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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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 said:
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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
via FoxyTunes
 
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... :)
 
leadcounsel said:
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.
 
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!
 
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? said:
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.
 
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?
 
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!
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top