Would the pro-RKBA movement be better served by an offensive strategy?


PDA






American By Blood
June 11, 2006, 02:51 PM
I was thinking about this a few nights ago before bed. The American dialogue on guns is currently defined by the antis in both the media and the NGOs. Gun owners are on the defensive against their outlandish control suggestions and are usually forced to compromise for the sake of keeping outright bans at bay.

But what if we went on the offensive and started forcing the antis to compromise? Instead of arguing against the Kennedy ban on centerfire ammo, let's get our guys in office to introduce legislation that would repeal the NFA and GCA. If this sort of legislation gains momentum, it would compel the gun-grabbers to give ground.

Granted, the idea of publicly arguing for legal full-autos may seem nuts to the mainstream right now, but the same thing was said years ago about shall-issue CCW and the majority of the Union has since adopted that model. Indeed, the shall-issue offensive is one of the few examples we have of pro-RKBA partisans going on the attack and it has been a glowing (albeit hard-fought) success.

Obviously, this sort of thing would have to start out at the state level (like CCW) but it could very well build from there. The shall-issue campaign has done wonders to prove that the anti-gun MSM Goliath is as defeatable as the Biblical giant.

Thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Would the pro-RKBA movement be better served by an offensive strategy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gopguy
June 11, 2006, 03:05 PM
Actually there have been attempts to go on the offensive. Roscoe Bartlett introduced a number of bills......that seemed to go no where. There is also an attempt to repeal the DC gun ban languishing on Capitol Hill right now. We need to press our leaders to move these forward.

Barbara
June 11, 2006, 03:09 PM
We've had prime opportunities to do that the past 4 years but not enough gun owners care enough to contribute to election campaigns of pro-gun candidates (not just in collars..in time spent helping get them elected.) Government is run by those who show up. Not enough gun owners, and way too many anti-gunners show up.

I laugh when I hear people talk about organized resistance or what they'll do when the SHTF, but they won't get off their duffs and actually work within the system, when they have every opportunity to do so, so what would make me think they'll do it when they may actually have to risk their butts?

mordechaianiliewicz
June 11, 2006, 03:23 PM
Unltimately, the Republicans get into office, worry that the major media will paint them as "advocating gun violence," and "loosening necessary gun controls," and "Acting as pawns of the NRA."

The Republicans are worried that the Democratic Party will say, "Look, see over there, the 'law and order' Republicans want to get an end run around law and order for 'their' people."

Now, both of these fears are heavily unfounded. The law and order vote is generally pro-gun. And the major media already paint pro-gun Republicans as advocates of violence and pawns of the NRA.

Just the same, the Republicans believe it. And why have a bitter fight with the Democrats where every gained step will use up tons of political capital, when you can expand the fedgov with another budget increase, and have the Democrats only fight you over expanding the budget even more with a pet social program. Guns are thought to be a tough fight (regardless of whether it's true or not), and budgets and taxes are easy.

Only putting hot fire under out Congressmen will cause them to do more with gun issues.

But, to do that, it will have to be fedgov Congress and Senate, as opposed to the states. At this point, other than the handful of gun hating states, most of us have reasonable state laws on guns, and only now, we need the fedgov to back out of what was never their job anyway.

gopguy
June 11, 2006, 03:53 PM
I laugh when I hear people talk about organized resistance or what they'll do when the SHTF, but they won't get off their duffs and actually work within the system, when they have every opportunity to do so, so what would make me think they'll do it when they may actually have to risk their butts?Barbara has a excellent point. There are 60-90 million gun owners in the USA. 4 million are NRA members. GOA and other groups are even smaller.....That is pathetic!

Sad story about one of my best childhood friends. I won't use his real name as he lurks here and would be annoyed by my telling this but here goes. The guy and I have been pals since we were 5. He is a gun owner, in fact he has a nice small collection of about 20 guns. 16 years ago for his birthday I get him a NRA membership. A year later I asked him if he renewed it. He said no in fact they had stopped sending his American Rifleman magazine about 2 months before and he was ticked about it. I was puzzled. He then admitted he was tired of them calling all the time asking for donations and so he told the gal over the phone he was Mr. X's father and that Mr. X had died in a hunting accident...:what: .. I told him well them be ticked all you want that they stopped sending the magazine......they think you are dead stupid.:cuss:

Unfortunately there are too many apathetic gun owners willing to let the rest of us fight the RKBA fights.....we have always done it and they assume we always will. :banghead:

I am the legislative liaison for my gun club here in Ohio. http://www.ccfsa.com/ Every month I give a report on what is going on in Washington DC and in our state capitol. I also tell them about signifigant things going on elsewhere where it effects the RKBA..I give them the address and phone numbers of the folks they need to call to effect change...and I knowing from talking to them damn few follow up....:cuss: Never the less I refuse to give up. Too much is at stake and as a parent I want to preserve the rights and freedoms fought for by my forefathers for my children.

Everyone of us probably has a friend something like mine or like my bulk of my club members. WE all collectively need to put a spike to their rumps and get them moving.

ProficientRifleman
June 11, 2006, 06:00 PM
A simple strategy would be to call a spaid a spaid.

When Mrs. Brady or any of the gun-grabbers lie about their agenda, we should call them liars.

Its simple. "In order to have a safer society, we must reduce gun ownership..." Say it. They are lying! Then site all the emperical evidence to the contrary.

"The NRA wants every school child to carry machine guns..." They are liars! We should call them exctly what they are.

"...accidents within the home..." Sir (Madam) you are a liar. You have a swimming pool in your back yard. I don't think you NEED that pool. You haven't been through Lifesaver training. Your child hasn't been through a year of certified water safety training at the YMCA/YWCA. Your children are more likely to die in a pool accident than a gun related accident.

"Countries which have strong gun control laws have..." There you go lying again. Why do you persist in lying to the American people when you know full well......Rawanda, Somolia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, China under Mao, the Soviet Union under Stalin.....and that is what you sincerely want here in our own country?

We need to stop worrying that they'll call us names. They already do that now and will continue to do so. The gun grabbers are Lying! Lets call them on it!

mordechaianiliewicz
June 11, 2006, 06:05 PM
I agree Rifleman.

The antis have no compunction about using any weapon available to them. Us using your technique would be great.

ProficientRifleman
June 11, 2006, 06:11 PM
I almost omitted the last point.

The gun grabbers are very slick at playing the emotion card, especially for "the children". How many times have you heard, at the end of an anti-gun tirade, the question..."If it saves even a single child's life, wouldn't it be worth it?"

I have a retort. Cite cases where people have defended their homes from invaders, robbers, rapists and murderers. Then repeat the rhetoric back to them...

"If it costs a single child his life...is it really worth it?"

Bartholomew Roberts
June 11, 2006, 06:16 PM
Here are several national bills that repeal current law regarding firearms in several areas:

H.R. 1384 - Repeals certain sections regarding firearm transfer
H.R. 1288/S. 1082 - Repeals the DC gun ban

These bills are already being discussed in this thread here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=204965

The more gun owners get involved, the more success they will see - and by getting involved I mean doing more than voting every four years and sending $30 to GOA once a year (although both still make you more active than many gun owners).

hillbilly
June 11, 2006, 06:16 PM
I'd say that right now, you are whistling Dixie.

If only 4 million of 90 million are actually gung-ho enough to spend a lousy $35 to join the NRA, then you're not gonna get any sort of wide-scale "offensive" for gun rights.

Think about it.

Too lazy and apathetic to spend the equivalent of two trips to Pizza Hut to defend their rights, and you want wide scale offensive political action?

Ain't gonna happen.

Do something you can really accomplish.

Teach somebody to shoot. Take somebody to a range.

Get somebody to join the NRA.

hillbilly

xd9fan
June 11, 2006, 11:20 PM
These groups (all of which I am life members of) lack the same thing the GOP does.......a set between the legs. I would die and go to heaven if the NRA had the Balls to get serious about offense and help intro bills to ban the NFA and the 68 GCA.

It seems the new standard of success the NRA has is "we kissed a$$ no new gun legislation was passed" (no news is good news) well yip yip yahoo. We`need to do this AND break down the old unconstitutional laws. Wayne's got a big mouth. I like him. Wish he would go after these two laws. Where is the Court challenge to the 1934 NFA???? My understanding is that at best its very very weak constitutionally......

I agree with you hillbilly and I get your point....but in the end.....its not enough

AJAX22
June 12, 2006, 12:14 AM
I've thought about joining the NRA, the main reason I havent done so is not the 25$ it was actually a hard decision for me to make. I decided that putting my name on a list could result in more scruiteny than I wanted, I've overheard discussions among liberal groups (I go to a community college in california) about scrutinizing members of the NRA for criminal activities, intentional or accidental which could result in their arrest and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms.

I might have my tinfoil on to tight, but it would be an effective tactic for the gun grabbers to use which would eliminate my ability to effect meaningfull change through my vote.

while I support the members of the NRA, and I have made a few small donations to their cause, I don't feel comfortable putting my name on the membership list.

Standing Wolf
June 12, 2006, 12:17 AM
Those who define he terms generally win the arguments.

As long as we continue to argue defensively, we'll continue to lose.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 12, 2006, 12:21 AM
while I support the members of the NRA, and I have made a few small donations to their cause, I don't feel comfortable putting my name on the membership list.

Look at the data-mining capabilities available to private business... bought any ammo, gun parts, guns, or accessories with a credit card? Buy anything online? Chances are very good that people already know you are a gun owner. The problem with remaining silent is that the wrong people know.

Having the marketer for Dillon, Cabelas and Bass Pro know you own guns does your Second Amendment rights no good. Your Representative and Senator need to know it.

Finally, there are already Supreme Court decisions supporting the right of an organization to withhold its membership list and the NRA does not have a public list of its members.

hillbilly
June 12, 2006, 12:35 AM
AJAX22 wrote:

I've thought about joining the NRA, the main reason I havent done so is not the 25$ it was actually a hard decision for me to make. I decided that putting my name on a list could result in more scruiteny than I wanted, I've overheard discussions among liberal groups (I go to a community college in california) about scrutinizing members of the NRA for criminal activities, intentional or accidental which could result in their arrest and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms.

AJAX22, I'm a college facluty member, and I know, first hand, how hostile some in the collegiate environment can be towards those of us who exercise our rights to keep and bear arms.

But I think you should rethink your reasons for not joining the NRA.

I'd suggest you read these words and think about them some.

The words:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The link

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/DeclarInd

Can you just imagine these men sitting around, saying something like this?

"Oh no, we can't sign this thing. We can't join this cause. Those nasty British might put us on a list or something."

hillbilly

Ieyasu
June 12, 2006, 01:08 AM
We've had prime opportunities to do that the past 4 years but not enough gun owners care enough to contribute to election campaigns of pro-gun candidates (not just in dollars..in time spent helping get them elected.)
Government is run by those who show up
Yep. I see posters on this board complaining how tame the NRA is, yet, even among NRA-elegible voters, only 10% have voted in the last four NRA elections.
I laugh when I hear people talk about organized resistance or what they'll do when the SHTF, but they won't get off their duffs and actually work within the system, when they have every opportunity to do so,
so what would make me think they'll do it when they may actually have to risk their butts?

99% of those posters are only showing their utter ignorance and how little, if at all, they actually participate in the political process. The posters that claim, "they'll never get my guns" are the biggest idiots. There are so many ways to destroy gun ownership other than by direct confiscation. Maybe all those posters are declaring (aside from their ignorance) is that they don't care about anybody else's guns.

greg700
June 12, 2006, 01:23 AM
Sure, if all gun owners were willing to speak up for their rights and insulate each other as a community then absolutely. However, if we continue to isolate ourselves from everyone else simply because we as individuals are not the target of a political attack, then when small groups of people do go on the offensive they lose momentum and get shot down (pun intended).

xd9fan
June 12, 2006, 08:34 AM
hillbilly, you've nailed a major part of the problem.....

RealGun
June 12, 2006, 09:28 AM
Acknowledging that while on the offensive one must protect his flanks (current anti-gun legislation), I think one of the most symbolic priorities should be and remain repeal of the "sporting purposes" clause. That forces acceptance of what RKBA is really all about. Self defense is a different front and very important too.

444
June 12, 2006, 09:41 AM
"I laugh when I hear people talk about organized resistance or what they'll do when the SHTF, but they won't get off their duffs and actually work within the system, when they have every opportunity to do so,
so what would make me think they'll do it when they may actually have to risk their butts? "

You hit the nail solidly on the head.
We commonly have people who frequent this board (and are presumably gun owners) start threads on this board about turning people into the ATF and plenty of others agree with them. We recently had a thread on this board where a guy wanted to contact ATF and report a website that sold a full auto kit for Glocks: and the company was in Germany: and many people on this board agreed with him.
These threads pointed out to me that even gun owners can't wait to cut their own throats. They have bought into the whole liberal dogma. The liberals don't have to come after us, we have our own fellow gun owners ready willing and able to undermine us and then seek praise for there actions on-line from other gun owners................and they succeed in getting it.
They are more than willing to turn other gun owners in to be presecuted for gun related crimes but totally unwilling to do anything to protect our gun rights. They are pawns of the antis. They have been so brain washed by the media and the antis that they are willingly working against us. And these are gun owners. Forget about the rest of the people.


If you want to see an example of what can happen when a small group becomes politically active you only have to look as far as gay rights. In the not to distant past, no one would dare admit to being gay. This was the deepest, darkest secret of their lives. They were looked down upon and reviled at every turn. If it was known that someone was gay, they were frequently the victims of physical attacks. However, today, it is hard to find a TV show or movie that does not portray the gay lifestyle as mainstream. They are also now members of a "protected group". If I ridicule one of them at work, I will lose my job.
So what percentage of the American population is gay ? I don't know but I would guess that the number is smaller than the number of gun owners. But with gun owners, the case is exactly the opposite. We can be freely persecuted and our employers and various governement agencies will encourage the persecution.
The difference is, they were willing to step up to the plate and do something. Gun owners won't lift a finger to promote gun rights. They may come on boards like this and cry the victim, but when it comes to actually doing something about it, they would rather watch a gay TV show.:D

cuchulainn
June 12, 2006, 10:17 AM
I can name five examples of pro-gun offensive actions off the top of my head.

1) The liberalization of CCW -- Yeah, there are those who say there should be no permit required -- and on a philosphical level, I agree. But the fact is that the change is a movement in the right direction. It marks a shift in the public's attitude about the use of guns for self protection. Maybe our kids will see NH-style carry laws nationwide -- but only because we pushed the laws in that direction today by "normalizing" carrying and showing the "blood in the streets" predictions to be bunk.

2) The recent proliferation of proposals for "stand your ground" laws. Some passed this year, some failed. More will pass in future years.

3) The push for "no confiscation" laws.

4) The push to bar abusive lawsuits.

5) The push to generate a body of Constitutional research (especially Stephen Halbrook) on the individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amt.

44Brent
June 12, 2006, 10:28 AM
I've thought about joining the NRA, the main reason I havent done so is not the 25$ it was actually a hard decision for me to make. I decided that putting my name on a list could result in more scruiteny (sic) than I wanted

This illustrates the problem perfectly -- apathetic people like this who hide from their own shadows and refuse to participate in the political process!

leadcounsel
June 12, 2006, 01:27 PM
Here's another angle on the situation.

First, let me say that I am PRO 2nd Amendment to the letter. I fully believe that free men have an inalienable right to ANY firearms they want.

That said... let's consider another angle.

Gun rights take significant pressure when there is gun violence. Meanwhile, when there are periods of little gun violence in the media, gun rights don't take much heat publically. I haven't thought this through, but if select fire weapons were to become legal, the climate of violence might dictate some irresponsible full auto shootings. That might permanently reverse the freedom and also come down hard on all gun ownership.

There might be some wisdom in not working toward getting the full auto bans lifted. The last thing we need are some shady types in a downtown club opening fire.

That said, for the record, I still think we should go on the offensive and get the bans lifted! :)

RealGun
June 12, 2006, 02:27 PM
There might be some wisdom in not working toward getting the full auto bans lifted. The last thing we need are some shady types in a downtown club opening fire.

As long as the police have more effective weapons than the people they work for, you won't win the debate.

Smurfslayer
June 12, 2006, 05:03 PM
Help end the National Parks ban AND help out a fellow THR at the same time :D :D :D :D

In addition to the legislation currently floating around in Congress, the petition to amend National Parks regulations to align them with state law WRT firearms is still active and can use your help. The best part is, it wouldn't require you to spend any money, so you can still buy that next gun or order of ammunition ;)

Getting your Congressional delegation on board will be critical to us being able to drive this through. So, please click on the link in my signature, and get in touch with your congressional offices. Tell them to support VCDL's petition to amend the parks regulations...

If you enjoyed reading about "Would the pro-RKBA movement be better served by an offensive strategy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!