked in or was blatently supportive of Obama. Now, we're starting to see what damage his administration can and will do.

3. The current judicial branch legislating from the bench IMO is the most destructive of all. It's difficult, if not almost impossible to do much about the problem swiftly. Have a problem with the current elected official? No problem. Vote the person out. Have a problem with a judge? Forget it. Deal with whatever the opinion the court states. One of the only active changes I've seen is either the judge dies or retires.

and the only suggested solution was to "vote them out". i

I don't disagree with that, but there is a ton of work and preparation between saying it and making it happen.

roy reali
April 15, 2009, 08:46 PM
So, we should skip the midterm election?

Jofaba
April 15, 2009, 08:52 PM
So, we should skip the midterm election?

Why would we do that?

Tom Servo
April 15, 2009, 09:08 PM
I have to admit I am VERY surprised not to see conversation taking place here.
None of this is directed towards the OP, but meant as general elucidation for everyone who just got involved in the cause last week/month/election.

This conversation has taken place hundreds of thousands of times over the last 75 years.

Like many folks in the community, my involvement goes back more than a decade. When I got in, I was fully aware how green I was, and in the long view, still am.

This stuff didn't go awry overnight. It was pushed through with the tacit approval of a populace that was content to believe what they were told. In this case, that was, "guns are bad, and no responsible person should want them."

It was pushed through in small incremements, and each time people like me spoke out against it, we were labelled as "extremists" or "militia nuts."

Now that Joe and Marge Country Club are seeing the ugly culmination of their voting patterns and prior ambivalence, they're up in arms. These are the same people who were shocked that I should offer to teach their children how to shoot guns, or that I felt I had the right to carry a gun to defend myself.

I have neighbors who called the police on me in 2002 when they saw me carrying a Garand from my car to my front door. Last summer, these people approached me about leading a neighborhood watch because I "had guns." Last February, they approached me for shooting lessons.

Don't get me wrong; I'm glad they came around. I just wish they'd realize that the 2A has been under attack since before they were born, and that to preserve it, they have to get off the couch and do something.

I'm willing to guess that this thread isn't getting many replies because most of us are busy teaching, staying in contact with our elected officials and coordinating shoots.

I'm glad to see you've come around; welcome aboard. Instead of asking, "well, why isn't more being done?" try asking older folks in the community what they've been doing, and ask how you can help.

We don't need 4 years. The mid-terms are a 17 months out, and we can make a difference by supporting the right candidates. Many of the Democrats currently in the legislature are in fact very pro-gun, and could also use your support and kind words.

Shane Tuttle
April 15, 2009, 09:43 PM
and the only suggested solution was to "vote them out". i
I don't disagree with that, but there is a ton of work and preparation between saying it and making it happen.

OK, Jafaba. If this is how it's going to be:

If you reread ALL of my posts, you'd see that I suggested some items other than voting them out.

1. Contact your local elected officials. Get involved in keeping tabs on what they do, what they're introducing on the house/senate floors. Hold them accountable for their actions and provide support when they do right.

2. Vote them out. Yes, I did specifically state this for a darn good reason. IMHO, you failed to do so by voting for Obama. It's no good to spend my time giving solutions if you don't vote for 2A supporters to begin with.

3. Read up on the Constitution. Also, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights (not just the 2A), and writings of the Founding Fathers. Again, not to lambast you, but I believe you need to start with studying these documents and then get back to us. I feel that one needs to get a better grasp on how it all started, why, and how.

I don't disagree with that, but there is a ton of work and preparation between saying it and making it happen.

To summarize, I DID provide you with several steps in the solution process. Those three items alone should be the foundation, IMO. You're right. There IS a ton of work and preparation. But you need to know the multiplication table before trying to excecute quadradic equations...

alloy
April 15, 2009, 10:03 PM
What i don't understand Jofaba, is why you voted for the guy, and now that the most liberal senator in the country, is actually running the country...all this is an issue. Maybe i'm missing something in your concern. What good is it if we do all this and that...if we just faint in the voting booth....again?

I have to admit I am VERY surprised not to see conversation taking place here.
And then we get....that?

Ok, i'll bite...heres my brilliant ideas: Midterms in two years, and Virginia has a big ticket gubernatorial. Scrape the feel good bumper sticker and change that first. Go NRA, join the PTA, buy them while you can, vote the other way.

Jofaba
April 16, 2009, 06:32 AM
I'm not going to get into a McCain v Obama argument because the reasons I voted for him were not related to this issue. It was my hope that he'd be too busy with everything else, and that what happened in 1994/1995 would deter congress. Also, it continues to be my hope that his mind can be changed on the subject. I don't really care how naive that sounds, but I sized both candidates up and made my decision. I maintain the right to be critical of the decisions of a party and leadership that I am a member of and voted for. You can blame me for voting for Obama and I can blame you for not coming up with a better republican candidate. I won't attack Palin because Biden is just as ridiculous.

You say 2 years because of midterm elections, I'm predicting 4 years because I think the general consensus will be to try and keep Obama in office for a 2nd term, and if they lose control of congress then what Obama can do easily disappears. They've already said "that's not for now, that's for later". So we've already managed to push the option off the table for a while. I'm suggesting we continue having it pushed until it falls off the table completely. If we can do that, then my goal was accomplished and the guy I voted for didn't hurt my 2nd amendment right.

He has not lived up to my expectations, and he has broken several promises. I don't have "buyers remorse", but I disagree with several things he's done so far.

And even though I voted for him, guess what? I'm allowed to complain when he or the party does something that I don't like. Aren't you glad that not everyone that voted for Obama blindly follows his every decision? Would you rather the US be blindly following McCain? Or would it be okay for republicans to be critical of some of his decisions as well?

I feel that the 2nd amendment IS absolutely important to protect, obviously, but I don't think that we should allow politicians to use their supposed support as a fishing hook for votes. I'd rather choose a politician based on overall score, and then work my ass off to protect myself in the areas where our ideals clash.

If Obama was a little more pro gun than McCain would you have voted for him over that? Even if you disagreed with a lot of other things that he does support?

Jofaba
April 16, 2009, 06:49 AM
I'm willing to guess that this thread isn't getting many replies because most of us are busy teaching, staying in contact with our elected officials and coordinating shoots.

I don't take offense to your post, or anyone elses. I certainly know what I'm in for when I say that I voted for Obama. I know what I'm getting into being wet behind the ears and being so vocal. I know what I'm getting into when I disagree with someone. It's why I'm here. I'm listening to what everyone is saying and definitely learning a lot. I'd be a tad uncomfortable if no one disagreed with anything I said.

I get what you're saying, and whether it was implied or not I read this as "we're out there doing stuff, while you're up here saying stuff" and doing is stronger than saying. True, and I hope that people are out there doing stuff. I personally feel that it's a bit idealistic to think that everyone is so busy out there DOING that they haven't seen this discussion and had the time to chime in, especially when their input would be far more valuable than my own. If people are out there doing, they should be letting us know what they're doing, what's working, and what they think we should do. Don't you think that an organized effort would be more affective especially with good leadership?

We can focus and debate about my personal voting record or we can talk about what we think we should do to stop any infringement from taking place.Which do you think will benefit us better at the end of the day?

Jofaba
April 16, 2009, 06:58 PM
I watched the president, as well as the mexican president, respond to the question of the AWB in the same way that we've discussed they are now approaching it. With fear. Obama did say that he still thinks that it is a common sense legislation but I think we can all agree, I just want someone to ask them:

WHAT EXACTLY IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON?!?

They repeated a fact which I am to understand has been proven to be misleading, that 90 percent of all weapons procured in drug raids in Mexico came from the United States. It is my understanding that it is 90 percent of all traceable guns, because we make all weapons traceable. And that if you phrase it correctly, its closer to 17 percent.

This matches common sense, as legal guns on the retail market in the US are pretty damn expensive. I think it'd be easier to buy a full auto untraceable weapon from south america than a semi auto serial coded version in the us, convert it to full auto, then start using it for crime. But, that's just me.

So that's the news today. What does that do for us? Not much. It reiterates that they aren't going for anything big right now. We can argue whether it will be 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 years before something happens that we will regret. We can give obvious answers like "vote!". You have all been voting for however long that you have, and has it worked? Public opinion means more than a vote, in my opinion. That's mine, I hold it and it makes more sense to me than arguing about writing your representatives. Screw em, they have their own idealistic reasons for choosing a side. Take that power away from them by swaying public opinion.

How do you do that?

That's what this thread is about. I don't even want to hear people suggesting we need to vote different. Vote however you want, it hasn't helped the cause. And yes I'm green, wet behind the ears, idealistic, naive, young, stupid, whatever, but at least I'm trying to think outside the box.

My goal is to do our best to reach those 300+ million Americans who are out there who include ourselves and include incredibly uneducated people who need to realize how important it is that we protect this right without any agreeable restrictions. Agreeable meaning that stupid reply about "should you be allowed to have a nuke, etc.

Look, I want you to like me but I really don't care if you don't and I won't bend over backwards to try and talk you into accepting me. If you think I'm an idiot then good for you and hell, maybe you're right.

My point is that we need to organize an effort to change opinion. You have to realize how awesome a goal that is, and by awesome I'm talking span, not slang. It is going to be incredibly difficult and expensive to do our best to get people who don't care about this, or are against it, to change their minds.

The people ultimately make the rules that govern them. If the people feel that that we should be allowed to have semi-autos, high cap magazines, ugly guns, then you do not have to fear them being taken away.

I am the spark, not the fire. I am not trying to take the lead. I am trying to influence someone to do so. I want to see people coming up with ideas, putting them into action, and fixing this problem. The problem is a lack of organization. Someone please, for the love of God, help us face this challenge.

Tom Servo
April 16, 2009, 10:44 PM
It is my understanding that it is 90 percent of all traceable guns, because we make all weapons traceable. And that if you phrase it correctly, its closer to 17 percent.
I've spoken to an acquaintance in the ATF, and it's actually less than 10%. Most of those are small-caliber pistols, to boot.

We can give obvious answers like "vote!". You have all been voting for however long that you have, and has it worked? (...) I don't even want to hear people suggesting we need to vote different. Vote however you want, it hasn't helped the cause.
Seemed to work just fine for us in 1994. It's all the people who've been voting the wrong way, for the wrong reasons who are the problem.

Take that power away from them by swaying public opinion. How do you do that?
One example: you provide research assistance to the folks who write for the legal journals. Writers like Clayton Cramer are worth 100 Ted Nugents. In the 1990's, law professors were unanimous in the belief that the 2A protected a "collective right." Today, that belief has lost a great deal of ground.

Preaching to the choir on a gun board? Not so effective.

My point is that we need to organize an effort to change opinion. You have to realize how awesome a goal that is, and by awesome I'm talking span, not slang. It is going to be incredibly difficult and expensive to do our best to get people who don't care about this, or are against it, to change their minds.

Such a campaign is going on everywhere in this country. The NRA has been fighting for your rights far longer than you've been aware of them. There is doubtless already a local and/or state grassroots organization devoted to reforming firearms laws. Have you joined or contacted them?

There are organized efforts everywhere in this country, and they need your support.

Look, I'm glad you've come around, but you've spent your whole life up until this month ignoring the issue and voting the wrong way. I'm sorry you're unhappy with the sad state of gun laws in this country, but everything you've posted has already been said. This debate has been going on since before anyone here was born. It's not going to be resolved overnight.

In the meantime, you can develop an ulcer about it, or you can get involved with organizations who've been on the ground for years already.

If you end up writing a letter or being interviewed, please compose yourself, and make sure you've got your facts straight. Make sure you know all the distortions the other side will pull (Kellerman, misquoting WISQARS stats) and how to refute them. Look to some of the older gun writers and learn from the arguments they've made. Know what works and what won't. Most important, know what gets attention and what doesn't.

Don't fall back on emotion--silly hysterics are for the other side. Stick with the facts, present them calmly and with authority, and you will carry the day.

Shane Tuttle
April 16, 2009, 11:02 PM
You say 2 years because of midterm elections, I'm predicting 4 years because I think the general consensus will be to try and keep Obama in office for a 2nd term, and if they lose control of congress then what Obama can do easily disappears.

It's fine to prepare for the next presidential election. But you have a fatal flaw in your belief that this should take precedence over mid-term elections. You like football? You think the week of the AFC championship game the teams are focusing on what tactics they need to execute to win the Super Bowl? Absolutely NOT. If they do, they lose the AFC championship and have to wait another year and play another 16+ games to even get that shot again. I side with roy reali here. America already screwed up voting for Obama. We have to keep him on the backburner on simmer while we need to work on mid-term elections coming up on the front burner on medium-high.

If we can do that, then my goal was accomplished and the guy I voted for didn't hurt my 2nd amendment right.

...unless he appoints supreme court justices. Then you won't be able to wash your hands that easily. What about other laws he may implement or sign that's orchestrated by congress that would be extremely difficult to reverse? One popular example is the AWB....making it permanent no less....

And even though I voted for him, guess what? I'm allowed to complain when he or the party does something that I don't like.

Just because others didn't vote for him doesn't mean they can't complain...

Aren't you glad that not everyone that voted for Obama blindly follows his every decision?

Not particularly. The numbers are very few at the moment...

Would you rather the US be blindly following McCain? Or would it be okay for republicans to be critical of some of his decisions as well?

Well, let's put it this way. In regards to the preservation of the 2nd Amendment, I wouldn't exactly be worried about blind followers of McCain compared to blind followers of Obama.

If Obama was a little more pro gun than McCain would you have voted for him over that? Even if you disagreed with a lot of other things that he does support?

If Obama was a little more pro gun than McCain, the NRA would have placed him up on the highest pedestal in the land (again, regarding the 2A). But I still wouldn't have voted for him. There's one issue that Obama supports that IMO trumps gun voting records. I'm not willing to go into any more detail in public due to the other reasons are not gun nor civil rights related.

That's what this thread is about. I don't even want to hear people suggesting we need to vote different. Vote however you want, it hasn't helped the cause.

Then this is where I place my final post here. You can expend all the effort you want to change public opinion. But it will not do any good compared to advocating to vote for a representative. We are not a democracy. We're a republic. We elect officials to represent our voice. Have you seen the ratings on the public's opinion of how congress is doing? Last I checked it was in the tank. You think since the public's opinion is nonexistant congress is acting in our best interest? NOPE. They're still plugging away ignoring us and doing whatever they want. Your opinion of thinking getting people to vote is probably sour because the same dang officials are voted in office over and over again. Look at Ted Kennedy. We're not getting results because we're not concentrating on convincing people to vote out these idiots and voting for fresh faces. I know plenty of people that have the same opinions I generally, but those same people don't want to get off their duff and spend the ten minutes checking a box or two on a ballot once in a great while.

We can focus and debate about my personal voting record or we can talk about what we think we should do to stop any infringement from taking place.Which do you think will benefit us better at the end of the day?

Talk about your voting record. To be honest, it's an utter waste of time trying to talk about stopping any more infringement on my 2A rights if you choose to vote for the very person that has the most damning voting record against them in the future. But I digress. I'm not inclined to focus on this matter in public.

Jofaba
April 17, 2009, 05:44 AM
All good points and I agree with most of it, including the criticism on myself.

I didn't want to get into a voting debate because its a different conversation. I wanted us to discuss what we could do in the non-political arena to influence people (you can call them voters if you want to).

Unfortunately, maybe through my own fault, this thread has fallen to shambles. It's failed to ignite the conversation that I hoped it would. I tried to steer it back by making some suggestions and all anyone seems to want to talk about is my voting record, how wet behind the ears I am, and how naive I am. All valid for criticism but all entirely unlikely to sway the gun control issue in our favor.

Unless we're trying to convert me?

Well, if we can't get past who I voted for then I don't see how we could possibly move forward with the conversation so I guess that's the end of this thread.

I respect all that have posted so far, and I enjoy the criticism, it will only help me grow and learn. It just wasn't the point behind my original post. Maybe I'll try again down the road with a different approach.

Al Norris
April 17, 2009, 10:01 AM
I will disagree here.

One of the strategies is precisely to get people to understand their elected reps are not representing them, and to vote the bum out.

At some point, it doesn't matter who gets in, if they also get hit with the people emailing them that the only reason they got the vote (and won the election) was because the former representative didn't listen to their constituents. Not because people thought they were better than the other guy, or that people thought they would do a better job.

Remember, once they get into office, they spend an absurd amount of time and capital to stay in office.

Let them know, upfront, that the other guy was voted out - they weren't voted in. Now the focus is on them. Do they want to retain the office next election? or get summarily dismissed, as was their opponent?

Jofaba
April 18, 2009, 06:21 PM
I've started a new thread. I set 3 rules that I hope will be followed, and I hope that the discussion is more positive and effective in means of topic than I managed in this one. If you want to pour any continuation of the conversation that's been in here, I beg you to restrain.

I believe that political and non-political activism are two different discussions, both entirely worthy of debate, but I would like to keep them seperated for the means of this particular conversation.

Here is the link. I hesitated to post it here in fear of an early destruction of that thread, but I think it only fair to link the two.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3442811#post3442811

Regardless of what you think of me, my ideas, my vote, please respect the rules of that thread so that it can be more productive and maybe, just maybe, even YOU will learn something from a topic, idea, or concept that someone else brings up.

I will be losing my internet tomorrow because of a billing issue. I will try and check in daily but my usual activity will be severely reduced. This is not a cop-out, I simply have no choice. I hope to have full internet access back up by next Friday. How do I know when I'll lose my net? Because I had it turned back on and promised to pay Friday, and they gave me till Saturday to give me a day grace period, and then my car broke down so I couldn't make the payment.