I want to see more "Dirty Fighting" by our side


PDA






hillbilly
June 17, 2004, 02:51 PM
I wrote a comment on another thread, and to keep from hijacking the thread, I wanted to put my ideas in a more developed thread here.

Basically, I think some gun-rights types get so caught up in a John Wayne-esque ideal of being completely transparent and pure that they ensure their own political defeat, time after time.

My argument is that politics always has been a dirty, rough, at times corrupt game.

I want to see more "dirty fighters" for our side.

For example, I want to see more legislators attaching un-related pro-gun legislation to spending bills, ala the gun banners. Next time an important budget bill comes up, tack on a repeal of the National Firearms Act.

Where are our sneaky, duplicitous, underhanded political fighters?


I think some of us "High Roaders" are more sneaky, duplicitous, and underhanded than we let on.

For example, one of the most sneaky, underhanded, duplicitous things we can all do is take an Anti-gunner to a range and make sure he or she has fun.

The "Honest" and "upstanding" thing to do would be to take every single one of the anti's arguments and present a logical, factual, carefully considered argument against it and patiently try to convince that person of the illogic of his or her positions.

Just about the most sneaky, underhanded thing we can do is to say "To Hell with reasoned argument" and take an Anti to the range and get him or her gleefully blasting away at targets.

Talk about sneaky....................."You don't think we should have guns? Fine. Here's a .22 pistol, and there's a target. These are the safety rules....."

I say let's fight dirty more often.

hillbilly

If you enjoyed reading about "I want to see more "Dirty Fighting" by our side" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BeLikeTrey
June 17, 2004, 02:55 PM
Where are they? I too really think we need a few bills to poison ;)

Foreign Devil
June 17, 2004, 03:11 PM
Are you referring to the debate over the lawful commerce in arms bill? Yeah that was pretty low down dirty.

The problem is guns are just one issue among many. If our side did that they risk the other side doing something equally outrageous in retaliation in unrelated legislation.

I think "take an anti to the range" is the best thing we can do at the personal level. AS it stands these people say "Well I guess it makes sense to ban assault weapons." But once educated the next time someone harps about assault weapons massacring the children maybe they'll say "That's not true. Assault weapons aren't really different from other guns."

DigitalWarrior
June 17, 2004, 03:23 PM
The gun banners can do things like that because they are not crucified by the public for it. Just imagine this Headline: "Gun-Nuts attach amendment to legalize "machine" guns to bill which gets childeren emergency medical care for bullet wounds"

Real story is that the amendment makes it legal to own a pistol in DC (a pistol is a machine) to a budget which includes, among 10,000 other things, emergency room funding.

You see, they have the "best intentions" defense of the blissfully unaware. We tend to take a harsher view of things so that when we do something underhanded, it isn't cuddly like when they do it.

Scene: Small slightly dirty underfed blonde girl (8 years old) standing on a parking lot in a state of disrepair. Weeds are visible in the cracks in the asphalt. They are dying. She is choking on the air, which is thick with a yellowish haze.

Voice: The Kyoto protocol places limits on excess carbon emissions by big industry. Doesn't she deserve it?

brought to you by that group of people who think things would be better if there was no industry at all.

jnojr
June 17, 2004, 03:24 PM
The problem is guns are just one issue among many. If our side did that they risk the other side doing something equally outrageous in retaliation in unrelated legislation.

The other side is already doing this stuff... what could they possibly do in "retaliahat might be worse?

I think the reason we don't see this sort of thing is the political nature of politics. I have a feeling that if you introduce bills that will never get passed or are intended to antagonize certain groups, your political capital falls. I think there's a lot of "give and take", and a lot of perception being more important than reality. If a senator were to attach bills repealing the NFA, GCA, etc. and they never got passed, he would become known as someone who gives the kiss of death to any issue. He wouldn't be able to get other senators to support his bills, and so would never bring any pork home, and so would devastatingly lose the next election.

Feinstein can get away with introducing these amendments because she's been in politics, and then the Senate, for so long she has a certain amount of political capital to burn. You notice, though, that she doesn't tack an extension of the AWB on to every bill in existence.

SodiumBenzoate
June 17, 2004, 04:50 PM
The thing is - our side has always acted with dignity compared to the gun grabbers. I'm not sure I want that to change, even if we will "win" more often.

DesertEagle613
June 17, 2004, 05:44 PM
We just have to be judicious in the kinds of things we attach to other bills. In particular, make sure that the attachment is narrow enough in scope so that we could target particular issues to piggyback on. I mentioned in another thread that it would be great if a California legislator proposed a shall-issue CCW law for rape victims.

We need this kind of focusing in on specific segments if attachments are going to work. Just trying to repeal broad restrictions during every budget cycle will get us nowhere fast.

Lone_Gunman
June 17, 2004, 05:57 PM
I want to see more "dirty fighters" for our side.


Therein lies the problem. You are confused. You think there are politicians out there who are on our side, but for all practical purposes there are not.

Sure there are a few 2nd amendment purists, and these few can be found in both parties, but in very small numbers.

Most politicians are willing to pay lip service to gun owners, then quickly forget about them once they get in office.

I used to think the Republican Party was on our side. Really though they aren't, there just not as much against us as the Democrats.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 17, 2004, 06:04 PM
I used to think the Republican Party was on our side. Really though they aren't, there just not as much against us as the Democrats.

You are making a common mistake. The Republicans are our allies, not our friends. There is a big difference in that distinction; but an important one.

The Republicans want to be elected to office and we want more liberty. We each have something we can trade; but most Republicans will sell us out as soon as we no longer have anything to trade (votes). The reason people get bitter when they vote for the Republicans and there isn't sudden immediate change is that they forget this point. Want more change? Then bring more votes to trade...

The Democrats sadly are neither friends nor allies; but our enemies (with few exceptions). They want our votes; but don't want to give anything in trade for them.

Lone_Gunman
June 17, 2004, 06:17 PM
Bartholomew, I would agree with that mostly, but over time I have seen more and more Republicans move from ally status to enemy status... the so-called RINOs like McCain and Schwarzenegger (?sp).

Over time, I think they are becoming more and more like the Democrats.

Monkeyleg
June 17, 2004, 06:33 PM
You don't have to get down in the mud to fight. Sometimes you just have to do a little research (Jim March is a great example of that strategy).

During the CCW debate, one anti-gun group was giving us trouble. I did a little digging and found that they're largely funded through their 501(c)(3) "educational" fund. Well, they were using paid employees of a tax-exempt fund to lobby against our bill. A call to the right people at the state capitol, and things are rolling along nicely. ;)

Bruce H
June 17, 2004, 07:29 PM
Yep it is great fun to fight with diginty. Get your A** handed to you time and again but look good doing it. Fight them on their turf with their rules. If the firearms owners and collectors side wins nothing much really changes. If the opposition wins people will die. It isn't about cotton candy, cute puppies, and pretty girls. It is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Standing Wolf
June 17, 2004, 09:24 PM
Where are our sneaky, duplicitous, underhanded political fighters?

Say what you will about representatives of the Democratic (sic) party, you've got to admit they're the only politicians with enough courage to fight. The Republicans are all hiding under their beds in case the polls indicate people don't respect them.

Moparmike
June 17, 2004, 09:46 PM
We dont need to fight them on their turf with their rules.



We need to take back our God-forsaken turf and use our God-forsaken terms and our God-forsaken rules. Its OUR God-forsaken hobby and sport, not theirs.

Fight them with the truth, and DO IT LOUDLY, AND PROUDLY. This NRA mouse-whispering crap has got to go, and I think they are starting to realize it. Sure as hell does take a long time for them to get spooled up though.

You don't win a football game by playing with the NBA rulebook.:fire:

Mulliga
June 18, 2004, 12:51 AM
There are relatively few hardcore RKBA politicans - just like there are relatively few truly pro-gun shooters.

Many (maybe even most) of our Republican "allies" would sell us out fast, and obviously the RINOs (McCain, Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger, etc.) have already been doing so, as well as other conservatives who simply aren't that pro-gun, including President Bush. While there are a modest number of pro-gun Democrats, they obviously have little effect on the Democratic leadership, which, as was demonstrated in that "Four Horseman of the Apocalypse" photo after the S.1805 vote, are overwhelmingly anti-gun (Clinton, Feinswine, etc.).

I don't mind the "dirty fighting" - I just wish we had more people to fight in the first place.

txgho1911
June 18, 2004, 01:32 AM
Don't forget,
RKBA = right to keep and bare arms
shall not be infringed
The rights recognized by the constitution and BOR and nothing less.
We don't need any gun control. We need crime controll. To do that we also need more people actively shooting, carrying and prepared for self defence and 2a purposes. This line in the BOR is not about hunting or target shooting.
This will take decades and generations to re-educate people on a wide scale and range to their humane rights.
Or TSHTF and people will hold special elections. If the grabers don't grab them first.

Harry Tuttle
June 18, 2004, 12:25 PM
Several of Monkey County Maryland MMM folk like to drag their children along to protests at gunshows

I found the Chant "My Mother doesn't lie to me" upset the dear ladies to no end.

:evil:

joe sixpack
June 19, 2004, 02:40 AM
Great thread.

Well done Monkeyleg!

cheers, ab

Barbara
June 19, 2004, 06:44 AM
Our uber liberal Democratic formerly gun-nabbing Attorney General Governor has signed 6 pieces of pro-gun legislation in 2004. She's publicly stated she was wrong about CPL. She was convinced by facts..there was no blood in the street, and she was convinced by dedication on the part of gun owners who made sure she knew what their votes were based on.

If you enjoyed reading about "I want to see more "Dirty Fighting" by our side" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!