Grassroots "save the assault weapons" campaign.


PDA






.cheese.
September 17, 2007, 07:33 AM
I'm not sure I want to trust the NRA to this. They seem uber-focused on the DC case and on defending whether or not we have RKBA at all (which is in valid need of defense no doubt). However, I worry with that going on, should we see a full scale attack on AW's, which I believe we will - the NRA might (might being all I'm saying) overlook defending AW's just like they did with full-autos in '34. Either they might overlook it entirely, or not dedicate nearly as much resources to it as it would need.

I already give them plenty of money, so I'm doing my part to help avoid that.... but if you guys believe that I might be right here, I'm thinking maybe we can start a grassroots campaign ourselves.

People need to know the truth about AW's. The media of misinformation has people totally confused. I'm amazed that some of what the media does isn't considered criminal.

Anyways, if you agree and think we can do something.... let me know. If not, I won't be crushed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Grassroots "save the assault weapons" campaign." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
September 17, 2007, 08:33 AM
#1--the NRA is not involved in the DC case. It is being pursued by private individuals not related to the NRA.

#2--in 1934 the NRA was not involved in legislation. That did not happen until Harlon Carter's Cincinatti reforms in 1977. Without Harlon Carter the NRA would be a hobby committee in Colorado Springs.

#3--the NRA has been at the forefront in media education with self-loading firearms producing many short films and educational videos from 1989 on. If you want to help, take a reporter shooting.

A grassroots campaign for media education? You might be onto something.

TexasRifleman
September 17, 2007, 10:17 AM
It's clear you mean well but as El T has shown, go into battle armed with fact not rumor.

As for grassroots, everything helps of course, just don't spin this as "NRA isn't doing enough/can't be trusted/let us down before" since none of it is correct.

Gunnerpalace
September 17, 2007, 10:55 AM
Put out the facts and knock one lie after the other out of the park, And make sure you let the NRA KNOW that assault weapons bans are just one step on the road to a total ban, Remember FOPA 1986 and the machine gun "clause".

oldfart
September 17, 2007, 01:19 PM
"#2--in 1934 the NRA was not involved in legislation. That did not happen until Harlon Carter's Cincinatti reforms in 1977. Without Harlon Carter the NRA would be a hobby committee in Colorado Springs."

Weelll, that isn't entirely correct. It is true that the NRA didn't have a political/lobbying arm at the time, but I read recently (somewhere, I can't find it right now) a transcript of testimony of the then-president of the NRA regarding the then-proposed NFA. He was in favor of it and certainly gave the impression that the rest of the NRA was too. That's understandable, since the NRA was made up of hunters and sportsmen then and no one was even considering defending themselves against a tyrannical government or muslim terrorists.
I'll try to find that transcript again.

Here http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp it is.

bogie
September 17, 2007, 03:05 PM
Well, first WE need to quit calling them "assault weapons" or "assault rifles."

6_gunner
September 17, 2007, 03:16 PM
Well, first WE need to quit calling them "assault weapons" or "assault rifles."
Amen! The term "assault weapon" makes me cringe. Am I correct in thinking that "assault weapon" is not an actual category of firearms, but is an arbitrary term placed on certain weapons by anti-gunners? It seems comparable to labeling certain makes of cars as "getaway cars." Also, it is my understanding that "assault rifle" refers only to rifles with automatic capability. Therefore semi-autos based on assault rifles are not truly assault rifles, despite their appearance, right?

Millwright
September 17, 2007, 04:17 PM
6-gunner:

You're right in thinking, "Assault weapon", as currently bandied about by the MSM/anti-gun orgs. is a fabricated term lacking any official military imprimature Created by the Brady Bunch by translating the German "Sturmgehwere" into English - mostly I suspect because it offered the bonus of connection to the Nazis and the weapon linked to the term looked diabolical. This gun, like several others of German design origin served as the basis for a lot of 'bad guys guns' in Hollywood, most particularly in the Sci-Fi genre.

I've long used "military-pattern weapons" to describe, or "MPW" to denote civilian semi-auto arms derived from military arms. BTW, I've often noted to those using the term, the Winchester '73 of Hollywood movie fame is also an "assault rifle" by their terminology.

Basically, "assault rifle" is a deliberate misnomer calculated to elicit/evoke an emotional response in the addressee......which usually overmasters logic and reason in most.....which is the objective of the anti-gun bunch. 'Give'm a lot of simple, emotional buzzwords repeated endlessly, and they won't stop to think.' >MW

bogie
September 17, 2007, 04:23 PM
Remember - "their" spokespeople are generally college educated, and this is pretty much either what they do for a living, or for a hobby...

On the other hand, "our" spokesperson generally seems to be a gun shop commando, with way too much attitude, who dropped out of high school because he couldn't deal with the special ed courses they had him taking...

For starters, we have to educate our folks to STFU unless they are a designated mouthpiece. Teach 'em how to graciously say "sorry, but I don't want to say anything for the news." Of course, that seems to go completely out the window when they walk outta Bubba's Guns and Bait Emporium, and there's the lady from the 6 o'clock news standing there...

'Give'm a lot of simple, emotional buzzwords repeated endlessly, and they won't stop to think.'

Heck, that's the strategy of more than a few campaigns... Keep saying the same thing, over and over, and people come to believe it, whether it is true or not...

Gunnerpalace
September 17, 2007, 04:54 PM
This is what a "Assault Weapon" looks like in the official terms.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Shoulder-launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon.jpg

.cheese.
September 18, 2007, 10:04 PM
#1--the NRA is not involved in the DC case. It is being pursued by private individuals not related to the NRA.

Really? Fair enough if that's the case. I got a packet the other day from the NRA that seemed to be implying that they were getting ready to get fully involved in it. I may have made incorrect inferences though. I will admit I skimmed it.

#2--in 1934 the NRA was not involved in legislation. That did not happen until Harlon Carter's Cincinatti reforms in 1977. Without Harlon Carter the NRA would be a hobby committee in Colorado Springs.

I was more or less referring to what oldfart has pointed out. I didn't mean to imply that the NRA was directly involved in drafting it or anything.


#3--the NRA has been at the forefront in media education with self-loading firearms producing many short films and educational videos from 1989 on. If you want to help, take a reporter shooting.

A grassroots campaign for media education? You might be onto something.

Agreed on point #3. I do very much support the NRA and have been satisfied with their recent efforts.

It's clear you mean well but as El T has shown, go into battle armed with fact not rumor.

As for grassroots, everything helps of course, just don't spin this as "NRA isn't doing enough/can't be trusted/let us down before" since none of it is correct.

Fair enough. I might be a little off with my assumptions and knowledge of history. I'm not nearly as versed in firearm legislative history as many here..... and I do trust the NRA. I basically am just saying, with some type of grasroots movement we could both help, and have a backup plan. I'm not meaning to say that I believe the NRA won't do their best. I just want us to be prepared for the same reason we carry guns..... chances are it won't be necessary, but it's really nice to be prepared.

Jeff82
September 19, 2007, 09:57 AM
Please check out my thread here "Click to recall Joaquin Jackson". In order to have a viable NRA that supports OUR needs we need to police the Board when they step out and away from 1. the US Constitution and 2. established NRA Purposes and Objectives (which are spelled out in the Bylaws).

Thanks, for any assistance you can give!

Jeff

the pistolero
September 19, 2007, 10:13 AM
Remember - "their" spokespeople are generally college educated, and this is pretty much either what they do for a living, or for a hobby...

On the other hand, "our" spokesperson generally seems to be a gun shop commando, with way too much attitude, who dropped out of high school because he couldn't deal with the special ed courses they had him taking...
No matter the extent to which that last generalization is true, I still can't help but find it quite disheartening that anyone on our side would buy into such an ugly stereotype. Not even a college education can hide the ignorance and/or deception that are the antis' stocks in trade. It's there for anyone to see who knows anything about guns -- which, I would think, tend to be those on the pro-liberty side. College education or not, I'd love to see how often antis like Dennis Henigan or Paul Helmke or Bryan Miller have handled or shot, for example, a 1911 or AR-15. I'd be willing to bet money that "gun shop commando, with way too much attitude, who dropped out of high school because he couldn't deal with the special ed courses they had him taking" still knows more about guns than all the '***** at Handgun Control, the VPC and all the other anti organizations put together. And no matter our spokespersons' level of education, no matter how articulate they are, the press will counter them with opinions from anti police chiefs and yet more anti deception. Count on it.

JKimball
September 24, 2007, 09:30 PM
Has anybody here ever seen the media show up at a 3-gun competition? I think they would consider that to be an interesting story and a great way to show some everyday American citizens (or should I say the cream of the crop?) enjoying the responsible ownership of "Assault Weapons." It would be ideal to take some time to teach the reporter some basics in safety and operation and give him or her a chance with each of the weapons on a stage or two. That would rock! What do you think?

Remember - "their" spokespeople are generally college educated, and this is pretty much either what they do for a living, or for a hobby...

On the other hand, "our" spokesperson generally seems to be a gun shop commando, with way too much attitude, who dropped out of high school because he couldn't deal with the special ed courses they had him taking...

For starters, we have to educate our folks to STFU unless they are a designated mouthpiece. Teach 'em how to graciously say "sorry, but I don't want to say anything for the news." Of course, that seems to go completely out the window when they walk outta Bubba's Guns and Bait Emporium, and there's the lady from the 6 o'clock news standing there...

Bogie,

I'm with the pistolero. I was really disappointed with your attitude here. We don't have anything to hide, and it only feeds the anti sentiment when we act like we do. Maybe you were trying to make the point that if a reporter interviews twenty people that come out of Bubba's, the one that will make the nightly news will be the one that had the hardest time articulating a reasonable and coherent opinion on the matter. But from what you said, one could easily assume that you really believe that gun owners on the whole are somehow less intelligent than the antis. And you also imply that you don't respect the opinion of a person that doesn't have a college education.

Well, first WE need to quit calling them "assault weapons" or "assault rifles."

I disagree with that sentiment too. People have latched on to that term and it isn't going away. It only makes it seem like we're trying to hide something when we try to convince people that the guns we want to own are not "assault weapons" in the technically correct meaning of the word. What we need to be doing is educating people, gun owners and antis alike, that the second amendment is all about "assault weapons," and therefore all these weapons that they are trying to label as "assault weapons" are specifically protected by the constitution, and should not be banned by congress.

worker
September 24, 2007, 11:47 PM
.cheese.
I am interested

However I feel as I have to figure out away to do that without exposing
where I live /etc. Because

a) I am afraid of burglary
b) I am afraid of retribution from places of employement
c) I am afraid for being a harrasment target for
various state agencies who might disagree with my point of
view -- and I do not have money for legal services
(unless you are a qualified civil rights and 2nd ammendment lawyer (or know one who would work on pro-bona basis if the need arises))

d) I am afraid of restictions on travel that can be placed on me by other countries that require Visa to entry
(as they always ask what organizations you belong )

.cheese.
September 25, 2007, 09:39 AM
It would be ideal to take some time to teach the reporter some basics in safety and operation and give him or her a chance with each of the weapons on a stage or two. That would rock! What do you think?

I think that's definitely doable and worthwhile.

worker - I wouldn't worry about all of that.

I have an idea as to how to do this thing.... I'll post it when I get home later.

.cheese.
September 26, 2007, 10:10 PM
sorry.... I've been so busy studying for the LSAT (it's Saturday) that I haven't posted my lengthy idea.

As soon as this nightmare (ahem.... I mean test) is over I'll lay out the idea.

Maximum1
September 26, 2007, 10:52 PM
"I'm not sure I want to trust the NRA to this." In YOUR opinion...As for me, I TRUST THE NRA.

.cheese.
September 27, 2007, 09:10 AM
correction to that statement since I made it easy to misunderstand.

I do trust the NRA... (if I didn't there wouldn't be an NRA card in my wallet)

What I was trying to say is that I think we should be prepared for anything that happens. I'm not expecting the NRA to drop the ball..... but at the same time I don't expect to be assaulted with a deadly weapon on the way home from my day.... I still am prepared for that possibility though by carrying.

Similarly, I think we should be prepared if something should happen whereby either the NRA decides not to fight an AWB renewal, or the NRA has invested too many resources in something else going on at the same time to adequately fight such a ban, or to fight it at all.

We all know that we are about to see a storm of gun-related legislation come popping up.

I just want to be prepared.

Even IF the NRA does do everything in its power to prevent an AWB from being renewed, there's nothing to say we can't organize something that would in effect supplement such efforts.

If you enjoyed reading about "Grassroots "save the assault weapons" campaign." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!