A new tactic to win the 2nd Amend war..


PDA






TheProf
July 22, 2009, 02:16 PM
Hmmm.... There will be people that we can never convince to support our views regarding the right to bear arms. That said, we can still get those same folks to vote for pro-gun politicians. How???

I noticed that most pro-gun politicians happen to be also pro-life and conservative in their views.

Why not get active in garnering support for pro-life politicians who happen to be also pro-gun?

What I am saying is, even if Mr. Joe Public cares nothing for gun rights, try to win his vote under the guise of voting for a pro-life politician? Even if a person cares little for the abortion debate, the abortion issue may just be the angle that we can use to get people to vote for pro-gun politicians.

What do you guys think?

If you enjoyed reading about "A new tactic to win the 2nd Amend war.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
armoredman
July 22, 2009, 02:25 PM
Totally differant issue, and one known to be divisive. Rather than try to tie the two togther, and rise or fall on Roe v Wade, better to stick to one that is a Consitutional Right. I see your point, but I really have to think it's not as great as idea as it may sound to some. Thanks for the try, thinking outside the box may be what we need.

Loanshark
July 22, 2009, 02:27 PM
Leave the lid on that can-o-worms. Unless you like worms that is!!

DHJenkins
July 22, 2009, 02:29 PM
I don't think the OP is trying to tie the two issues together, but rather manipulate otherwise "non-gun" folks into supporting whatever candidate is pro-gun by bringing up whatever hot-button issue those folks happen to believe in.

Pretend it's not abortion. Pretend it's kittens. If you know someone who really likes kittens, and there is a candidate who is pro-kitten and pro-gun, just bring up the kitten part and forget the pro-gun part.

Extremely Pro Gun
July 22, 2009, 02:32 PM
Interesting position, strange though. Most of the people i associate with already vote conservative. Some of them dont like guns but it doesnt matter. My girlfriend voted for Obama and she likes my guns, and hunts dove with me. (I am slowly working her over to the right :D)

2RCO
July 22, 2009, 02:58 PM
If we piggyback with other issues and those issues lose, we lose as well.

We have the Second Amendment which is pretty clear and defined by the founders of the nation. IMHO any politician that does not support the 2nd is Un-American or really misinformed.

Rather than jumping in with others we need to forget about other issues and get everyone on Board. There are Hardcore Libs that are Pro Gun and there are Hardcore Conservatives that are antis. Also there are many groups such as the Pink Pistols that probably wouldn't be welcome by the mainstream Conservative Right that do alot for the Second Amendment. We need to get together under the Cause of Gun Rights rather than fragment over other differences.

This is what I've been trying to do with the Color of the Second Amendment and the whole wristband idea. We need to rally together and be identified instead of being manipulated and fragmented by groups that don't really have the 2nd's best interest at heart and only use Guns as a way to get votes. There are many Politicians etc. that throw Guns out there as a way to get our vote but don't do a damn thing about it. We need serious organization for serious change.

Sorry for the rant, but then again I'm not!

Raleigh

RedLion
July 22, 2009, 03:02 PM
Well, Most politicians, like senators or even representatives, are elected based solely on the fact that they are the incumbent. So, unless you can change a few incumbents' view, its going to be pretty hard to get enough people in office to actually have an effect.

Plus, you'd be putting a candidate in a position where they can't be affiliated with any party.... so I'd bet, that more often than not in this country, that fact alone will make them lose. Whether its because of lack of funding, or campaigning or because voters don't like it.

JImbothefiveth
July 22, 2009, 03:13 PM
What I am saying is, even if Mr. Joe Public cares nothing for gun rights, try to win his vote under the guise of voting for a pro-life politician? Even if a person cares little for the abortion debate, the abortion issue may just be the angle that we can use to get people to vote for pro-gun politicians.

What do you guys think?
If you look at the data, the groups that are pro-life are most usually pro-gun.

I think you have a good idea though, if you can convince someone to support pro-gun candidates due to the right-to-life issues, the effect is the same.

If we piggyback with other issues and those issues lose, we lose as well. This isn't quite piggybacking other issues. Suppose Candidate A is pro-gun, and candidate B is anti-gun. Mr. Voter thinks he's going to vote for candidate B. He owns a 30-30, and candidate B "hunts, and would't ban those". "Well, you see mr. voter, candidate A is also pro-life, (or anti-tax, or pro-America, or other important issue). "He is? Well, he won my vote"

If candidate A wins, what matters is we have a pro-gun politician, who will vote against gun bans, even if he was put in office because he was pro-life (Or anti-tax, or other important issue)


We have the Second Amendment which is pretty clear and defined by the founders of the nation. IMHO any politician that does not support the 2nd is Un-American or really misinformed. Then we should oppose those candidates, even if it takes other issues to do so.

Rather than jumping in with others we need to forget about other issues and get everyone on Board. For advancing an ideal, maybe. For advancing a political candidate who supports that ideal, no.

There are Hardcore Libs that are Pro Gun and there are Hardcore Conservatives that are antis. That's actually what he was addressing. If you can convince those few anti-gun conservatives that other issues, like the right to life, matter most, they will vote for pro-gun candidates. Similiarly (spelling?) if you convince the pro-gun liberals that the second amendment matters most, they will vote for pro-gun candidates. Also there are many groups such as the Pink Pistols that probably wouldn't be welcome by the mainstream Conservative Right that do alot for the Second Amendment. We aren't voting for "pink pistols for senator". What he's talking about is getting support for pro-gun candidates via other issues. We need to get together under the Cause of Gun Rights rather than fragment over other differences. This isn't about us though. It's about the non-gun voters who can still be convinced to vote for pro-gun candidates for various idealogical reasons.
This is what I've been trying to do with the Color of the Second Amendment and the whole wristband idea. We need to rally together and be identified instead of being manipulated and fragmented by groups that don't really have the 2nd's best interest at heart and only use Guns as a way to get votes.There are many Politicians etc. that throw Guns out there as a way to get our vote but don't do a thing about it. 58 senators recently voted for the Thune amendment. Most of them were put in office for a lot of reasons other than gun rights. If we can support these candidates, we can gain a lot of ground. We need serious organization for serious change. You can't just give up on politics though. No organization, not even the NRA, has a congressional vote.

Owen
July 22, 2009, 05:31 PM
the question is, how many supporters do we lose by openly supporting pro-life politicians?

SaMx
July 22, 2009, 06:48 PM
Yeah, it seems like a bad idea to tie two divisive issues together, as people who support one but not the other would essentially be forced out of the movement.

JImbothefiveth
July 22, 2009, 07:07 PM
the question is, how many supporters do we lose by openly supporting pro-life politicians? None. You'll only be using that particular reason to convince pro-life people to vote for your candidate

Dr. Fresh
July 22, 2009, 07:57 PM
Most people who vote based on that issue are already voting for conservative candidates, many of whom are pro-gun.

I say we try to get liberals on our side, as there's no good reason for them not to be.

JImbothefiveth
July 22, 2009, 08:07 PM
I say we try to get liberals on our side, as there's no good reason for them not to be. What issues are important to them that are usually supported by consevative candidates? Less spending?

Dr. Fresh
July 22, 2009, 08:54 PM
I think the 2A movement should distance itself from its socially conservative base as well.

A lot of liberals I know actually lean toward the libertarian side of things without even knowing. I'm not gonna go on and on about libertarianism, but it is one ideology that tends to play to both sides to some extent.

bigfatdave
July 22, 2009, 09:56 PM
Tying 2a rights to the rest of the so-called "conservative" bandwagon will annoy a lot of Libertarian gun owners.
If candidate A is pro-gun and rabidly anti-gay or a forced-birther...
and candidate B is a moderate on guns and wants more limited government authority on the other subjects...
many moderates would vote for candidate B, and I would go and vote for candidate C (the Libertarian) as usual.

Perhaps we need less authoritarian politicians, rather than attempts to "rally the base" that would drive away moderates.

ohgrady
July 28, 2009, 02:22 AM
Or perhaps the NRA could go to NARAL and NOW and point out that the NRA/gunowners have a supreme court case that isn't about guns, it's about freedom. And then acknowledge they have a supreme court case that acknowledges a woman's freedom. And then they could sign a truce, "we keep our hands off of your wombs, you keep your hands off of our guns."

Come to think about it............I don't want to open up that can of worms either.
Nevermind.

2RCO
July 28, 2009, 02:33 AM
Jimbo it really sounds to me you are trying to get Conservative Politicians elected using Guns.---Already been done to death.

If Guns are the Issue, make it about guns and not other issues.

If we ever want to win this war it will take people from every other group to be on our side. Why ostracize people because of non 2A issues.

MADD didn't try to piggyback with Greenpeace to get drunk driving laws strengthened. They simply went after one issue. If a bunch of Pissed off Moms can fundamentally change the legal system in every state on an issue then we should learn something from it.

Frank Ettin
July 28, 2009, 03:15 AM
Sorry, but i don't think that in any case pro-life is necessarily a winning issue to tie the 2nd Amendment to. Pro-life loses a lot of the woman vote and a lot of the "middle." The thing is that a lot of strong 2nd Amendment proponents already lean toward the pro-life side, so you're not really attracting new votes by linking them. What we need to do is link the pro 2nd Amendment camp to other issues that will galvanize the woman vote and the middle.

hso
August 2, 2009, 01:43 PM
Linking to more socially conservative causes is not the right direction. Broadening the base, not narrowing it, is our route to restoring our rights.

GEM
August 3, 2009, 02:44 PM
Amen to that. Bad idea.

Lou McGopher
August 3, 2009, 02:49 PM
I don't care who gets elected. I don't worry about it. I'm keeping my guns regardless.

blaisenguns
August 3, 2009, 03:00 PM
I think the major flaw with this plan is that you are actually assuming that a candidate will do what he/she says she will do. You cant assume that a candidate will follow through with what they say that they support. First, try not to listen to what they say, and second examine there record. In my mind the only thing that makes a representitive "progun" is there voting record, and are they an NRA member? I dont know much about other issues, but trying to tie things like that together could end up badly. For instance, what if your hypethetical candidate was for the death penalty? The opposition would say: "Look he likes guns and killing people!" which seems to be all that anti-gunners understand.

kingpin008
August 3, 2009, 04:10 PM
Why not get active in garnering support for pro-life politicians who happen to be also pro-gun?

Because I support a woman's right to choose just as much as I support my right to keep and bear arms.

tju1973
August 3, 2009, 04:30 PM
I guess you have to "pick your poison"-- I will not (or try not) get all political, non gun related, but While I have voted Perot, Perot, Bush, Bush, McCain, I cannot say who or what party I will vote for in the future-- I am morally against abortion, but I respect ones right to do with their body as they will-- if the are religious, then they will eventually come to terms with it being right or wrong--

I guess I am really more of a Libertarian, but I tend to vote Republican, as most Republican's espouse at least a semi pro gun stance. Be careful of just sticking to a party-- Heck even one of my heroes-- Ronald Reagan helped pass sweeping anti gun legislation in the 80s...

Gun issues are at the forefront of my picking of candidates lately, but in the future other issues may trump that..

bobotech
August 5, 2009, 04:12 PM
I think the 2A movement should distance itself from its socially conservative base as well.

A lot of liberals I know actually lean toward the libertarian side of things without even knowing. I'm not gonna go on and on about libertarianism, but it is one ideology that tends to play to both sides to some extent.

Bingo.

We need less holding onto the old school conservative values. I'm more of a libertarian than anything else these days. Abortion and gay issues are a minor issue to me. I'm more about the economy and guns.

2RCO
August 10, 2009, 07:17 PM
I'm more about the economy and guns.

I guess we can change the phrase to "It's the economy and GUNS stupid!"

To me it's whatever legal methods it takes to advance the 2A! We should pull no punches and avoid any other issues that hold us back. For the purpose of advancement of Gun Rights I don't care about what you believe on other issues if you Support the 2A you are on our side. As I've said earlier MADD doesn't care if you are liberal or conservative or if your beliefs are Christian, Muslim, or you worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster...A large group dedicated to one cause can do a great deal.

Raleigh

mljdeckard
August 10, 2009, 08:09 PM
And this is a new tactic......how?

30mag
August 10, 2009, 08:10 PM
In the tradition of being a libertarian, I would be pro-choice.
But really, I have a pretty apathetic stance on abortion..
A large group dedicated to one cause can do a great deal.
And you of course need an irrational appeal to emotion, because historically, a appeal to reason tends to not work so well in politics.
hmm...

Diamondback6
August 10, 2009, 08:20 PM
Something like "Bureaucrats and Politicians think you're too stupid to be allowed to defend your family", maybe?

Frank Ettin
August 10, 2009, 10:49 PM
Something like "Bureaucrats and Politicians think you're too stupid to be allowed to defend your family", maybe? ...It's not the politicians.

I frequently hear (or see in print) someone saying something like, "The politicians don't trust me with guns" or "The government won't trust us with gun."

Actually, I doubt that the politicians really care. They live lives so removed from the rest of us, our guns aren't really much of a factor for them personally. What they care about is getting and keeping their jobs.

So what it comes down to is that enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our community, enough of the people in our town, enough of the people in our county, enough of the people in our state, and enough of the people in our country don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with guns, so that politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

We need to remember that a big part of the battle to keep our guns needs to be waged with our fiends and neighbors in our communities. It's not the politicians. It's the people who vote for them.

Diamondback6
August 10, 2009, 11:03 PM
Fiddletown, I was going for the "Emotional Hypodermic"--telling 'em "They Think You're Stupid and You Can't be Trusted". Nobody likes being told they're stupid, and if we can make Target Politician's contempt for all the little pee-on serfs known...

I may wanna leave a fresh deposit of organic fertilizer on Saul Alinsky's grave, but I'm not above stealing his playbook and turning against its intended users...

For example, Open Carry Days are straight from Alinsky's Rule 9: "The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself."

I'm advocating that these bureaucrat's and their political enablers, be subjected to Rule 11: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame."

The problem is, the politicians are supposed to have oversight over the bureaucrats and they're not doing their jobs in it, which makes them just as much of the problem.

The Left shouldn't have gone radical unless they were willing to see others use their playbook against them...

Frank Ettin
August 10, 2009, 11:37 PM
Diamonback, I can see we won't agree. I'm familiar with Alinsky, met and spent a weekend with him many years ago. His tactics worked in part because of the level of grass roots support he had -- armies of students and young people from the middle class bearing the guilt for the successes of their parents and fired-up by a passion for social justice for downtrodden minorities.

We don't have that here. Open carry days will only encourages many of our friends and neighbors who already don't trust us with guns to vote for politicians who will promise to ban open carry.

Many changes agents and tactics are unique to the support group, the time and the issue. Alinsky worked in large part because of his capacity to galvanize significant support that was further primed by the charisma of such as the Kennedys and Martin Luther King. Gandhi's approach succeeded because his adversary was a British establishment for whom popular opinion meant a great deal and which was already exhausted and financially drained from a major conflict and so had no further stomach for a fight.

They were successful with their particular issues at their times and places. That doesn't mean that their tactics would translate to another time, place or issue.

Diamondback6
August 10, 2009, 11:53 PM
I'm not saying we should use exclusively one playbook or another, but we should look at them all and see if we can ID ones that work.

The far bigger, more important point is that when you're dealing with people who "feel" rather than "think", you have to find a way to provoke "feelings" that cause them to see things your way. No matter how perfect your logical case is, it won't make a dent on the emotion-oriented (which I turned one of over to our side in my college days, she was a librarian on campus with a violent ex, and seeing the amount of study I put into understanding the responsibility that comes with the right was an eye-opener for her because of working the feelings angle: "nobody's gonna hurt you on my watch" kind of thing I guess).

We may quibble on details, but I think we both have the same long-term goals--so when I disagree, as we all do at times, I intend it as respectfully so.

----------------
Now playing: John Williams - The Imperial Probe - Aboard the Executor (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/john+williams/track/the+imperial+probe+-+aboard+the+executor)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

leadcounsel
August 11, 2009, 01:52 AM
The best thing I've found is to take people to the range, or gift or lend them a reliable but inexpensive firearm. It's a drug... :)

Frank Ettin
August 11, 2009, 02:01 AM
The best thing I've found is to take people to the range,...I agree. If you can get someone at least somewhat interested in shooting, he becomes less susceptible to the machinations of at least the worst of the anti-gun rhetoric. Give lie to the Brady Bunch excoriations by giving people positive "gun" experiences.

2RCO
August 11, 2009, 02:13 AM
but I'm not above stealing his playbook and turning against its intended users...


If the enemy is a success adapt what you can of their methods and use them.

We have to realize that this is a WAR (politically) for the hearts and minds of all America.
I will do whatever I can legally do to win it. No legal tactics are off limits because the Antis use them. If we could organize 80% as well as the Brady Bunch their wouldn't be places that outlaw handgun ownership + We have the 2A and all they have is flawed logic.

For this to be successful guns have to go from a Conservative Republican issue to an American Issue. We need friends everywhere. I like the NRA and am a life member but they've hitched their wagon too closely to one side of the isle and haven't made headway on the other.

A friend of mine and I are in the works on developing a single issue based lobbying/ information group that will be privately funded and all inclusive when getting the message out. One of the main agendas will be grassroot organizing (rally sponsorship etc.) There are plenty of respectable gun owners out there that need to be seen in the mainstream whose presence alone can help sway the fence setters to our sides.

If you like Fine English Doubles, Millsuros, Plinking .22s, Glocks, 1911s or M2s we are all fighting for the same cause. It doesn't matter what your other beliefs are just that you care about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

conw
August 11, 2009, 02:45 AM
Sorry man, I disagree. Although I became "pro life" within the last 3 years or so, I think that we only stand to reinforce negative aspects of our (pro-gun) image by linking gun rights with ANY OTHER political view (except maybe other constitutional rights, and the prevention of government encroachment in general, which of course they ARE tied in with).

What do I mean by negative aspects of our image? Well, if someone who is pro-choice is undecided and hears "most pro-gunners are pro-life, why not vote for both" he becomes less likely to vote for a pro-gun politician. One of the main reasons, IMO, that people on the left often shun the pro-gun label is because it IS already linked with the socially conservative right.

If we unbind gun rights from other issues, we stand to gain more votes.

isthatajoke?
August 11, 2009, 02:46 AM
I don't think you are correct in saying that "Joe Public" doesn't support gun rights.

Frank Ettin
August 11, 2009, 03:05 AM
I don't think you are correct in saying that "Joe Public" doesn't support gun rights. I think some places, in some numbers, "Joe Public" does support gun rights. But in a lot of places, support for gun rights seems awful thin. If that weren't the case, so many politicians would not be getting elected on anti-gun positions.

JImbothefiveth
August 11, 2009, 08:56 AM
Jimbo it really sounds to me you are trying to get Conservative Politicians elected using Guns.---Already been done to death. I'm trying to get them elected, and it's got a lot to do with me wanting to keep my guns.

If Guns are the Issue, make it about guns and not other issues.
What if Joe Voter doesn't support guns?

mljdeckard
August 11, 2009, 09:30 PM
If the issue were so simple, and everyone saw it that way, no one would be arguing about it in the first place. When in doubt, the government should not interfere.

all4soccer
August 11, 2009, 09:34 PM
The issue is much bigger than the right to keep and bear arms.
It’s about individual freedom.

If you want to link the RKBA to an issue… this is it!

It is you choice to carry a gun. And no one can tell you otherwise. Your neighbor can choose not to carry; that’s his choice.

You can choose to believe in god. Your neighbor can choose not to believe, if he feels it is all a load of supernatural, mystical crap. That is his choice. And you don’t have the right to force him in any way, shape or form.

You do not have to support abortion. Every woman can choose not to have an abortion. But every woman has the choice. It is their individual right, and no one can deny them.

If you want support for the RKBA, then you should support individual freedom – in every form.

Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom….

There’s an idea to sink your teeth into!

rbernie
August 11, 2009, 09:45 PM
We are not going to debate abortion. Find a way to discuss this with that caveat in mind, please.

---

ETA - evidently, we're just not going to be able to discuss this rationally. I am seeing too much outhouse lawyering goin' on, and I'm not of a mind to babysit this thread any longer.

If somebody can figure out a way to start an Activism Planning thread that attempts to link the RKBA with other civil liberties in a way that does not lose focus and devolve into a debate over what IS an appropriate civil liberty - have at it.

If you enjoyed reading about "A new tactic to win the 2nd Amend war.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!