Can we ever "win"


PDA






Charleo0192
May 20, 2011, 08:32 PM
When I say "we", I mean the people who are pro-second amendment and by win, I mean successfully end the debate between what we see as our right and what they (those that are anti-second amendment) deem is not needed.

To my thought, point, or whatever it is. We already have what we want. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Well not completely, so we do have a some more fighting to do, but that's not what I am getting at. We are defending these rights like crazy though. We lose part of it every so often, and sometimes we may even get a break and get some of it back.

Now if this were a court case, I could be tried for something, but to my knowledge you can only be tried once for the same thing. Meaning if I was tried for murder and found not-guilty I could not be tried for the same crime again unless the charge was changed or (and I could be very wrong about this next part) unless outstanding evidence were to come about and 100% no-doubt about it proved I was the one.

So while it is true that the debate on the second amendment is not a completely the same and it may not even be in the same boat, but is there any chance this debate could end without us, pro-2a, losing.

It just seems wrong to be constantly "tried" over something and know you can never win. That at best you can prolong defeat, whether that means a few weeks, or hundreds of years.

I hope I was understandable as I am not always that great at getting my thoughts out in an understandable way. To finish this up, I hope you find what I wrote to be interesting.

If you enjoyed reading about "Can we ever "win"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rembrandt
May 20, 2011, 08:50 PM
We are winning, look at Supreme Court decisions, laws prohibiting suing gun companies, CCW laws expanding in more states. Gun owners have changed the political landscape to where politicians don't want to take on the gun lobby.....overall, the other side has lost a lot of ground.

Charleo0192
May 20, 2011, 09:00 PM
We are winning, look at Supreme Court decisions, laws prohibiting suing gun companies, CCW laws expanding in more states. Gun owners have changed the political landscape to where politicians don't want to take on the gun lobby.....overall, the other side has lost a lot of ground.
Whos on top at the moment isn't what I was getting at. We are on the defense. We can only do that. Be it defending by attacking their beliefs and opinions, or defending our own. As long as they are willing to fight to take ours away, we are stuck defending.

Simply put, is there a chance we can ever win the debate, or will we always be stuck defending until they manage to succeed?

almherdfan
May 20, 2011, 09:02 PM
The simple answer is no. The debate will never end. That's not just a 2nd amendment thing, though. That's life.

Heck, I can't make my mind up about which pistol makes the best cc--I've spent way too much money and have changed my mind about every 6 months. If I can't agree with myself for more then a few months, there is no way 300 million people will agree for long about anything.

IMHO, the key is too stay away from extreme swings (aka prohibition, internment, AWB, etc.).

Standing Wolf
May 20, 2011, 09:42 PM
As long as they are willing to fight to take ours away, we are stuck defending.

Unfortunately, Charleo0192, you've hit the nail squarely on the head and driven it all the way into the wood. Tyranny never tires.

Rembrandt
May 20, 2011, 09:48 PM
....We are on the defense......we are stuck defending.

Those gains didn't happen by playing defense....they occurred by playing offense. The premise that we are on the defense is flawed. Keeping our rights is an ever vigilant effort that could be eroded if we become complacent.

avs11054
May 20, 2011, 09:52 PM
We are gaining ground, but "winning" is relative. There will always be the people who think "guns kill people." These people are not logical, and there is no way to change their mind.

Shadow 7D
May 20, 2011, 10:00 PM
Yes, we can, but do you really want what it would take???
I'm pretty sure after the Revolution and Civil war, the anti crowd was muted, but....

General Geoff
May 20, 2011, 10:04 PM
All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

It's been that way since the birth of society.

Heretic
May 20, 2011, 10:11 PM
We have to make "anti's" socially unacceptable. Demean them whenever possible. Ridicule them. Make them embarrased to express their illness in public. Let them know they are not welcome in your store/church/home/etc.

Charleo0192
May 20, 2011, 10:34 PM
Those gains didn't happen by playing defense....they occurred by playing offense. The premise that we are on the defense is flawed. Keeping our rights is an ever vigilant effort that could be eroded if we become complacent.
how is it flawed? We can only defend as we aren't trying to gain anything, but rather we are trying to keep what we feel is ours.

LibShooter
May 20, 2011, 11:36 PM
how is it flawed? We can only defend as we aren't trying to gain anything, but rather we are trying to keep what we feel is ours.

But gains are being made. And "we" are trying and succeeding in gaining more.

If we define "winning" only as gun control advocates giving up, folding their tents and disappearing, then we'll never win.

However, more states are instituting concealed carry, others are going to "shall issue." A few are moving toward permitless carrying. Polls show public opinion is limping in our direction.

That doesn't mean we've won... but we are winning.

whalerman
May 21, 2011, 12:46 AM
I don't see that gains are being made. I see the Second Ammendment as only part of the personal freedoms we have, and I do not see us winning a thing. The world is slowly turning in favor of less and less personal freedom. Our national government is becoming more and more part of a world govenment, unwilling to make decisions based on a national interest. What we are now would have been unrecognizable twenty years ago. It has happened because of the loss of control of our school system. Our children do not appreciate the value of freedom. They are taught to comply. With that being the case, how can anyone have an optimistic view of the future of the Constitution? Remember, to liberals, the Constitution is a "living document". Meaning it can mean whatever one wants it to mean at any given time.

Gord
May 21, 2011, 12:53 AM
There is no such thing as "win."

Constitutions can be amended, amendments can be modified, even treaties can be broken whenever it is decided that they are inconvenient or have outlived their usefulness. If you can't do things diplomatically, then you resort to force. Nothing is ever permanent or unchangeable - politically or ideologically.

And so it goes.

Life in general is simply one long battle to hold your ground against others who think that your ideas are wrong and theirs are right. Heck, even the Word of God has been split amongst different groups who derive different meanings - what chance do we normal folks have? :)

whalerman
May 21, 2011, 01:02 AM
It is not a question of winning over others to your "ideas" Gord. It is maintaining an environment where one can make one's own decisions. In other words, maintaining freedom. I'm not worried about the 2nd Ammendment, or even the Constitution for that matter. I'm worried about freedom. The rest will take care of itself. We are losing our freedoms because we have not educated our children on the value of liberty. There may not be such a thing as a total victory. But we will soon learn that there may well be such a thing as a total defeat.

Gord
May 21, 2011, 01:11 AM
I didn't say "winning over" anywhere - my initial phrase was "push back," which I thought might be taken in the wrong context (e.g., that we're losing ground or trying to project our ideas onto others), so it's now "hold your ground."

There is no such thing as a total defeat, either. It is impossible to overstate how powerful a thing the human will is, and there will always be people willing to fight against any odds for what they think is right - whatever that may be.

ArfinGreebly
May 21, 2011, 01:58 AM
Well, I have some good news and some bad news.

The bad news: there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of people who will want to take what's yours, confine you to harmlessness, enslave you to their purposes, and -- as a necessary predicate -- disarm you.

The good news: we are reasonably well indemnified against their onslaught for some period of time by our constitution and the republican governmental structure it creates.

The bad news: the players on Team Tyranny are like dragon's teeth -- they're relentless and and they keep popping up out of the ground.

The good news: our system provides us with the means to fight back, to effectively resist the erosion of our rights.

The bad news: it's expensive, time consuming, and requires organization and brilliance. Right now, we have some funding but need more, we have people putting in the time as permitted by the funding, and we have brilliance, which is a rare enough coin today. We have some organization, but as with any group of individualists jealous of their personal prerogatives, getting them to actually work together is something of a chore. Our organization(s) must be expanded and made effective.

The good news: we're actually making inroads and effecting significant positive vectors for the first time in decades. See the above paragraph for clues on how to improve that.

The bad news: our education and mental health systems are rigged against us.

The good news: there are committed, effective, and active groups currently working to reverse the educational and mental health trends. They're slowly winning back lost ground in literacy and sanity.

So we're making progress in winning back lost ground, and some groups who are beyond the scope of what we discuss here are working to fix the system that supplies the dragon's teeth.

Life runs counter to entropy.

"Winning" is the business of gaining ground against entropy, or at least not losing ground to it.

We're currently winning.

Don't expect the evil, stupid, and lazy elements around us to just give up. Just know that they are there, that they have been there a long time, that they will be with us for quite a while longer, but since evil, stupidity, and laziness are all engendered by miscalculations of one degree or another, realize that making mistakes is baked into the attitudes that drive them.

Yeah, it's a lot of work, but clarity of vision and purpose, unbreakable resolve, and unfaltering persistence will see us through.

Then, of course, the game changes.

Having won our own liberty, it becomes our task to carry that same torch to the people who are still shrouded in the darkness of tyranny.

And then we can wonder, in the fight to bring enlightenment and liberty to them, can we ever win?

soonerboomer
May 21, 2011, 02:29 AM
The simple answer is "NO".
Through our progressive political liberalization and the democratic process, I believe our 2A rights will continue to erode. The reason is the ideology of the emerging younger generations.
I've worked with college students for 12 years, and I visit with them on a regular basis. Make no mistake, they think quite differently than many of us concerning the 2nd Amendment. I see these factors in their perspectives:
1) Most have little to no exposure to responsible firearm use or ownership.
2) Many view guns as evil, and people that own them as criminal or paranoid.
3) Most are urbanized and have no experience or interest in the hunting/shooting sports.
4) Many are pacifist, and believe evil can be overcome through education and diplomacy.
5) Many believe the 2nd Amendment is either irrelevant in the 21st century, and/or that it does not apply to individuals.
6) The vast majority practice and maintain a "sheeple" type of everyday thinking.

Resist Evil
May 21, 2011, 02:34 AM
The good are few, the evil many. Life is whack-a-mole...for both sides. The good and the evil are constantly whacking away as each pops up. The battle between the good and the evil can never be won. As each works to gain primacy, the other does what it can to prevent it. Evil never sleeps, but I think the good do.

whalerman
May 21, 2011, 09:42 AM
"There is no such thing as a total defeat."

Tell that to the Jews as they were filing politely off to the ovens. When freedoms consistantly erode, there is only one place it can end up. We are slowly but surely heading that way. People do not care. More concern is shown when the mall closes early. As long as a loss of freedom does not have an effect on them, people accept it.

M2 Carbine
May 21, 2011, 10:08 AM
Can we ever "win"
No, all we could possibly do is regain our Constitutional rights. Which would be just breaking even.

The other side has nothing to lose, so every time a gun law is passed we lose rights and the other side scores a win.


Since our "enemies" now have control of the Government, schools and news media we have no chance of "winning".

All we can do is try to delay losing everything. Even that won't work because "we" are too preoccupied and lazy to fight our "enemies" effectively.

Heretic
May 21, 2011, 10:45 AM
Why do people carry? Is it to go into the den of theives and clean it out? No, it's to deal with the problem when it comes to us. When enough people start to carry, the theives are afraid to leave their den. We need to cut the cancer of the "anti's" out of society. Will we then be able to rest on our laurels? No, we will always need to stay on guard against a return of the disease.

DON"T BE A VICTIM!

ArfinGreebly
May 21, 2011, 03:08 PM
Since our "enemies" now have control of the Government, schools and news media we have no chance of "winning".

That's not a permanent state of affairs. The remedies are off topic here, but please accept my assurance that this is not a "forever" thing.

It's an uphill climb, and I don't envy those who have volunteered for it, and I wish they could finish the job while I'm still alive, but I have confidence that they will get it done.

In the meantime, don't give up.

Heretic
May 22, 2011, 10:39 AM
The other side has nothing to lose, so every time a gun law is passed we lose rights and the other side scores a win.

That's what I'm saying. We have to give them something to lose. We have to single them out. We have to sue them, and then sue them again. We have to name them, label them, refuse to sell to them, refuse to rent to them, don't let your children play with their children,tell their children why. As long as we tolerate these leftists, we will lose.

Frank Ettin
May 22, 2011, 11:13 AM
When I say "we", I mean the people who are pro-second amendment and by win, I mean successfully end the debate between what we see as our right and what they (those that are anti-second amendment) deem is not needed....As you have defined "winning", the short answer is "no." In any group, there will always be disagreement. For every idea, there will he those who oppose it or don't accept it.

We live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is going to be some "gun control."

There will always be people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There will be people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. There will be some who think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. Some may be willing to go along with private citizens being able to own guns as long as they were regulated. And such people will vote.

We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they still vote.

Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be some level of gun control.

Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.

And I believe that it is vitally important that we understand that we can not expect everything to be resolved once and for all in our favor. It is vitally important because how much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller and McDonald litigation.

Nushif
May 22, 2011, 11:42 AM
You know, I was thinking about this, an endstate, if you will. Here's my take on our "winning" endstate:

A political climate in which 90+% of the populace is either a gun owner or familiar with the realities of carrying a firearm and where there is no real chance of anti gun legislation getting serious thought.

Imagine the anti lobbies getting as much attention as say ... the "socialist" party in these parts.

Now. The problem with this is that it's entirely undemocratic. I hate to say it ... but if we ever did create this endstate we really wouldn't be giving whatever percentile of the population who really is anti gun a fair voice. And that'd be incredibly hypocritical.
As is, I think the "ideal" state is a political climate where carry in one form or another is legal everywhere (as well as attainable) and where the issue of open carry is contested.
Not because I disagree with it, but because it is democratic that we let the populace decide and actually use their power. Because otherwise it's just a tyranny of the (in this case pro gun) masses.

Gord
May 22, 2011, 02:32 PM
And that'd be incredibly hypocritical.

No...?

Democracy works on a 50% +1 system. It pretty much sucks all the way around, but especially for whomever's on the losing side of a debate by virtue of even one single vote.

As long as 2A is a state issue instead of a Federal blanket policy, the anti-gun folks always have the option of moving - just like we do. The political climate was a huge factor in my move out of California in 2007. If they're ever put into that position, then eff them - they can either deal with it or go in search of greener pastures like everybody else.

Nushif
May 22, 2011, 02:38 PM
I guess our schools of democracy are different then.
I personally believe much more in the "representative democracy" model where a percentile of the representatives mirrors that of the voting public's.
A winner take all is indeed a "tyranny of the masses." And as you so nicely said. IT sucks for everyone, especially those not represented.

Gord
May 22, 2011, 04:41 PM
"representative democracy"

gives you gerrymandering, lobbyists and so on. Yeah, you can vote 'em out of office, but will it happen before their damage is already done?

Representative democracy also gives us wonderful things like the 2000 election, where Dubya received half a million fewer actual votes but won on electoral votes (very narrowly). Under the electoral vote system, California is only four points short of being able to equal the entire rest of the western United States; and we all know how often everyone else shares California's point of view on anything...

I'm not saying that I have any better solution, just that I'm not going to cry too hard when it's the antis' turn to be on the receiving end.

Johannes_Paulsen
May 22, 2011, 04:51 PM
Nothing is permanent. We like to think that history is one unending march of progress, but there have been regressions - even in the United States. At the end of Reconstruction, liberty was dealt a blow in the South - it wasn't until the 1960's that African-Americans regained many of the political rights that they used to have. It suffered again in the 1910's when Woodrow Wilson ordered the Federal Government to be segregated.

We're in a good phase right now - the party putatively in favor of gun control had control of the legislature and the executive recently, and they largely sat on their hands on the issue, because like all sensible political animals, they prefer to start fights they can win. In fact, some favorable court decisions came down in the meantime.

Doesn't mean it will always be so. Remain vigilant.

One-Time
May 22, 2011, 05:40 PM
Despite many pro(but really anti) gunners, and the Orgs who claim pro gun but are really pro selves we are currently sorta winning

maganoo82
May 23, 2011, 03:00 AM
Before I post my reply, I want to say it is just what I think and I know not everybody if anybody will agree with me. That being said, here goes.

As far as us getting a "win", no we never will. Unless the people and politicians of this country go back to a constitutional way of thinking. We all know that the constitution and the bill of rights is the basis for our laws, civil rights, and democracy. If our forefathers had not done that we could have just as well ended up as another great britain, or even worse, maybe even a communist state. But guys like jefferson had the foresight to see that coming and put together protection for the new free peoples of america and the country as a whole truly belived in those ideals. The problem now lies with lazyness and greed. The polititians and people of this country now are either too lazy to stand up for whats right and what they belive in, or, too greedy to the point they only stand up and back the constitution when it will benefit them. We have to stand up for the constitution no matter what, whether we like the potential outcome or not because all our rights would be in the balance. Its a give and take. The westboro baptist church is a perfect example. Most people think it was wrong for the supreme court to back them regardless of what the constitution says because of how wrong the actions of westboro are. Personally I am glad the decision was what it was, NOT because I agree with what westboro is doing, but because it gives me hope for the constitution. If they decided otherwise we woulda been screwed, there woulda been the freedom of speech gone so what woulda been next? Damn cryin shame but glad they backed it. We need the country as a whole to go back to a constitutional/right and wrong way of thinking or more than just RKBA will be lost, america will be lost. Untill people stop worrying about what can such and such do for me, and more about what they can do for such and such, it will always be a uphill battle. Kennedy- ask not what my country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Not just a cheesy quote, words we need to live by. People like us just need to stick together and keep working hard to get all the others to see the bigger picture, and not just about the 2A. I still have hope that we can make it happen, in time.

As for westboro baptist, I did fight to defend our rights against all enemies, and they should have the right to their opinion, but I would still like to have a fist to face.....err face to face conversation with all them. RIP to all our fighting men and women that we have lost.

Happy shooting everyone

kingcheese
May 23, 2011, 07:45 AM
to change an antis mind it takes education, most dont want to be educated, so the closest way to winning is keep any more people from becoming anti second amendment


most people who are against the use of firearms have some missconception about the typicall gun owner, and they are as stuburn as we are, so we cant win right now, but if we wait for the older anti gun leaders to fade out, die off, then all that will be left is us

Sky
May 23, 2011, 08:03 AM
Hey look at it on the bright side. When all the battles are won ( never happen G.I.) then life gets kinda boring! Great post guys/gals!

geekWithA.45
May 23, 2011, 08:13 AM
We will always have opponents and their tools, but yes, we can in fact "win".

We win when the vast majority of our society understands, values and practices a robust and vibrant right of arms, when the contrary position is understood to be defective, and those holding it are held in universal suspicion and contempt.

I've seen it on small, localized scales. It's delicious.

M2 Carbine
May 23, 2011, 08:15 AM
to change an antis mind it takes education, most dont want to be educated, so the closest way to winning is keep any more people from becoming anti second amendment

so we cant win right now, but if we wait for the older anti gun leaders to fade out, die off, then all that will be left is us
No, we are the ones dying out.

The new generations in public school have been taught, for some time now, that anything to do with guns is bad. We have all heard of such as 4 year old boys being expelled from school for just pointing their finger at another kid or drawing a picture of a gun.

My friends teen age daughter, who I taught to shoot, came home upset because the teacher is teaching that the 2nd Amendment is "so the military can have guns".

Brainwashing virtually all the country's young, in a captive environment, is a powerful anti gun tool.

And this anti gun "education" continues into college.

ForumSurfer
May 23, 2011, 08:19 AM
successfully end the debate

No.

It is a free country. People have the right to disagree. I only object to their disagreements when it infringes on my right to keep and bear arms.

To my thought, point, or whatever it is. We already have what we want. We have the right to keep and bear arms.

No we don't. Depending on where you are, your right is thoroughly crippled. Whether it may be no open carry, no concealed carry (or conceal carry permits that are impossible to obtain) or not being able to store/transport loaded weapons.

C5rider
May 23, 2011, 08:36 AM
I have several hobbies. Interestingly, each one is in a current struggle with opposing forces that want to abolish, or severely limit the legal activities of those who enjoy them. I'm not talking about severe, extreme hobbies like BASE jumping or anything like that. I enjoy flying R/C airplanes and riding motorized bicycles. Each one has a group that feels that I should NOT be able to enjoy doing such things. Then, I get back into shooting and find out that again, there are those who feel they know better than I about my safety. :banghead:

The thing that frustrates me most is that many of these folks are so "vanilla" that they really don't have anything they're passionate about (other than watching out for what we're doing) so you can't say, "Well, then YOU give up YOUR ......!"

Wonder if these are the same people who camp out in the left hand lane and refuse to get over because "they're going the speed limit"?

Ole Coot
May 23, 2011, 08:54 AM
I don't think we are winning, only on defense. I have learned over the years, in life, combat or just living one cannot win playing defense against constant attacks. It is our right and we are way too passive. I don't believe in being obnoxious, loud and profane yet the "people" who wish to remove our rights are. We can't sit back, we need to press our rights. How? I honestly don't know, beyond me as I have had firearms in my life since birth. Where I live now everyone I know is pro gun. Surely someone can think of a plan to preserve our rights once and for all. It has worked for discrimination of any type by law so why can't we use the same argument? We are discriminated against by our own government. My personal opinion only.

Heretic
May 23, 2011, 02:31 PM
I agree with whats being said here save one. I keep hearing the word democracy. We live in a Republic. A democracy it is said, is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. In a republic, the wolves cannot eat the sheep(regardless of the outcome of the vote),because the sheep has rights.

The answer is simple. Follow the example set by Kennesaw GA. They made a law the compells every citizen to own a gun. I realize that this is not realistic, but is an ideal to shoot for. The closer we come, the better off we will all be. Anyone who absoulutly refuses to own can be invited to leave the country as they are not wanted here. I'm sure they will be welcome somewhere "safe" like england or china.

DammitBoy
May 23, 2011, 02:41 PM
I'll consider we are winning when the 'sporting clause' gets eliminated.

ArfinGreebly
May 23, 2011, 05:28 PM
. . . of repeating myself . . .



The bad news: our education and mental health systems are rigged against us.

The good news: there are committed, effective, and active groups currently working to reverse the educational and mental health trends. They're slowly winning back lost ground in literacy and sanity.

We're currently winning.

Don't expect the evil, stupid, and lazy elements around us to just give up. Just know that they are there, that they have been there a long time, that they will be with us for quite a while longer, but since evil, stupidity, and laziness are all engendered by miscalculations of one degree or another, realize that making mistakes is baked into the attitudes that drive them.

Yeah, it's a lot of work, but clarity of vision and purpose, unbreakable resolve, and unfaltering persistence will see us through.

I know that I tend to get a little long-winded, and I know that this results in some of my stuff not getting read, but I see a trend of defeatism that I think needs a kick in the pants.

We don't have to lose.

We can win.

And, if we commit to it, we will.

earlthegoat2
May 23, 2011, 05:48 PM
No.

Too much money changes hands on both sides of the second amendment table from crooked politicians and pork barrel politics in general.

Pro 2nd amendment people will even change money with antis to further their own agenda.

Simple Politics 101.

Taurus 66
May 23, 2011, 06:49 PM
Can we ever "win"

No, so you must defend what you have or lose it. If you surrender ANY of your Constitutional rights you will lose them all.

Old krow
May 23, 2011, 11:09 PM
Win what? Will we be any more free than we started? In that sense, I'd say "no, we cannot win, but we do not have to lose either." Freedom will always be in a constant state of struggle. The best that we can ever do to to dig in, hunker down, fight, and pass that legacy off to the next generation.

If by winning we simply mean maintaining our state of freedom, or possibly even regaining the lost ground, then yes we can be winning. But, we will never be able to say that we won. As long as we are free, we will be fighting for it!

As for westboro baptist, I did fight to defend our rights against all enemies, and they should have the right to their opinion, but I would still like to have a fist to face.....err face to face conversation with all them. RIP to all our fighting men and women that we have lost.

I believe that THIS is the one of the better examples of freedom. As someone who has taken the same oath I am happy that they have the right to the speak freely and protest the funerals. I am exceedingly happier that groups like the Patriot Guard have that same right and exercise it accordingly. I do not believe that there is a more beautiful example of the First Amendment out there.

No, we are the ones dying out.

It is imperative that do not simply die out. IMHO, this is the battle ground.


The new generations in public school have been taught, for some time now, that anything to do with guns is bad.

This is true, but, I take an active role in my son's education. He may have had a teacher or two, or three, or twelve TELL him just how bad guns are, but I have SHOWN him just how safe they can be.

Cheap&Reliable
May 24, 2011, 12:03 AM
Why would we want to win? If we were to win then there would be no struggle, if there was no struggle then soon the young will take the 2nd and frankly all the amendments for granted. we may win the rights but the younger generations would forget them. The strong movement that is Gun ownership would slowly whittle away. Then when people have forgotten the wonders and the joy of firearm ownership it will take virtually no effort to take away the right. I rather us be on the winning side of the struggle indefinitely than for us to win a future loss. But maybe thats just my inner Libertarian :cool:

azmjs
May 24, 2011, 12:18 AM
We've already won, we won with Heller, and McDonald.

Heller stated that guns shall not be outlawed, because individual ownership of guns for the purpose of self defense, specifically handguns but not exclusively, is a right protected by the constitution.

Patriotme
May 24, 2011, 07:27 AM
Can we ever win?
No. We can however keep fighting the good fight and we can resist the anti gunners.
I don't consider this as disheartening. We can never stop rape, robbery, murder, etc entirely but we can work against criminals. We can have a War On Poverty that lasts decades without success and I won't even go into our education system.
Sometimes you just have to keep fighting for what's right.
The anti gunners are funded by a lot of very wealthy people and government organizations. They have most of the media on their side, our education system and tens of millions of sheeple. They have both private organizations and government officials that work towards gun bans. Even the UN supports their cause.
I don't however believe that the anti gunners are our worst enemies. Those that like their guns and want their 2nd Amendment rights while sending anti gunners to Capital Hill do as much harm as the Brady Campaign, VPC and the AHSA. I consider these gun owners as parasites. They want their rights while finding reasons to justify stripping others of their Constitutional Rights. I know many of these people and sometimes take them to the range. I also listen to them defend Obama (with cult like devotion) and his support for total gun bans in DC and Chicago. I listen to them defend the anti gunners on the SCOTUS and try to justify keeping DC residents from enjoying the same rights that they enjoy.

x_wrench
May 24, 2011, 07:39 AM
Well, we can win the war, but there will always be pockets of resistance, stabbing us in the sides, every chance they get. And unfortuneatly, the largest, most powerful of our opponents is the media. If you can figure out how to stop their insacious whining, you will likely be voted in to the head of the n.r.a.

ZeSpectre
May 24, 2011, 08:09 AM
There's always someone who wants control, or some elitist who thinks "okay for ME but not for Thee".

With that in mind I'll quote myself from a related topic a while back....

Any of us who've been fighting the good fight to protect our rights are subject to what I call "Activism Fatigue". That point at which you are just exhausted, depressed, feel like you are making no progress and that the tide of moonbats and blissninnys is simply endless. You find yourself thinking "so what's the point?"

There are things you can do to help deal with this fatigue, or even avoid it in the first place.

Make a realistic assessment of what RKBA activism really means. If you are looking for a "short and victorious war" you are destined for disappointment. The battle for our rights has been going on for 100+ years. Operating with the realistic understanding that rights activism is like doing dishes or laundry (there will always be more to do) starts you off on the right foot with the necessary "long term view" of the situation.

Focus your energies on a targeted task. Much like washing your car with a pressure sprayer, if you diffuse your energies and attention too widely you aren't ever going to accomplish anything but a "focused stream" works a lot better to "wash off that mud". Pick one "pet" item (as an example, Concealed Carry in National Parks is mine). You can certainly work on other items as well but keep yourself focused and on track.

Define some intermediate "goals". Let's be honest, a complete and across-the-board WIN of the rights war is unlikely in your lifetime. That doesn't mean you can't set interim goals and celebrate your WIN when you achieve those goals. The accumulation of small victories is every bit as important.

Understand that sometimes the point actually isn't to win, the point is to keep the pressure on...constantly.

"Sing in Chorus". What I mean is that no one person holds a long note in a chorus. When one singer is running out of breath and needs to inhale, another singer will pick up (also known as staggered breathing). If you need to breathe don't be afraid to "hand off" to someone else for a bit. Go on vacation, shut off the computer, play with your kids/dog/wife/friends, and then resume the "note" again later when you are recharged. Do this BEFORE you pass out!

Expect setbacks but know they aren't forever. It seems to us like the tide of moonbats and anti-rights types is endless. It can feel overwhelming. But remember, to them it seems like WE are also an endless tide. You are NOT alone in the fight and you do have backup/support (see the "sing in chorus" note).

ZCORR Jay
May 24, 2011, 11:09 AM
As long as there is more than one person on this earth there will be different opinions and beliefs for everything. The debate will never be over because there will always be people that just don't know any better.

Heretic
May 24, 2011, 11:11 AM
We've already won, we won with Heller, and McDonald.

Heller stated that guns shall not be outlawed, because individual ownership of guns for the purpose of self defense, specifically handguns but not exclusively, is a right protected by the constitution.


But I still can't own class III in Iowa, so does it mean anything???

Nushif
May 24, 2011, 11:31 AM
Heller stated that guns shall not be outlawed, because individual ownership of guns for the purpose of self defense, specifically handguns but not exclusively, is a right protected by the constitution.

I think it's things like this where we can create a culture in which carrying a gun in some manner is legal throughout the US.
This *is* a very big step, now we just have to keep working on doing two things, I think:

First we have to acclimatize the public to the notion that an armed citizen is not a danger. And through prolonged and mindful carry practices and exposure to rational gun owners most people do come to accept this. I really think so. Evangelizing won't work here, exposure, exposure, exposure ... until it becomes a matter of fact that people carry guns.

Secondly the big lobby groups (which we clearly don't have in this democracy because only one of those horrid representative sociali- ... democracies has those ... alright, I'm done) need to do their things and capitalize on this court decision. NY, Detroit and all those places need to learn to follow the law of the land. And the law of the land is that while you have to jump through hoops to get to your right you do have the right to.

So really ... we started winning in one arena, but we need to expand on this victory. And also start winning over fence sitters and the occasional un-american socialis- anti.

I think we can do it in a generation or three. If we keep at it and don't become nutter- overzealous. 8) Just gotta keep plugging away at it. An armed citizen is not something to be scared of. And most people will agree, if we as gun owners can prove this to them.

steelerdude99
May 24, 2011, 12:00 PM
Despite Heller/McDonald there is no way to stop local governments, territories, federal enclaves and state governments (such as Chicago, DC and CA) from over regulating Second Amendment rights. As of a month or so ago, DC now has no gun dealers. Chicago only allows one operable gun per home (not garage, outbuilding or outhouse, see http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/12/Handguns-now-legal-in-Chicago/UPI-87331278960901 ) and even then only after training. Lastly CA only allows its citizens to have ‘approved guns’. To be approved, a manufacture must provide a sacrifice gun to be 'abuse tested' of each exact model as the stainless vs. blue model just might perform differently.

chuck

camar
May 24, 2011, 02:34 PM
I do not believe we are winning. We are just keeping our head above water. We are also a dying breed. The younger generation is more interested in computer games and only go outdoors to go to and from the mall.
At our range we use to have a youth shoot for the past 5 yrs. we have less and less participants. My own children are grown and when they were young all the way to adulthood they shot every week. Now, none of them have been to the range for several years. They have lost interest due to work and family commitments. One of my daughter-in-laws is the only one who likes to go to the range. Figure that one out!

I read somewhere(?) that Obama is going to use Executive Orders to get around the 2d Amendment.

Nushif
May 24, 2011, 07:57 PM
We are also a dying breed. The younger generation is more interested in computer games and only go outdoors to go to and from the mall.

Maybe they don't like hanging around with "old people who frown on what they think is cool?"
I know I *love* hanging around with people who don't like what I do, aren't interested in what I care about and judge me based on my generation. You do, too. Right?

I read somewhere(?) that Obama is going to use Executive Orders to get around the 2d Amendment.

Lollercoast.

DammitBoy
May 24, 2011, 08:04 PM
We've already won, we won with Heller, and McDonald.

Heller stated that guns shall not be outlawed, because individual ownership of guns for the purpose of self defense, specifically handguns but not exclusively, is a right protected by the constitution.

Until we get a supreme court ruling that makes the states recognize, "shall not be infringed" we still have a big battle or three to fight.

Nushif
May 24, 2011, 08:06 PM
Until we get a Supreme Court Ruling that actually sets into effect some sort of court order we have those battles. But I do think that the court at least taking a solid stance is a very good first step.
Now all this decision needs is some teeth.

If you enjoyed reading about "Can we ever "win"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!