[submin]

Hi all.
I’ve been reading up on American military history and the most colorful leaders, in my opinion, are Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson and George S. Patton Jr. Something keeps drawing me to these two and I believe it is the offensive strategy they used to great success. Jackson would get the enemy on the run and would pursue and dog the enemy’ heels until they were defeated. Patton didn’t know the meaning of the words “hold your position” and felt that the only good thing about defensive positions was that it gave the enemy a place to die.
Am I wrong to wish for the same strategies be used against the brady bunch? What I’m saying is that we have a dark history of trying to hold our position and waiting for the antis to hit us and when they do hit us it is to their advantage and we lose every time. Not very smart.
Question. Has the NRA ever adopted an offensive strategy and actually attacked the enemy? References?

Doug

P.S. I'm not trying to attack my own kind; just trying to make sense of things.:confused:

[Lictalon]

Not so humble opinion to follow...

Politics is war, but the rules are not the same.

We are at a distinct disadvantage in this because we do not control how we are portrayed. A liberal press controls how we are presented...and thus, it becomes incredibly necessary to adopt a very soft attitude, lest we play into the easy to believe stereotypes about gun-owners: Aggressive Rambo wannabes, uneducated red-necks, etc.

This is one reason I think it's imperative that anytime someone writes to defend the second amendment, or otherwise presents themself in public, they do so in as proffessional a manner as possible...One reason I cringe when I see militia groups...even if I happen to believe in what they say.

So taking the offensive can be very risky...but we do so anyway. The Reckless Lawsuit premption laws that the NRA has helped to pass are one example...however, I would suggest that this to, has had a backlash. I read an article in the paper recently regarding this, to the general effect of "The NRA backs gun manufacturers to prevent them being responsible for badly manufactured/produced products, preventing them from being accountable to the people."

Accurate? Hell no. Believable? They are sheep...

My .04

[telomerase]

Why must anti-tax groups lose? Why must any pro-freedom group lose? Because the money goes to groups that support government power and subsidies for special groups. People who want the money to stay with the people who made it don't get millions from foundations.

That said, you make a telling point. When was the last time a 2nd Amendment group tried to expand the list of weapons that our owners graciously permit us to have? It's the 21st century, and we aren't allowed to have anything much better than WWII technology (WWI in CA)... even if it's nonlethal.

I can tell you when we will win: when pro-gun people support the rights of drug users, and drug users support the rights of small businessmen, and businessmen support the rights of taxpayers against corporate welfare, and farmers quit depending on subsidies, and the velociraptor lies down with the lamb...

It's probably not quite that hard. But the pro-gun groups are going to have to get significant female support before they can go on the offense. And frankly, the NRA does a lousy job of selling to females. Most of their effort goes to directing the existing male pro-gun vote to Republicans... who then vote and work for more gun control. Even on airline pilots in their cockpits!!

[submin]

By offensive strategy I am speaking in the legal sense. Why would you think I was talking about breaking out the Shermans and howitzers? Jeesh.
What I am saying is that I see no effort by those entrusted by gun owners to reverse seventy years of illegal gun laws until sixteen months before an election. Do you think we are uneducated to the point where we don’t feel like cattle being lead by the nose? Some probably are but this cow is starting to ask questions. Uh-oh. Maybe I should watch my back.
Back on topic, it’s evident that the antis have learned the lessons I spoke of in my original post. They are always on the attack even when they fall back. They hit us from as many angles as they can find. They have an entire network of like-minded organizations gathering money from public donations (some through fraud) as well as Federal and State coffers to throw at us. Very militant. Are we to ignore the success they have achieved by doing what I suggested in my original post?

Uneducated? Yes, but I’m working on that.

Redneck? Definition please.

Militia? The closest I come is an 18 ½" home defense shotgun barrel.

Doug

"Show me someone who doesn't cause any controversy and I'll show you someone who isn't doing anything."-----William Vander Zalm

[Standing Wolf]

A liberal press controls how we are presented...and thus, it becomes incredibly necessary to adopt a very soft attitude, lest we play into the easy to believe stereotypes about gun-owners: Aggressive Rambo wannabes, uneducated red-necks, etc.

The leftist extremists already consider us the lowest of the lowbrows. Making nice with them is like appeasing criminals.

I believe every time a leftist extremist lawyer files a law suit against a firearms manufacturer, for example, the manufacturer and the N.R.A. should file a counter-suit. Every time a state passes yet another example of anti-Second Amendment bigotry masquerading as so-called "law," the N.R.A. should take the state to court.

America respects strength, not weakness.

[Shooter 2.5]

We don't have the votes to go on the offensive.

First, we need to change the minds of the voters.

Second, we need to have more votes for pro-gun candidates so we can elect them.

Third, once we elect those candidates we have to out number the anti's in the Senate.

Then, we can go on the offensive and pass laws and confirm judges for the pro-gun rulings.

So far, we have made major improvement so we have a majority in the House. We don't have one in the Senate. We have a moderate for a President.

If we continue, We can keep the House, get a majority in the Senate and in 2008, we can get a true conservative.

What can happen is everyone sits on their ??? like always. Bush signs the AWB. The hardliners let a dem back into the White House. We lose the pro-gun majority in the House. The hardliners push a Second Amendment case to a anti-gun USSC and we lose the ruling. We become what's happening to Britain in ten years.

[submin]

[Here are a couple of areas where we don’t need a majority in the senate or a moderate (?) President to attack the anti ninnies. Some of the organizations funding the antis collected money for causes other than gun control. Everything from the humane society collecting money to find homes for lost pooches and diverting funds to brady. Federal and State-funded colleges and universities using money taken from tax payers to fund studies that can’t reproduce their findings without their thumbs on the scales. Fish and Wildlife Service illegally using excise taxes forbidden by law to be used for anything other than the promotion of the hunting and fishing sports to finance anti projects.
All we have to do is win some of these cases and many people who donate to causes will be more careful who they donate to. And in the case of the NFWS. Oh my.

Doug

[Khornet]

is what it's all about. As pointed out, all the left organizations are incestuous, and money circulates among them freely. And many govt. lefty outfits, like the legal defense one (LegalDefense Corp.?) and the entitlement administrations use tax dollars to lobby for more funding.

Any outfit which receives govt funds simply should not be permitted to lobby on any matter affecting that funding. Individual members, as private citizens, with their own private funds, should be free to do so as a matter of 1st amdt right, but the organization itself should not. That would go a long way toward leveling the playing field. As it is, we are paying these people to take away our rights.

[Mark Tyson]

We need to attack gun control on a moral/ethical standpoint, not merely point to the 2nd amendment. Expose gun control as the morally bankrupt, ineffective fraud that it is.

[Waitone]

Defunding the left is of utmost priority. A considerable amount of blissninny legislation has provisions for the federal government to pay for lawsuits suits filed in support of the goals of legislation.

Why do you think there are so many environmental lawsuits? The federales are paying groups to file suit in support of the laws they just wrote. Truly a sick system.

[BrokenPaw]

Any outfit which receives govt funds simply should not be permitted to lobby on any matter affecting that funding.This leaves a nasty little loophole, that someone with more ambitions than ethics is sure to exploit.

If you have Outfit A and Outfit B, both of which receive millions in federal funds. Ok, so they're prohibited from lobbying on Issues A and B, respectively, because to do so could affect their funding. So Leader A and Leader B have a private chat, and make an off-the-record, gentleman's[0] agreement: Outfit A will lobby Issue B, and Outfit B will lobby Issue A.

How about this:Any outfit which receives govt funds simply should not be permitted to lobby on any matter. After all, the government has no business providing funds to organizations whose business is trying to change how the government provides its funds.

Better still:Any outfit which receives govt funds simply should not be.[1]There. I've solved the issue. :D

-BP

[0] So to speak.
[1] Except the military. Which would be prohibited from lobbying.

[Glock Glockler]

We need to attack gun control on a moral/ethical standpoint, not merely point to the 2nd amendment. Expose gun control as the morally bankrupt, ineffective fraud that it is

Correct. The language used in the 2nd Article of the BoR lends itself to confusion, and when combined with the clauses in the Constitution that allow the Feds to 'call forth and discipline the militia' it's not a pretty situation for us. Besides, people don't care about the BoR or Constitution, unless it helps them when their butt is on the line, raw utility is the way to go.

Aside from that, we have to 1) stop avoiding the responsibility of jury duty and nullify any unjust law that comes before us. 12 jurors have more power than the President and Congress when they cast their decision, and if juries consistently refuse to convict those charged with bogus crimes the law will have no weight. We also have to educate our brothers in arms to the powers of the jury so that they may see justice done as well. Most people in the country don't know about the power of juries and think that they have to find the defendant as the Judge 'instructs' them, which should be taken as a suggestion at best, and don't know that the people are soverign as the ultimate judges of defendants and the law itself.

[Joe Demko]

Defund the left? Outstanding idea. Let's defund the right too, since the only real difference between left and right in this country is which aspects of our lives they wish to micromanage. One snake, two heads.

[hillbilly]

One of the most effective steps you can take in this fight is to invite someone you know who is either a fence sitter, or anti-gun, to a range.

Make sure that person has a fun, enjoyable time at the range.

Don't debate, don't argue, don't confront.

Just get someone you know who is anti-gun to a range and put a .22 in his or her hot little hands. Give safety briefing, and set up some paper plates or plastic bottles full of water, or whatever safe targets are usable at whatever range you are at.

The more shooters there are, the more people realize the truths about firearms and the Second Amendment.

hillbilly

[submin]

I believe every time a leftist extremist lawyer files a law suit against a firearms manufacturer, for example, the manufacturer and the N.R.A. should file a counter-suit. Every time a state passes yet another example of anti-Second Amendment bigotry masquerading as so-called "law," the N.R.A. should take the state to court.You have hit the bulls' eye. Give that man a cigar.

Twenty years ago only the corrupt or leftist politicians would have thought that tobacco companies would have lost in the twelve figure range. I’m suggesting that the NRA start contacting its membership looking for victims of illegal gun laws (most of the north east), and start portraying them and representing them as plaintiffs. If the state of new york and the anti lobby were swamped with lawsuits by millions of angry plaintiffs instead of only a hand full of Gun Manufacturers, we might get a little more grease. Twenty years from now we might be in better shape. It beats the lay down and lose strategy we use now. This is one reason I think it's imperative that anytime someone writes to defend the second amendment, or otherwise presents themself in public, they do so in as proffessional a manner as possible...One reason I cringe when I see militia groups...even if I happen to believe in what they say. I have the solution for this problem. The Militia should burn the BDU’s and wear only business suits. After all, the city is the true environment of any modern war in which IR tech is the norm. Blend. A fish in the sea. At the least, it might make the enlightened feel better.

"Remember, it isn't only the good old boys who win wars; it's the sneaks and stinkers too"----Winston Churchill

[Partisan Ranger]

Good idea, the above. There is no doubt that in, DC for example, dozens of unarmed people are probably killed each year by the local thugs. They are unarmed because the DC wise fathers have decided that the 2nd doesn't apply in the District. They should have their a##es sued from here to Mars.