So how would you go about starting/funding a 'liberal' pro-gun PAC?


PDA






wooderson
May 3, 2007, 03:13 PM
An organization that donates to Democratic candidates on our side (primarily seeking to influence them in the primaries), and tries to advance a pro-gun viewpoint in traditional liberal/Democratic terms? No taint of Larry Pratt's bigotry, not easily written off as a Republican front like the NRA.

I think it's fairly clear from THR, etc.. that while we are a minority (of both potential Democratic voters and of gun owners), we aren't exactly nonexistent.

But how do we organize?

If you enjoyed reading about "So how would you go about starting/funding a 'liberal' pro-gun PAC?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bogie
May 3, 2007, 03:49 PM
First, you start calling it "progressive." That confuses the heck outta some folks.

Bubbles
May 3, 2007, 03:51 PM
There used to be an organization called "Democrats for the Second Amendment". It no longer exists. Does that tell you anything?

Zundfolge
May 3, 2007, 04:17 PM
Talk to these guys http://www.progunprogressive.com/

The Unknown User
May 3, 2007, 04:25 PM
Our cause would be better suited if we kept away from the political labels.

I'm not a republican, and I want better gun rights. It's not fair to suggest all democrats are decided one way or the other.

The words of a self-proclaimed democratic politician do not necessarily reflect those of the citizens who align themselves with said political party.

DonP
May 3, 2007, 04:34 PM
"... not easily written off as a Republican front like the NRA."

So I guess the NRA should just drop all of its support for Democrats then?

IIRC, This past election season Democrats got roughly 18% of NRA ILA contributions, almost twice what they have received in past elections.

The reasonthe NRA looks like a right wing front is because the left hasn';t given them many people to support int he last 15 years or so. Once upon a time the NRA was truly bi-partisan. JFK and LBJ were both a life members.

The issue isn't changing or replacing the NRA, it's changing the attitudes of the leaders of the Democrat party. Find a national level candidate that is willing to make the bold statement, loud and often, that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting, and you have a chance to change things.

Get someone to tell that kook Kucinich to sit down, shut up and stop trying to launch new handgun bans for the country and it's a good start. Oh, and while you're at it get someone to tell our own Mayor Daley to take a hike.

Keep putting Bozo's like Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich and the rest (Richardson excepted for now) up there and you'll never have the Dems taken seriously by shooters.

It's far from a lost cause, but you have a long way to go and I'm afraid a progressive/liberal 2nd amendment group might garner about as much support as Air America did advertisers.

wjmphoto
May 3, 2007, 04:45 PM
I don't affiliate myself with a political party as they all have things that I disagree with enough to make me not be a member. What I do value is protecting the ENTIRE constitution, not just the parts that I like. Both of the major parties are guilty of trying to desecrate the constitution or ignore the rights that have been granted us by our founding document. Republicans have been more than happy to try and throw out the 5th and 14th amendments and Democrats have generally been gunning for the 2nd for quite a while. What both parties fail to realize is that legislation does not negate our second amendment rights and that is why unconstitutional laws are often overthrown once they go to court. The problem is that it takes time for those laws to finally be tested in court so that we can get back to what the constitution intended rather than having those rights stripped from us through legislation.

What it comes down to is encouraging members of both parties to follow the constitution as their guide rather than legislating according to their beliefs. If they fail to do so, let them know your disapproval of such disregard for our rights by voting them out of office and letting someone else take their place. The last thing we need is another PAC throwing soft money to candidates. What we need is legislative integrity not just another self interest group buying votes. If the people eventually want to make changes to the rights granted us, the constitution provides the means through which to make those changes - amending the constitution itself. Until such time that the 2nd amendment is repealed or changed, any and all laws that the government legislates making guns illegal to own by law abiding citizens are inherently unconstitutional and should be challenged.

Ultimately, if you are that concerned with making change, run for office or get involved in your local or state government rather than try to create another PAC. Even at the local level, you CAN make a difference.

redneckrepairs
May 3, 2007, 04:47 PM
All bs aside IMHO it cannot be done . It seems to be one of the core values of the modern Liberal ( either cap L or small l ) inside the dem party that gun control is a good thing , and anyone who supports otherwise is a shill of the nra . We have reached a point that only extremes get the press and funding . That is life. For myself i see no need of " brady checks " or any of the " gun control " measures in place today , going back to miller in the 30s . If it makes folks feel better then at least it does something , but like the expansion of ccw were it all repealed tomorrow it would not lead to " blood in the streets " . If you feel your a " liberal " and support gun rights , you may need to think a bit and check your " label " because the " liberal " you profess to be likely expired with a sell by date of about 1860 or so and was a republican then . I am not saying give up your ideals , i am saying tho that the " liberal " termonology has been corrupted to the point that its best to find another one .

wooderson
May 3, 2007, 04:54 PM
Our cause would be better suited if we kept away from the political labels.
There's a place for apolitical or nonpartisan groups, hopefully the prime place, but there's also room for partisanship. And partisanship can be productive.

There are, as of now, no organizations that make being pro-gun enticing to potential Democratic politicians. The NRA has given some support Dems, but by and large gives to and works with Republicans and has shown little or no interest in growing support within Democratic voters and potential Democratic voters.

So I guess the NRA should just drop all of its support for Democrats then?

IIRC, This past election season Democrats got roughly 18% of NRA ILA contributions, almost twice what they have received in past elections.
(nb: I'm not a member of the NRA, but I am a member of the Texas SRA)

Which goes to exactly what I said: it can easily be read as a Republican front with token support for Democrats (which is growing and I applaud that) - and only when a Democrat in the general is demonstrably superior to the Republican. Is the NRA funding primary challengers who are pro-gun? How much weight have they thrown behind Bill Richardson? (And let's just say Wayne LaPierre's political history doesn't make any Democrat - politician or voter - comfortable.)

But no, I'm not saying that the NRA needs to be challenged - only that liberals, lefties, Democratic voters and potentials are where the current potential for growth exists (be it shooting sports or 'self-defense' or what have you). And no one is exploiting that potential, isolated outfits like Pro-Gun Progressive aside.

These are people who can't be berated into acceptance as some here advocate, and they're uncomfortable with the NRA and sometimes they're downright hostile to firearms and ammo manufacturers. A voice needs to speak their language to convert them.

Monkeyleg
May 3, 2007, 05:57 PM
Our PAC, the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Movement, gives to members of both parties.

There are many Democrats we've offered to contribute to who've declined, though. None have ever stated their reasons.

Titan6
May 3, 2007, 06:14 PM
I suggest you try the pink pistols. They are all gay and bisexual and most likely liberal as well as pro gun.

antsi
May 3, 2007, 06:19 PM
-------quote--------
The words of a self-proclaimed democratic politician do not necessarily reflect those of the citizens who align themselves with said political party.
--------------------

The official platform of the party has contained anti-gun policies in every election year since I started voting.

I agree there are some individual Democrat candidates who don't go with the official party line on this issue. There are also some rank-and-file members who are pro-gun-rights.

But that does not negate the overall party position on gun rights. You can't write off the Democrats' overall anti-gun stance as just a few loose cannon fringe members going off on their own tangent.

Zundfolge
May 3, 2007, 06:38 PM
...a Republican front like the NRA...

:rolleyes:

The NRA is not a "Republican Front" ... the simple fact that many of you left leaning pro gun folk need to get through your thick heads is that the Democrat party is officially and overwhelmingly ANTI GUN, and of the two major parties, the GOP is the only one even remotely pro gun. THAT is why the NRA seems to be a "Republican Front" because most of the pro gun politicians are Republicans.


Anyway, its the Brady people that are in bed with the hard core religious right with their "God not Guns" drivel. (http://www.godnotguns.org/)

wooderson
May 3, 2007, 06:49 PM
You left out half of that clause:
"... not easily written off as a Republican front like the NRA."

Whether it is or not is irrelevant - it is easily portrayed as such in terms of leadership, public support and monies laid out. As wonderful as it is that they're giving to Democrats in greater numbers, there remains a great disparity and a high hurdle for a Democrat to jump to get the NRA nomination. Nor has the NRA shown a great interest in farming Democrats (who would then challenge Republicans the NRA already supports).

left leaning pro gun folk need to get through your thick heads is that the Democrat party is officially and overwhelmingly ANTI GUN
This, too, is highly debatable and precisely the point.

If you want to grow market share, do you go after the demographic where your product has saturation, or do you go after the demographic where you're underrepresented (or not at all)?

RPCVYemen
May 3, 2007, 06:49 PM
IIRC, This past election season Democrats got roughly 18% of NRA ILA contributions, almost twice what they have received in past elections.

That's actually good news. Though I am a member - for their safety courses, I thought the NRA bigwigs had pretty much accepted becoming little more than a second tier Republucan fund raising PAC.

Is there a web site where we can find out who the NRA ILA funded, and how much each candidate received?

Thanks,

Mike

The Unknown User
May 3, 2007, 06:49 PM
Calling myself a "Democrat" is just a loose way of defining part of who I am as a person. I'm for gay marriage, and for gay rights (same as how I'm for civil rights). I'm for people having the right to an abortion. I'm not saying it's morally right or wrong, but I don't think it's okay to tell someone that they can't do something just because. I'm for fair gun laws, meaning I don't think a ban or allowing anyone to own is good. Making sure guns are legally sold to safe individuals is key.

And most importantly, I'm more people be able to say what they want.

But I don't appreciate the anti-Democrat comments. Would I come in here and make comments about Republicans suck? Absolutely not. That would be offensive.

I'm honestly offended by the comments coming from some of you. If you call yourself Republicans, the entire party should be ashamed of you. You're better than that, and you know it. :D

ArmedBear
May 3, 2007, 07:00 PM
You'd have a VERY hard time finding anyone to support here in California. Democrat = Anti-Gun, with few exceptions. It's different in other states, to be sure.

So, the first challenge would be to come up with a list of candidates you might want to support. Once you have the list, it might be easier to start a PAC, because you could contact others who support those candidates.

ConfuseUs
May 4, 2007, 07:46 AM
An organization that donates to Democratic candidates on our side (primarily seeking to influence them in the primaries), and tries to advance a pro-gun viewpoint in traditional liberal/Democratic terms?


I'd say that's a tough one, since the key Democratic party leadership on the national level is rabidly anti-gun and they aren't going away anytime soon. The problem is that the party is caught in a feedback loop: the anti-gun party bigwigs who consistently get reelected come from parts of the country where voters have never punished politicians for enacting gun control laws. They feel safe proposing such legislation because they know they have nothing to lose by it, and drag the rest of the party along.

Possibly the Western Democrats in Congress reflect a new pragmatism about gun-control in the hinterlands far away from the Democratic strongholds. Whether or not this is the start of a revolt within the party to deprive the gun banners of power remains to be seen. I see it as the glimmering of taking away a Republican wedge issue in some areas. To actually reform the party on a nationwide basis such that gun banning is not an explicit or implicit party plank will take a lot of time, effort, and money.

Bubbles
May 4, 2007, 08:04 AM
Is there a web site where we can find out who the NRA ILA funded, and how much each candidate received?

NRA-ILA shouldn't be funding anybody as it's a 501c4 lobbying organization. The NRA-PVF is the political action committee.

NRA-PVF FEC Filings (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00053553&cycle=2006)

Gun Control versus Gun Rights Expenditures (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.asp?txt=Q01&cycle=2006) - note that gun control groups were outspent 20 to 1 by gun rights groups. NRA aside, the Gun Owners of America PAC outspent the gun control groups combined by 2 to 1.

geekWithA.45
May 4, 2007, 09:26 AM
Hi Wooderson:

In all seriousness, your first move is to identify a source of funding.

(For the purpose of this excercise, I assume you're capable of generating position/mission statements and effective plans up the gazoo, but are helpless to actually implement them sans funding. Been there, done that.)

There's two basic paths to consider:

Grassroots, which is begging for $20 a head from a lot of people, who grudgingly fork it over once in a while, or the sugardaddy route.

The sugardaddy route basically consists of convincing some person or group with deep pockets to bankroll your activities. Sugardaddies come in 2 basic flavors: Insanely rich people, and Foundation money.

I think you're immediately going to run into a set of problems, and you've already hinted at it: The number of actively progun Democrats/liberals/progressivists/whateverists is fairly small, and so that makes the grassroots path pretty thin pickings.

Similiarly, most of the liberal/progressivist sugardaddies like Soros, the Tides Foundation, Joyce etc are already spoken for, and are dancing to the anti gun ideological tune. Or more to the point, they are PIPING the anti gun ideological tune.

It doesn't leave you a whole lot to work with.

I'm not just being reactionary and cynical here. I genuinely look forward to the rehabilitation of the other side of the aisle.

DonP
May 4, 2007, 11:31 AM
"But I don't appreciate the anti-Democrat comments."

I'm not sure it's an unfair critique or "anti-Democrat" when the official Democrat platform includes the phrasing ... "We support the second amendment ... and will work for the restoration of the Assault Weapons Ban and closing the Gun Show Loophole ..."

I think there's something in there about supporting hunting too.

To me that position on the second is what I'd call an Oxymoron.

That reminds me of some Congress critters get all upset and accuse you of smearing them ... by publishing their actual voting records.

I know there are a lot of Dem's that are shooters and good solid gun folk, but the party leadership is still powerfully anti gun and show it every chance they get.

If you doubt that go to any of the popular Dem web sites, start a thread about guns and shooting and watch how fast it either gets shut down, or sent to the Gun Dungeon.

I always hope for the best but I'm afraid the recent driopping of gun control isn't a true change of heart, but a neccessary tactic to win elections and regain power and control.

If you wonder why I'm cynical about the Dems actually becoming more gun friendly, well, I live in Illinois and the Dems already control everything here. So I have an example every day of what happens when they get complete control of a government and it ain't pretty.

Claemore
May 4, 2007, 12:57 PM
Rob87 said:

"Calling myself a "Democrat" is just a loose way of defining part of who I am as a person. I'm for gay marriage, and for gay rights (same as how I'm for civil rights). I'm for people having the right to an abortion. I'm not saying it's morally right or wrong, but I don't think it's okay to tell someone that they can't do something just because. I'm for fair gun laws, meaning I don't think a ban or allowing anyone to own is good. Making sure guns are legally sold to safe individuals is key.

And most importantly, I'm more people be able to say what they want.

But I don't appreciate the anti-Democrat comments. Would I come in here and make comments about Republicans suck? Absolutely not. That would be offensive.

I'm honestly offended by the comments coming from some of you. If you call yourself Republicans, the entire party should be ashamed of you. You're better than that, and you know it."

Offended? Try this for "offended": having an unalienable right, and having some jackass say they are for "fair" laws governing that right. That offends the hell out of me, and is why I would never trust a Democrat. What Rob87 says is how the Demoncrap party line plays. Then he goes and says "You're better than that, and you know it.":fire: Better than what? And it's a line to promote superiority in an argument. In other words, if you believe that the 2nd Amendment should not be compromised you are not quite up to par in this debate. You are better to believe in compromise, or so the Democrats think.

There are no pro-Second Amendment democrats.

Waitone
May 4, 2007, 01:11 PM
I hope you are successful. That said, it will not be easy. First things first. Money and lots of it. First spending will be legal advice and assistance followed quickly by CPA advice and assistance. Then once the ground game is established you can procure funds as has been mentioned above.

Good luck cause we need just what you envision.

Kaylee
May 4, 2007, 01:22 PM
Lets remember to be polite to our fellow forum members, eh? :)

cheygriz
May 4, 2007, 01:31 PM
"True" liberals suppot the constitution. ALL of it!

The so-called "liberals" that oppose it are not liberals at all, they are anti-American, "One-World" leftists.

RPCVYemen
May 4, 2007, 01:32 PM
NRA-ILA shouldn't be funding anybody as it's a 501c4 lobbying organization. The NRA-PVF is the political action committee.

NRA-PVF FEC Filings


Thanks for the web site. I am trying to figure out if the NRA supported Heath Shuler - a pro-gun Democrat who unseated a Repblican in NC last fall.

Heath may be the kind of guy that the oringal poster was looking for - he appears to be well supporrted by unions, and pro-gun.


Mike

Nicky Santoro
May 4, 2007, 02:27 PM
So how would you go about starting/funding a 'liberal' pro-gun PAC?

You save on meeting space as you will likely be able to hold all your meetings in a phone booth.

SamTuckerMTNMAN
May 4, 2007, 02:32 PM
He just bucked the norm here in western NC, I read today he voted against the hate crime bill which would intensify crimes against various groups (gay, minority, whatever) - stating with a great deal of common sense that we already have laws against rape, murder, and assault for everyone.

ST

MudCamper
May 4, 2007, 02:57 PM
I hate both of the big parties, for different reasons. But aside from the gun issue, the Republicans tend to offend me a little more. So I choose to call myself a Democrat. I think it is useful to be pro-gun and be a Democrat, to help break the stereotype - to help other Democrats to start thinking about the issue instead of just spewing the party gun-control dogma. IMO we need to change the Democratic party's position from the inside.

SaMx
May 4, 2007, 03:16 PM
I'm in with mudcamper. I've thought about this subject, but don't think I have the time or money or dedication to see it through. I would call it APGO, the Alliance of Progressive Gun Owners. You could start off as a web based community, with forums, a mailing list where you send out email and snail mail alerts, and a system to raise donations for pro-gun Democrats. Here are some links to pro 2A websites, but none of them have those features.
http://www.progunprogressive.com/
http://www.a2dems.net/
http://www.guntotingliberal.com/
http://www.liberalswithguns.com/

Even if you totally disagree with all Democratic positions, I think it should still be evident that making gun rights a non-partisan issue is good for us all.

If you enjoyed reading about "So how would you go about starting/funding a 'liberal' pro-gun PAC?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!