How many "gun activists" protect your sport?


PDA






Monkeyleg
October 10, 2006, 04:50 AM
OK, you can call this a whine if you want to.

Anytime I've ever been able to get out to the range during the week, I find the same two guys there.

One is retired. I think the other one has his mother stashed away in the basement, and is collecting her Social Security (I'm kidding).

Anywho, neither of these guys ever votes. Neither has ever written a letter to his congressman.

Neither has signed a petition for pro-gun causes.

Neither one contributes to the NRA/GOA/JFPO or other organizations to fight particular bills.

They just go to the range.

Just about every day.

There are so many THR members who do so much for pro-gun causes, and these two slugs just ride on our backs.

Please tell me there's a place in the afterlife for guys like these.

If you enjoyed reading about "How many "gun activists" protect your sport?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Spot77
October 10, 2006, 07:35 AM
I know what you mean.

I see the same 25 or 30 faces here in MD doing the bulk of the work, and I could probably narrow that down to about a dozen who truly do 99% of things.

THR has been a good place to get people motivated, but that motivation quickly wears off when people realize how boring and frustrating it is to sit through 10 to 12 hours of legislative hearings just to get snubbed by legislators who have already made up their minds.

Then there's volunteering on pro gun candidates' campaigns. Going door to door in the heat for 6 or 7 hours a day wears you down. Driving all over the state to attend meetings of various pro gun resources, writing letters, emails and sending faxes, making phone calls, researching things on the net, trying to rally the troops, making financial contributions.....it never ends.

:confused:

atek3
October 10, 2006, 09:14 AM
I'll take apolitical gun owner that goes out and teaches one new shooter a weekend over ten NRA/JPFO/GOA supporters. Granted it would be better if they did both, but I'm saying if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the instructor.

atek3

DRMMR02
October 10, 2006, 09:26 AM
Don't count out a person just being a responsible gun owner. Every gun owner that doesn't fit the "fat, camo-wearing, buck toothed anarchist" image the Left has is a chip from the anti's argument. And I would go further and say that it is important even for people who do support the NRA/GOA to not present the wrong image at work or to their neighbors. Your co-workers and neighbors are voters too. Showing the world that normal people can be gun owners can be just as important as any legal action on the part of pro RKBA organizations.

Ben Shepherd
October 10, 2006, 09:34 AM
Hows about a life member of CCRKBA, GOA, and NRA who contributes to SAF and JPFO and theaches 40-50 hunter ed students per month with the occasional NRA rifle,pistol, or shotgun course, who occasionally sits in as an assistant in CCW class instruction?:D

I know what you're saying though. I've actually had people look me in the eye and say "I don't need to do anything, because there are people like you around.":banghead:

Nothing you can do about these types. You just have to keep on plugging away.

Sometimes it gets old, but I WON'T quit.

AJ Dual
October 10, 2006, 10:32 AM
Dick, I think this is true for most any cause. While you're right to bemoan gun-owner apathy here in WI, you've also got a bad case of "the grass is greener".

A 99% silent majority riding on the backs of the 1% that fight actively is true for most any organization. I bet WAVE feels the same way in private. Granted, they've got some advantages with built in constituencies, such as teachers, government unions, grant money from foundations that they have easy access to. Not to mention a friendly media.

However, if anything, we've got the upper hand since we're fighting for something, whereas WAVE and their ilk has to, by definition, to fight for nothing. You've even said that Jeri Boniva or what's-her-name admitted to you privately that this is just about fighting the "RKBA momentum", she knows that CCW won't have a negative impact on violence in WI.

How hard is it to get out of bed in the morning when you're fighting for a lie? The people working toward CCW by definition want that CCW. The people working against it would soon forget, and when CCW passes, after a bit of media hand-wringing, it's "life goes on" for them.

It's frustrating, but if you look at it rationally, the anti-CCW movement has been hanging on in WI by the skin of it's teeth for years now. And since 2000 the PPA's been defeated eleventh hour by one or two turncoats and "dirty tricks" each time. Pulling last-minute miracles out of a hat over and over is not a long-term winning strategy.

Look at it this way, no state has ever scaled back or repealed it's shall-issue CCW law. And with so many states now having it, I have to assume at least one of them has had it's legislature and governorship slip from pro-gun control, and yet nothing's been rolled back.

The anti-RKBA and anti-CCW forces have to defeat us every time, over and over, while we only have to win once. You may be weary, you may not like the timetable, but the advantage is ours.

GEM
October 10, 2006, 10:56 AM
Just a theoretical note- the RKBA is not about 'SPORT' at all.

The Brits and Aussies tried the 'sport' approach to protect guns and it was a dismal failure.

Otherwise, I agree but most gun owners aren't "GUN" owners anymore than they are 'toaster' rights advocates to protect the right to make toast.

Silver Bullet
October 10, 2006, 11:16 AM
I know what you're saying though. I've actually had people look me in the eye and say "I don't need to do anything, because there are people like you around."

Yes and no. My having a gun and CCW does protect the twinkies, because the knowledge that some of the public is armed acts as a deterrent to those who would otherwise be predators. Reference: Chicago and Washington D.C. gun laws and corresponding crime rates.

On the other hand, if someone who I know has been actively trying to undermine the Second Amendment gets attacked, I'm guessing I'm going to be much more reluctant to get involved: I'd be at the receiving end of this blueneck's out-of-control tort lawyers.

Axman
October 10, 2006, 11:33 AM
Maybe these two old men aren't doing anything to support their RKBA, but they are at least excercising the right, that's a start. Also keep in mind that ranges are usually operated by clubs that are involved in NRA type activities. These two old guys may be members of the club.

TimboKhan
October 10, 2006, 12:24 PM
Are they buying guns? If so, then they are doing one of the most effective things possible to support gun rights. The purchase of a gun means more than a letter to a congressman any day.

Spot77
October 10, 2006, 12:31 PM
Are they buying guns? If so, then they are doing one of the most effective things possible to support gun rights. The purchase of a gun means more than a letter to a congressman any day.


Riggghhht......cuz' congress looks at the number of guns in Americans' hands and says to themselves, "Gee, I guess there's a few people who have a lot of guns."

And then the next thought is, "We should pass more "One gun a Month" laws."

TimboKhan
October 10, 2006, 01:33 PM
Spot,

Yeah... not what I meant at all. If you don't think that buying guns and supporting the gun companies is helping to protect your 2A rights, your out of your mind. The gun business is a mutli-billion dollar industry in this country. Every gun you buy contributes to that, and while it is a very infintesimal percentage, every purchase makes the gun companies stronger. Stronger gun companies result in stronger arguments on the parts of all the pro-2A advocates in the trenchs. Example: Gun lobbier A points at increases in sales as an indicator of public opinion being increasingly 2A.

Kind of a basic description of my point, but there you have it.

Spot77
October 10, 2006, 01:56 PM
You can rationalize it all you want, but this:

The purchase of a gun means more than a letter to a congressman any day.

will NEVER be true.


I don't disagree that buying guns helps as a collective measure, but realistically it will never amount to the power of a constituent raising hell to elected representatives.

Bobhwry
October 10, 2006, 05:53 PM
Spot,
Don't think you should judge people if they choose to not get involved in the politics of gun ownership. That's their right and also protected by the Constitution.
I'm an NRA member but I don't respond blindly to all their solicitations, because I don't agree on their approach to all gun related issues. In fact I'm really concerned of late that the NRA is resorting to scare tactics with the membership and creating a crisis where none exists, just to keep the $$$ rolling in!!

SoCalShooter
October 10, 2006, 05:58 PM
I dont personally know anyone like that. But every gun owner I know votes regularily and we usually collaberate to get letters and phone calls made. Its not difficult just requires a little backbone and some time. Its ok if they want to free ride...atleast they are out and shooting and supporting the sport by buying guns and ammo and gun accessories. I dont support everything the pro lobby goes for but I do support most of the logical arguments.

Spot77
October 10, 2006, 06:05 PM
Don't think you should judge people if they choose to not get involved in the politics of gun ownership.

Where did I judge anybody?? :confused:

Or are you just looking to argue with Monkeyleg's description of the fellas at the range because it hits close to home? You got the wrong cowboy; reread the original posts.

Barbara
October 10, 2006, 07:54 PM
Probably not that many. But then again, I don't contribute to the athletic boosters and not much to feeding the hungry, or finding cures for rare medical illnesses or saving pygmy dingos or whatever. Maybe they do. We can't do it all in this world..we find our little niche and do what we can. And we also assume our fellow shooters, neighbors, etc. are doing their fair share of something else, picking up the slack for us.

browningguy
October 10, 2006, 08:13 PM
How many "gun activists" protect your sport?

About 2-3%, it's about the same in any voluntary organization or club, no matter what the organization is about. It's always been that way, and will allways be that way.

JohnBT
October 10, 2006, 08:13 PM
"There are so many THR members who do so much for pro-gun causes, and these two slugs just ride on our backs.

Please tell me there's a place in the afterlife for guys like these."

"OK, you can call this a whine if you want to."

Okay, it's a whine. It's a fact of life as has been pointed out.

Meanwhile, one of those old guys is probably my dad. He's 84, served 4 years and 29 days in the Army Air Force in WWII and spent a lot of it on little islands from New Guinea to the Philippines so guys like you can shoot your mouth off. Enjoy your freedom. :)

I've anted up a little more to cover his part in our fight. He did his part, I'm working on living up to it and doing mine.

Oh yeah, have a nice day.

John

Barbara
October 10, 2006, 08:26 PM
I was thinking that, too. :)

EddieCoyle
October 10, 2006, 08:35 PM
The guys at my club (myself included) are very politically active. We support and belong to organizations like the NRA and G.O.A.L. (http://www.goal.org), and many of us actively campaign for pro-gun candidates. It's not just my club either - most of the gun clubs and dealers in Mass do this. It's a way of life here. We have so few rights left in Mass, we're accustomed to fighting for what we have left.

Some people in the "free" states here like to give us a hard time, but we're on the front lines.

Monkeyleg
October 10, 2006, 10:34 PM
OK, I've listened to all of the arguments above.

Let me just clarifiy one thing: I've approached both of the individuals mentioned in my first post, and asked them to sign petitions. A petition to get a pro-2A candidate on the ballot, at petition to have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms amendment to the WI state constitution on the ballot in 1997...you name it.

Repsonse? Not interested.

This isn't just about CCW. This is about all gun rights for all gun owners.

TimboKhan
October 10, 2006, 11:21 PM
Spot,

It's not rationalization. If you think your congressman actually sits down, reads your letter, and thinks "Oh my! I must get cracking on pro-2A issues", your naive. I don't mean that to be a personal attack, although I guess it won't come across any other way, but national representatives have better (and often times worse) things to do than sit around and read and reflect on constituent letters. Thats what interns get paid nothing to do. Having a best friend who was a intern for a state congressman, I can tell you that most letters get a cursory glance, a cursory reply that "your congressman will look into it", and then get round-filed. If letters are so important, then why do we even need shooting lobbyists like the NRA? If money doesn't talk, then why does the NRA spend massive amounts of it? Buying a gun will ultimately always be a more meaningful response than writing a letter. Frankly, it's also something everyone can do. Not everyone can construct a well-articulated letter that defends their position, and the cold fact is that poorly written letters are ignored immediately.

Finally, let me share with you the story of my elected representative, Marilyn Musgrave. At one point, I was related to Marilyn by marriage (ex-wifes Aunt), so I actually know her personally. On the surface, she is pro-gun, and she very happily beats that drum in this district, which is ag-based and largely rural. In Washington, she has managed to anger every pro-2A group there is by routinely not showing up to vote on 2A matters. She is also not particularly worried about her constituency. In her move to ban gay marriages, this district was about 65% against her bill, yet she pushed on, and I am quite certain that she got a number of letters urging her not to. In this district, which as mentioned before is a largely ag-based community and in fact is very frequently one of the top producing counties in the entire country, she has done very little to help farmers by way of legislation. Again, I know for a fact that she got letters. Sorry Spot, I am sure that we would probably get along famously and agree on a whole slew of issues in real life, but on this one, I just think your wrong.

Spot77
October 11, 2006, 07:35 AM
Sorry your communications with your reps have failed. It works well for me. Maybe because I live five minutes from our Statehouse and can easily visit them, they react better. Most State level reps here in MD keep at least a count of letters for/against any particular piece of legislation. If you think your letters don't work, doesn't that anger you? Why don't you consider paying them a visit? I can tell you that I've had reps cosponsor legislation simply because they were annoyed into doing it. They didn't care one way or the other about the bill, but they HAD to do something. I still don't disagree that that spending money on guns and sundries is helpful, but a $25 donation to a pro gun candidate with a note explaining why you're sending it sure beats the crap out of buying two boxes of .45ACP any day.


And as for people who say that buying guns is enough, and they don't bother to vote, etc (not directed at anybody here specifically), then all I can figure is that those people get the government they deserve.

Edit to add: I reread your post and realized that maybe your basing all of your thoughts on dealings with Federal Legislators. And i agree with you more on that level. However, where do you think those legislators come from? Better to groom them young, at the state level......where I will never agree that buying more guns makes more of a difference than communication.

TimboKhan
October 11, 2006, 08:49 AM
Spot,

I am indeed talking more from the federal level, and I would agree with you whole-heartedly that communication works better on the state level. It does anger me to a certain extent that my federal reps would likely ignore. However, I consider that our two state senators have roughly 4.3 million people that they have to represent, and it makes it a little more tolerable.

I also agree with you 100% on people who don't vote, and I would even go so far as to say that voting is better than buying a gun, and it too is something everyone can do. I fully subscribe to the theory that those that don't vote can't complain...

MM
October 11, 2006, 09:51 AM
The simple fact they are THERE is support enough for me, even tho I am an NRA member and tend to be vociferous regarding the 2nd amendment. They serve as they see fit and JUST DO IT!
SatCong

AJ Dual
October 11, 2006, 10:28 AM
It's just human nature.

A few years back, I think it was the Antigo show way "up 'nort" when I did a shift for the WCCA booth, I had one guy who kept giving me lame answers as to why he wouldn't look up his reps on the map, and write a pro-CCW postcard. His excuses were so weak I kept pressing him. He was a real piece of work, too lazy and self centered to fill out the card, but too polite to just blow me off. It was rather funny in a pathetic sort of way.

I finaly told him, "You've just spent more time arguing with me why you can't do it, than if you'd just filled out a cardů"

That didn't go over too well... :rolleyes: At least it pushed him over the edge until he just walked away.

ZeSpectre
October 11, 2006, 10:55 AM
Takes all kinds.

I'd never do any sort of door-to-door canvasing and such, I dislike it when people show up at my door and won't do it to others. I've written a few letters and such (real paper, not just e-petitions which I think are easily ignored).

Mostly I just have my NRA membership and I try to educate and inform people whenever appropriate.

If you enjoyed reading about "How many "gun activists" protect your sport?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!