I found a way to save your guns


PDA






gunsarebadmmkay
August 5, 2007, 11:34 PM
It's staring you right in the face. You were looking past it all along.

What is the underlying theme you promote with your 2nd Amendment rights? It's freedom, and using the means given to you by this amendment to guarantee freedom.

Well, like it or not, firearms are a semi minor issue, as evident by the fact politicians can get elected on an anti firearms stance, although yes they can also be voted out on the same principle.

Because of this, you as a whole are easy to marginalise.

If you really are all about freedom, why don't your high ups in the NRA find out which other hobbyists and enthusiasts from all walks of life are having their fun/freedom infringed upon and join up with them?

Everybody out there is marginalised to some degree.

Why don't you start a political party called the Americans for Freedom Party or whatever, and band together with people like performance car and bike enthusiasts, people for the legalisation of soft drugs and all others who feel they aren't being heard loud enough.

It would be a way to get more numbers and have a powerful voice representing a **** load of people, because everyone is marginalised to some degree. Why not just call it the Reclaim Freedom Party?

What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "I found a way to save your guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hexidismal
August 6, 2007, 12:01 AM
Hmm..well, I don't know about the hobbyist aspect. How are car and bike enthusiasts related in a direct politaical sense to firearm enthusiasts ?
As far as your BIG and REVOLUTIONARY idea .. there is already a Freedom Party, but maybe more importantly whats supposed to seperate your party from the Libertarian Party which a great many THR members already ascribe to ? I don't really mean offense here .. but this big revalation of yours just seems totally silly. Maybe I don't get it.

gunsarebadmmkay
August 6, 2007, 12:11 AM
Like I mean a movement that focuses on all hobbies and pastimes together, instead of splitting itself up in to all different splinter movements who are all essentially fighting for the same thing, that being freedom to do their thing.

It would be alot more successful. Think of it like when trade unions merge and how much bigger their power and influence becomes.

pdowg881
August 6, 2007, 12:14 AM
Guns are bad, you posted a few weeks back im the L&P forum and started a huge thing with people trying to explain gun ownership and you continued to come up wit more anti gun excuses, eventaully just not responding at all. Unfortuanately I think the thread has been erased with the rest of L&P but it seems like you were just trying to start touble. So I'm not sure what you're up to here but it seems similar.

gunsarebadmmkay
August 6, 2007, 12:27 AM
You're a knob. Sorry my time zone is different to yours and I can't be at a computer 24/7 awaiting your reply. I'll try harder next time.

Anyway.

When people go to vote, say you got John over here who loves his Nissan Skyline with the sub woofer that goes doof doof and the fully sick intercooler, he thinks to himself, "Hmmmm, party A wants to ban guns but is all for relaxing laws on hotted up cars on the streets as long as you are an experienced driver, and party B is for keeping guns, plus all the usual stuff, but has no policy on the cars." Say John is politically aware and thinks guns for the population is good against robbers and foreign invaders and tyrannical governments and zombies but doesn't have a gun himself and isn't interested in them but encourages others to own them, and really loves his car.

Where do you think his vote will go?

For his main hobby but against something else he feels strongly about is where I'd bet.

By dividing yourself up you are playing the games the politicians want you to play, so they can isolate you and get you all bit by bit.

Stand together or watch your guns vanish and fast cars go. Next they will be after your F250 saying it harms the environment too much. Next your fishing rods. You can buy fish at the shop stop harming the environment. You know how it goes.

Or just keep whinging and doing nothing for anyone but your selfish selves and watch everything you hold dear slip out of your fingers and have some very very pissed off grandchildren.

Work together.

pdowg881
August 6, 2007, 12:35 AM
I don't apprectiate being called a "Knob" I don't know what it means but I don't enjoy personal insults. It against forum rules and it's just plain immature. I'm just not sure what you're trying to get at. You say get all these hobbysists together, and get a huge group going. But the fact is that certain hobbyists can have totally different fundemental beliefs. I think the average voter may be smarter than you think and be insulted that they try to cater to your hobby for votes. The fact is that fireams arent a "semi minor issue" because they encompass many beleifs, and trying to lump the issue in as just another hobby and having "hobbyists lobbying groups" isn't that great of an idea. The average person doesn't see gun owners and people who like sports cars as the same people. Just like the you tube devate where the guy who called his gun his baby is a nut, but the guy wo calls his car his baby just means he enjoys it.

gunsarebadmmkay
August 6, 2007, 12:38 AM
You are missing the point.

There are alot of pissed off people who are sick of having their freedoms infringed upon, and by being isolated in to groups of only one interest they are easier to chip away at. Why wouldn't you all work together for common sense's sake?

It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face if you don't work together.

Geno
August 6, 2007, 12:41 AM
gunsarebadmmkay:

"You're a knob. Sorry my time zone is different to yours and I can't be at a computer 24/7 awaiting your reply. I'll try harder next time."

I know what the term "knob" means and I will be requesting a conference with the mods. I think you need to be uninvited...ASAP.

This is The High Road, not the Low Road.

Doc2005

General Geoff
August 6, 2007, 12:43 AM
this "freedom party" you think so highly of already exists. It's called the Libertarian Party.


We're still working on getting people elected under it.

gunsarebadmmkay
August 6, 2007, 12:44 AM
Ban everyone who called me a name too. I never had a whinge. You're a bit precious aren't you? Your attitude tells me you'd make an excellent politician. Elitist.

General Geoff
August 6, 2007, 12:50 AM
The idea behind the High Road, is that you should maintain your own conduct to a higher standard than those who would (and do) insult with the use of name-calling.

Calling someone a knob (or other derogatory term) is not defensible by saying "they started it!"


As an aside, this entire thread reeks of politics, and thus will most likely be closed in short order.

CBS220
August 6, 2007, 12:59 AM
This idea seems to lack merit. The reason that "hobbyists",which is at best underwhelming in how it describes 2A supporters, support pro gun groups is because their guns are not their hobbies. Their guns aren't even the issue- it's their rights that are their issue.

And with that sort of rallying cry, the pro-gun camp is VERY powerful.

There is no reason to band together with muscle car aficionados. There is no common ground, and it would be divisive by nature. One wing of the party wants this, the other wants that, soon you get splinter groups. That's how it has always been in politics.

But, guns are more than a hobby, and I am still not following your logic on why to "band together". Everyone has a hobby, but that does not mean I care about, say, knitting. Then again, knitting hobbyists don't have to worry about their assault yarn being banned. Gun enthusiasts, and simply people with an interest in limited government, do have to worry about such things.

The gun vote is extremely powerful, along with the mobilization that pro-gun groups can get in the ranks. The VCDL is a particularly good one, for instance. Very soon after Vtech, they were auctioning off guns to national news coverage, and it mostly recieved coverage in a positive light. If Van Cleave had stood up and called for less regulations on firearms and public golf courses, it would have been, at best, ridiculous.

Geno
August 6, 2007, 01:00 AM
Agreed. This thread needs closing.

CBS220:

How odd you happened upon this thread. Welcome to The High Road.

Doc2005

CBS220
August 6, 2007, 01:01 AM
In any case, while many people have hobbies that may more or less be affected by regulation to some degree, few if any groups face the extraordinary pressure of pro-2A groups.

And, we explicitly have a right to bear arms. We do not necessarily have a right to street-race on stretches of highway.

gunsarebadmmkay
August 6, 2007, 01:03 AM
You don't seem to be totally getting where I'm coming from or I'm totally incoherent or I lack sense.

What I mean is the gun group isn't that powerful if there are states that have highly restrictive gun laws, and there are people out there who hate guns as well as those who are indifferent and will vote against guns if it gets them something they want, so why not team up with those people and work together. There would be way more people involved and with more people comes more power.

gunsarebadmmkay
August 6, 2007, 01:05 AM
Agreed. This thread needs closing.

Who died and made you King? Seriously. I'm not here for amusement I'm here for intellectual stimulation. If you don't like it don't read it and rack off. Contribute something useful instead of that sort of inane crap. Have a bit of your own medicine.

skinnyguy
August 6, 2007, 01:06 AM
I see certain problems with your proposal. I am an atheist, heterosexual divorced and single father, SUV and pickup owner who does not drink much alcohol, who owns several firearms and I'm not in favor of legalizing soft drugs.

If a new political party comes up that is in favor of half of my lifestyle, and against the half, how does that help me? What happens when this party is in favor of a couple of things my brother likes but against most of his choices, and my neighbor. The party will be split apart from it's formation, and will go the way of the stone hammer.

Basically that already describes the two party system we already have, you can't please everyone all the time, but at least we can identify something close to what they represent by their party affiliation. There are of course exceptions.

Another party is not the answer, reinstating the Constitution which we live under IS the answer.

General Geoff
August 6, 2007, 01:07 AM
gunsarebadmmkay, if you knew anything about American politics, the second amendment and the "gun rights" issue in general are NOT the only thing that a lot of people vote on. It's not that simple. The only reason the gun issue is used as a dividing factor, is because most people are either for- or against guns, with relatively few people who are indifferent, which is more than we can say about most political issues.

Generally, those politicians and individuals who are pro-gun, are also pro-freedom in general. So in a sense, your idea is already a part of the political landscape in the United States.

Who died and made you King? Seriously. I'm not here for amusement I'm here for intellectual stimulation. If you don't like it don't read it and rack off. Contribute something useful instead of that sort of inane crap. Have a bit of your own medicine.

Once again, "they started it!" is not a viable reason to resort to personal insults and attacks.

gunsarebadmmkay
August 6, 2007, 01:12 AM
With the soft drugs issue, I can see easily how you would not be in favour of it, however you really will have to work together to get anywhere. With more fringe groups comes more members comes more political sway.

The party would still have members from each group, a coalition or maybe not, and the members would vote on policy and it is likely to reflect a fairly balanced view anyway isn't it?

IA_farmboy
August 6, 2007, 01:15 AM
Ah, the innocence of youth.

gunsarebad, your suggestion that we all band together to get our rights back is already happening. Sure we can vote out those that want to take our guns away but it's not that simple. Every candidate has a number of issues that they wish to address while in office. The citizens have to decide on which candidate they vote for based on what those candidates say. The citizens must also prioritize those issues that are most important to them since one is unlikely to find a candidate that they can agree on in every issue.

Imagine a farmer concerned over his ability to keep his farm. A candidate promises to build more ethanol plants, crack down on cattle rustling (yes, people still steal cattle and has been a big problem in some places), and open up the borders for meat exports. All of that means the guy has a better chance to find a market for his goods. Now imagine that same candidate promises to ban "assault weapons". That farmer doesn't care about assault weapons, or at least doesn't until he realizes that his hunting rifle falls under the definition of an assault rifle.

Then there is an owner of a toy store. She doesn't care about corn prices or beef markets, but she did see a store across the street get robbed by armed thugs. She's going to vote for that candidate because in her mind all firearms are "assault weapons". She doesn't realize that gun registration, background checks, and banning certain styles of weapons won't keep the outlaws from stealing any firearm they can get. It only keeps her from protecting herself from such thugs in the future.

Some people place ownership of firearms low on their priorities. Others are thinking with emotion rather than logic. A great many people are simply ignorant of the issues and the unintentional consequences.

I also don't think any political party that focuses on a single issue like firearm ownership will not get very far. People on the fringes are attracted to single issue parties. They tend to take things to far and end up not taken seriously. Any candidate that runs under a single issue is unlikely to even get on the ballot since people tend to want their vote to go to someone that will handle many issues like they would.

A candidate or political party that makes an issue out of our rights as citizens may get somewhere. Problem is that once the issue of firearm ownership comes up there are many people, ignorant of the consequences, that think banning all firearms is a great idea and would rather see all our liberties get taken away than see people buy more than one handgun a month.

CBS220
August 6, 2007, 01:15 AM
But we do work together already. That's why we have political parties.

You can't have a party based solely on hobbies. However, you can have a party that represents your beliefs, however widely they may be. You will always have to compromise to a degree, so no one should expect to agree with the democrats, republicans, or libertarians 100%.

However, it is either a go with the "big dogs" decision, or be an independent and lack leadership or a coherent position on issues.

Your idea isn't anything new. You're just suggesting a different political party. While the 2-party system may not be ideal, I doubt the democrats will be usurped by the "hobby and games" party.

gunsarebadmmkay
August 6, 2007, 01:20 AM
It wouldn't aim to be a fringe party, it would aim to be legitimate with in depth policies on things such as trade, environment, health, education, energy, defence as well as the common sense issues of giving trust to the citizenry which current political parties refuse to do.

You can't just give up. Haven't they got them patriot acts and guys in black suits now who can come through and grab your guns if they declare an emergency like they did in the hurricane?

gunsarebadmmkay
August 6, 2007, 01:23 AM
In Australia there is the Shooters Party which gets seats at elections and we once had One Nation which had a huge focus on private firearm ownership and got a hell of alot of votes and scared the hell out of the mainstream parties so much they had to stitch up and get falsely imprisoned the leader of said party.

So if a gun party can go good in sleepy Australia, imagine how good it would work in the U S of A where you have heaps of people stockpiling guns and food for WW3 and the second coming of Jesus.

CBS220
August 6, 2007, 01:24 AM
We don't "give up".

But, we aren't out to reform trade. We may have feelings on the issue, but THR posters are more concerned with their rights.

Oh, and look up the Vitter Amendment for your New Orleans JBTs.

CBS220
August 6, 2007, 01:25 AM
In any case, the political scene in Aus is totally different.

coyote_jr
August 6, 2007, 01:29 AM
ugh I can't believe this went past post #1

The_Antibubba
August 6, 2007, 01:29 AM
FWIW, I don't think it's a workable idea, but I have a great slogan for it:

We must band together before we are banned separately.

gunsarebadmmkay
August 6, 2007, 01:32 AM
That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Zak Smith
August 6, 2007, 01:41 AM
Please review How this forum works. READ THIS BEFORE POSTING HERE! (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=270671).

Also, no personal attacks.

If you enjoyed reading about "I found a way to save your guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!