The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 18, 2013, 10:26 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: July 23, 2011
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 229
What are we doing wrong

How is it thousands upon thousands of people can be organized to go to Washington to protest a pipeline? Yet, even though their are way more of us that that group, it appears we do nothing. We talk amongst ourselves, we post on forums, but we don't really do anything. If we don't figure a way to get some attention, we are in serious times my friends. What can we do? How? We need to be thinking about it. United we can make a stand, if not, they will feel free to pick us off, one at a time, and they will win.

jim8115 is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 10:30 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2011
Location: Backwoods, PA
Posts: 284
Glad your in the right Forum now Jim.
I'm with you and if you can get it together I will see you in Washington. If there is anything I can do to help you organize it PM me.

"If a man does his best, what else is there?"
- General George S. Patton Jr
OEF-Vet is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 10:39 PM   #3
Junior member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
Everyone loves to talk, but they want someone ELSE to do the dirty work and is going to take a serious second Lexington or Concord to wake these folks up

Last edited by Tom Servo; February 18, 2013 at 11:28 PM. Reason: Removed unnecessary snark
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 10:50 PM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: July 23, 2011
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 229
I understand, most of us work, so I would not expect us all to be able to go to wahington. But what about at a local level? Imagigne the press if gun rights groups showed up at the capitol of every state one day for a rally, or even local courthouses? Im just saying we need to get together. I hear people saying " let them try and take mine". While noble, how long do you think an individual can hold off the Govt, but united , we stand a chance

jim8115 is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 11:49 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 844
I wish I could say this without being crass... but...

Protest marches are most effective when they appeal to the unemployed (who have the time to participate) and are targeted towards politicians who cater to the unemployed.

Think "Occupy Wallstreet"... The accountants, bankers, and lawyers in Manhattan did not organize their own "occupy" movement in response. The used the power of their wallet. In the end, the only thing the "occupy" movement succeeded in doing was putting a few unlucky restaurants out of business, spreading a lot of STDs, and smoking a lot of weed.

We, the gun-owners, tend to have full time jobs and disposable income. Well-written letters and campaign donations are our best weapon.
btmj is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 12:00 AM   #6
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,485
I am not convinced that it would make any difference in our plight if we had a million people show up.
shootniron is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 12:07 AM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
What are we doing wrong

It would be easier to round us up for sure. There were state rallies several weeks ago at all the state capitols.
mayosligo is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 12:15 AM   #8
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 507
It might even be counterproductive.
Imagine the media coverage. Pick the scariest looking person, bait them, and get something damaging on film.
The purpose of a march is to get positive press that changes minds or scare politicians with numbers. With the way that the news is run by people who hate guns our numbers would be ignored or under reported. Then the type of people involved would be twisted or outright lied about.
I really wish that a march would work, I think we could get the support.
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 01:32 AM   #9
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 20,909
What we are doing wrong.

We have no attention span. We mobilize when we perceive an IMMEDIATE threat, but after a couple of weeks, we lose interest and assume that the threat is gone. The threat is never gone. It will never be gone. We will be fighting this battle forever--or until we lose.

We are up against opposition who is fine with pursuing a course of action that may take decades to attain. Our opponents held on through the CCW movement, they didn't give up after Heller, they didn't fold after McDonald. They will never give up. We make a gain or two and assume we've won and relax. We must understand that we will never win this battle. There are only two options--fight continuously or lose.

We are willing to sacrifice our allies and some of our rights if we perceive any benefit in such sacrifice; even if that benefit is clearly only temporary. Rather than fortifying our position behind the bulwark of unity, we fight amongst ourselves and cooperate with our opponents to aid them in dividing and defeating us.

We expend tremendous effort and money in non-productive avenues instead of putting it to use where it will do the most good. Scrambling around trying to find guns that can be banned with the stroke of the pen and then buying them for 2X what they're worth is a waste of time and money. It would be better to spend that effort mobilizing support for gun rights. It would be better to spend that money and time campaigning for pro-gun politicians and against anti-gunners. If everyone who panic-bought ammo or guns had spent that money (or even a tenth of it) on gun-rights advocacy instead, and had spent the time signing up members to gun-rights groups, and on recruiting and educating new shooters, the results would have been spectacular.

We don't act when we have the chance and then, when the inevitable result of that inaction comes to pass, we ask ourselves what we are doing wrong.
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 08:55 AM   #10
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,504
I attended a rally in Buffalo NY, Clarence Center, NY and will be at one in Lockport, NY this afternoon. I hope and pray it helps, but if it doesn't at least I can say I did what I could. I have written letters, sent emails, made phone calls and will continue to do so. I have given contributions to GOA, NRA, 2nd Amendment Foundation and others.
I am a Viet Nam veteran and I will do whatever I feel will help to ensure that all my fellow veterans did not die in vain. If we loose our constitutional rights then the lives of all who fought and died for our freedoms was in vain. This is not acceptable. Our freedoms were fought for and it is our responsibility to preserve them.
rebs is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 12:19 AM   #11
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 3,675
Right now the legislature in MN is in session and they are of course considering some new gun laws.

LOTS more pro-gun than anti-gun folk showed up for a panel of legislators considering some laws and I am sure it heartens the pro-gun legislators to know they have some support. I know it cheers me up to see 'our' side to visibly have more support than the anti-gun side.

They talked about jobs in the firearms industry in Minnesota:

They demonstrated how a wood stock Ruger 10/22 could become an evil black rifle and was same rifle whether it had a wooden stock or pistol grip stock.

And there was a particularly heart wrenching story from a man whose son had been shot by a drunken neighbor but said none of the laws being proposed would have prevented what happened.
DaleA is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 05:49 AM   #12
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Posts: 5,950
Is this with respect to the possibility of anti-gun legislation being passed, or was this in response to the nth rerun of the email claiming that the U.N. was going to take our guns via treaty? There's a huge difference...

With respect, please explain the huge differences. Especially when dealing with our current administration that is infested with anti-gun politico's that will stop at nothing to shred our 2nd Amendment.

Yes, we've had anti-gun legislation in the past with other administrations. So it's ok to discuss that topic. But it's taboo to discuss the real possibility of the U.N. requesting stricter gun control for the US and the 'powers to be' listening. Which this administration would love anyway.

And why is it out of the question to even consider having a discussion here of the possibility of UN troops helping to enforce these laws in the US ?

If this could NEVER happen here in the US... or it could... the reasons why it couldn't or how it could, would be a worthy discussion.

Last edited by shortwave; February 20, 2013 at 06:01 AM.
shortwave is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 06:52 AM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,486
Yet, even though their are way more of us that that group, it appears we do nothing. We talk amongst ourselves, we post on forums, but we don't really do anything. If we don't figure a way to get some attention, we are in serious times my friends.

The gunowning public is fractured. You can't expect much from gunowners who are willing to compromise our Second Amendment rights away. We have gunowners who are willing to jump through federal hoops to sell their guns, folks who favor a ban on "high capacity magazines" and even folks who favor an AWB.
thallub is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 10:34 AM   #14
Join Date: October 27, 2010
Posts: 29
jim8115, you should check this out. People are doing things and this Saturday a major event is taking place around the country.
HBoswell is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 11:41 AM   #15
Join Date: January 14, 2013
Location: Great Falls, MT
Posts: 47
As a newer member here, and a younger one aswell, I don't particularly think several people would take my 2 cents for what they are but i'll voice them anyway.

You are posting on TFL forums, they have rules, clearly the staff set those rules in place for a reason so the place they created is a certain way.(They are the site's Founding Fathers)

That being said, whining about threads you couldn't start here is pointless and irrelevant. There are probably hundreds of other places you can talk about those specific things. Taking from another site I know, if you join a site, and then complain about how it's run is just downright dumb, learn2internet.

Finally, since the topic of protesting hasn't been shut down yet obviously it's ok to talk about. I once talked to my representative back in CA and they said other than the sometimes "crazy" ones they get, letters written to their offices are usually about only the 1 in 50+ that feel that way, and that letter represents a larger group of people. So as long as your representative isn't corrupt then your letter IS important, also be encouraged to stand up and peaceably protest any matter you can at any level you can.
bazookajeff89 is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 12:01 PM   #16
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Posts: 5,950

Agree with your post. Especially this...

I, for one, fully understand that the Constitution forbids ratification or enforcement of any treaty that violates the Constitution, so I am not one of the guys who fears the Blue Helmet takeover. OTOH, I also recognize that the MO of many of our political opponents is to pass laws of extremely questionable Constitutionality, in the expectation that the court process will take a long, long time, and require time and treasure from our side.
The lack of respect for our Constitution this administration has, is now, and seems to be gearing up to show is simply astounding.

Far as an out-n-out 'Blue Helmet' takeover , I don't fear that either. At least not in my lifetime. But instead of fearing an outright murder of our 2nd amendment rights, I do fear a slow, painful cancer of them spearheaded by the anti's that show no boundaries in which this administration is deeply embedded.

Obama said "he would do anything in his power" to accomplish stricter gun control. He didn't beat around the bush, he didn't disguise it, he didn't imply he would be willing to do this with a vote of the people on the issue...he said he would use every power his office has to get the job done. That would seem to leave the door fairly wide open as to what he and this administration is willing to do to achieve their anti-constitutional ways. In short, this administration has shown to have the least regards for the Constitution of any prior administration in my lifetime and would not care to re-write the whole thing to adhere to their own appeasement.

Remembering what Obama said about using every power his office is capable of, why then are discussions about these issues and the way this administration may attempt to implement/enforce their new policies deemed as political or conspiracy theories and closed without discussion?

Last edited by shortwave; February 20, 2013 at 01:29 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 12:29 PM   #17
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Location: Stalingrad Connecticut
Posts: 216
Some good points made here,
but sadly ( Here in Connecticut between the locals and Washington crowd)
the deals are already done.. just waiting for the announcements of the new roll outs ....
None of our local or Washington reps have ever publicly
stated their support for 2A. lots of wishy washy statements a few lame emails
but nothing solid. the anti's have the high ground.
**** NRA Life Member *****

Connecticut was the Cradle of the Gun Industry, NOW it is just a Pine Box,
Courtesy of our Governor "Chairman MAO Malloy"
adamc is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 12:33 PM   #18
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Location: Stalingrad Connecticut
Posts: 216
wouldn't a "Million Gun Owner" march
from the viewpoint of the Oman & Biden crowd, DF et. al.
consider this an "uprising" ?
**** NRA Life Member *****

Connecticut was the Cradle of the Gun Industry, NOW it is just a Pine Box,
Courtesy of our Governor "Chairman MAO Malloy"

Last edited by Tom Servo; February 20, 2013 at 03:16 PM. Reason: "Bleeding heart libbies"
adamc is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 02:34 PM   #19
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Posts: 5,950
What are we doing wrong

Is it possible that, as gun owners, we are not standing up for all our gun rights and instead are just willing to stand up for the ones that individually, directly affect each one of us.

Example: I don't even own an AR style rifle. You know, the 'demonic' black rifles labeled by the anti's as 'assault' rifles. Yea, the ones made for killing only.

But just because I don't own one and banning them would not directly affect me in any way, do I still speak up and wright/call my Rep. about the proposed ban on these rifles? Yep!

I was standing at the counter at a local LGS about three weeks ago and there was a discussion going on between a customer and a salesperson. The customer was in the market for a new varmint/predator rifle. He was checking out a bolt action rifle when I walked up.

The salesperson pulled an AR off the rack(that was marked up at a humorous price) and says to the customer, " a lot of guys are using AR's for varmints these days, shoulder this one and see what you think. If you don't have one you ought to buy one before the ban".
The customer replied, "I don't like those kind of guns and could care less if they ban them".

Some may only own one or two handguns. Those pistols may only hold a capacity of under ten rounds. So a magazine ban wouldn't directly affect them. Are they opposed to a higher count magazine ban or could they care less since it doesn't directly affect them?

When it comes to our rights as gun owners, we need to get out of our own little world and realize that just cause I don't own an AR, there are those that do, should have the right to do so and we should ban together to insure the AR owners their rights. Same with other proposed bans that may not directly affect us as an individuals.
shortwave is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 02:44 PM   #20
Join Date: January 14, 2013
Location: Great Falls, MT
Posts: 47
+1 to shortwave

it's a short jump from "Military style Assault Weapons" to any item that is specifically designed to cause the death of anyone by projectile, or however they would word it.

SHALL NOT be infringed is pretty succinct
bazookajeff89 is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 02:47 PM   #21
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 689
The "serious Lexington or Concord" arrived when the President decided to murder (obnoxious) American citizens without a grand jury indictment and trial at the word of a bureaucrat. They are expanding the program into the continental US.

Look at the MSM response to ONE MAN in New Hampshire holding a sign while carrying a holstered handgun during the days before Obama "You'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it" Care was passed. It appeared to me that one is not permitted to exercise First and Second Amendment rights at the same time.

Last edited by Tom Servo; February 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM. Reason: Response to Deleted Post
tomrkba is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 02:53 PM   #22
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,772
Today's "safe" hunting rifle is tomorrow's high powered sniper rifle with military grade ammunition shooting armor piercing bullets.

Tom Servo has posted some great links to the GSVC's view on how since they lost the fight against handguns, then they needed to target "assualt weapons", that strategy isn't confined to semi-automatic copies of Mr. Stoner's little aluminum rifle.

And after the high powered sniper rifles, next will be the pump action shotguns.
NRA Life Member
Ladyfriend: "I need help with the leaves in the yard"
Me: "Controlled burn?"
LadyFriend: "I forgot my Boy Scout turned into an infantry officer."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 02:53 PM   #23
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 618

Thanks for the Day of Resistance link. I didn't know about it. That's part of the problem; we don't know all that's going on.

I was planning to go to Sound of Freedom soon anyway...
"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12.
2017: It's pronounced twenty seventeen.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 03:21 PM   #24
Tom Servo
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,154
The thing to remember is that the gun culture isn't really unified. Glenn and others have pointed that out well.

There are, what, 90 million gun owners? 4 million belong to the NRA. That's 4.4%. Out of those, how many can we expect to take even the most basic of political actions? Ten percent? That puts us at 400,000 voices.

Even those folks can't unify on even the simplest things. Look at debates about Presidential candidates the last couple of election cycles.

I could probably find you 100,000 hardcore antis in this country. Add in another couple hundred thousand who can be easily swayed, and the numbers don't look good so far.
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 10:44 AM   #25
Baba Louie
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,545
While there IS safety in numbers...

Perhaps gunowners should be likened to herding "cats" as opposed to lapdogs.

Very Independently minded and armed, you get a crowd of them together and there will be some major dissent amongst them almost each and every time, up to and including much caterwauling and possibly flashing claws and fangs as they turn on each other.

Definitely NOT a hive minded crowd.

Certainly as a group, a thousand "cats" should best be left alone less they coalesce into the true fury they can muster, which would and will of course upset the lapdogs watching the display. Not to mention the guard dogs standing around ready to "control" them for their masters.

But I could be wrong.
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
Baba Louie is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12210 seconds with 7 queries