Do you guys feel there's a place for an "intermediate" 2a group?

[antsi]

Jews and homosexuals already have specialized gun rights organizations.

If there are problems attracting minorities to the cause due to misperceptions of the NRA, and you think you can get some converts with another specialized organization who would otherwise be turned off, then I say all the power to you.

I still think the NRA is the largest and most effective organization, so for maximum effect, people who really want effective RKBA political action should support their specialty groups in addition to the NRA, not instead of the NRA.

I'm not sure what you mean by "compromise."

If you mean choosing to work on the most achievable goals first and working on the more ambitious ones later, then I think that is likely to be an effective strategy. One example of this is playing out in WI right now - one group is working to get some kind of carry law passed and is willing to accept some unwanted restrictions to achieve that goal, while the other group's position is that it has to be a totally perfect law with no restrictions at all or they won't support it. In this case, I think the first-described group is much more realistic and more likely to succeed than the second-described group and I support 'compromise' in that sense of the word.

If, on the other hand, you mean "compromise" in the sense of supporting new anti-gun legislation in order to obtain support for the legislation we want, then I'm against it. If, for example, the WI anti-gun groups were saying "you support our restrictive assault weapons ban, and we'll support your concealed carry law," then I think that is a very bad idea.

 

[Joe Link]

If there are problems attracting minorities to the cause due to misperceptions of the NRA, and you think you can get some converts with another specialized organization who would otherwise be turned off, then I say all the power to you.

I do believe there are many many people that fall into this category and I do believe it wouldn't take much to convert them.

I still think the NRA is the largest and most effective organization, so for maximum effect, people who really want effective RKBA political action should support their specialty groups in addition to the NRA, not instead of the NRA.

I agree with you here as well. This organization would be in addition to, definately not a substitute. You could think of it as a stepping stone to NRA/GOA membership.

I'm not sure what you mean by "compromise."

If you mean choosing to work on the most achievable goals first and working on the more ambitious ones later, then I think that is likely to be an effective strategy. One example of this is playing out in WI right now - one group is working to get some kind of carry law passed and is willing to accept some unwanted restrictions to achieve that goal, while the other group's position is that it has to be a totally perfect law with no restrictions at all or they won't support it. In this case, I think the first-described group is much more realistic and more likely to succeed than the second-described group and I support 'compromise' in that sense of the word.

This is what I'm talking about. I don't see that as compromise, I see that as being realistic. I don't call that compromise, I call that progress. Any step in our direction, no matter how small, is gained ground.

If, on the other hand, you mean "compromise" in the sense of supporting new anti-gun legislation in order to obtain support for the legislation we want, then I'm against it. If, for example, the WI anti-gun groups were saying "you support our restrictive assault weapons ban, and we'll support your concealed carry law," then I think that is a very bad idea.

This here is just playing politics and absolutely NOT the aim of this organization. I don't want to bring both sides together, I want to bring them to us.

 

[razorburn]

I agree with you, but it should be in addition to the NRA, not in place of it. NRA is the biggest and most powerful group which can lobby for us right now, and we don't have the strength to divide our powers right now. At the same time, you're right about the racist deep southerner concept. You walk into a gun meeting and see it's 99% white males, it reinforces that prejudice. This pushes a lot of people away, and not just minorities. The typical urban/suburban undecided person, does not want to associate with the "redneck" image. They don't want to be associated the many negative paranoid/racist connotations that have become attached with the gun owner image. Blacks/asians/hispanics don't want to go into a place where they'll feel unwelcome, or like a freakshow. This costs us for sure.

 

[LBTRS]

I voted NO so here's my post...

You're wanting to "water down" the pro gun movement and when we allow that to happen we will lose our 2nd Amendment rights. What good is a "pro gun" group full of people in the middle who could care less about the 2nd Amendment and certainly not motivated enough to defend it?

We need "NO COMPROMISE" not a bunch of people in the middle who can be swayed by watching a news event on TV.

 

[Joe Link]

I voted NO so here's my post...

You're wanting to "water down" the pro gun movement and when we allow that to happen we will lose our 2nd Amendment rights. What good is a "pro gun" group full of people in the middle who could care less about the 2nd Amendment and certainly not motivated enough to defend it?

We need "NO COMPROMISE" not a bunch of people in the middle who can be swayed by watching a news event on TV.

I think this is where alot of people are getting confused, or maybe I'm just not seeing reality here. I'd say 9 out of 10 people I know my age (24) are just beginning to spread their political wings. Because they've been raised by MTV and the media in Portland, OR they're going to lean to the left. People, especially young people, can and do change their political position often.

That said, the aim of this organization isn't aimed at converting anti's (though that would be a nice, and realistic, side effect).

As I said before in the thread, I'm concerned that many people in the pro-2a camp don't realize the severity of this image they have and how many would-be allies they're alienating. The word "compromise" continues to come up. If you're talking about not having an AR15 on the organizations logo and instead maybe something that conveys a woman protecting herself (or something to that effect, no idea what that would actually look like) then yes, I guess from what I understand of some of your definitions that would be a "compromise" and a wise decision. Are you guys telling me you'd sacrifice thousands of potential pro-rkba votes because you want to drag the hardline? I'm talking about a name and the image here, not policy. Why is it that people associate a soft name with a soft stance on policy? I'm talking about having an organization where people of all sexes, races, nationalities, etc. feel welcome to support their right to self defense. I know most of the people I know who support the RKBA don't feel comfortable at NRA events; this comes from their own mouths. Do you guys not agree with me that as long as the policy keeps moving in our direction, despite the name or lack of guns on the logo, that we could call that progress?

 

[johnsonrlp]

How about
Enlightened Individuals forthe Emancipation of Inanimate Objects (EIEIO)

 

[Travis Lee]

JL, I do not doubt your sincerity, but this idea seems similar, to me, to someone trying to create a civil rights advocacy group in the fifties to "reach out" to the KKK and would avoid uncomfortable discussion of lynchings and segregation.

This is, in fact, a civil rights issue.

Have we gotten 20,000 gun control laws because pro-gun people have been over-zealous in our political rhetoric? I don't think so. We have been on the defensive, politically, for decades because dedicated forces have acted to usurp our liberty. Gun owners, for the most part have been politically passive.

You may think that the logo for OFF is "provocative" or "offensive" to Oregonian Gen-Xers who have been indoctrinated to have a phobia about weapons... Would a pistol logo be less inflamatory? A musket? That may be, but I would never support a "gun-rights" organization which felt so ashamed of its raison d’être that it would censor its public logo.

I lurk in a number of gun forums, and I'm shocked at the number of posts which suggest that many gun owners, who supposedly are serious 2nd A supporters have been successfully cowed and shamed into the attitude that there is something degenerate and sordid about firearms.
It is this shame which is drilled into children in public school, universities, and in 98% of the media coverage.
It is this shame which allows gun owners to be turned against each other, politically. Hunters distrust pistol shooters, pistol shooters are willing to turn on owners of semi-auto rifle owners, and anybody who has one gun more than ME, must be some kind of dangerous nut.

We have done NOTHING to be characterized as deviant violent pre-criminals by anti gunners, and yet they hate us ALL, down to the very last .22 plinker and muzzleloader afficionado.

As long as our political opposition is so mono maniacal on disarming us, I have to ask the question: what do they plan do do to us after they are the only ones armed?
Anything good?

I encourage you to reach out to your peers to open their minds, I wish you success.

The people who have indoctrinated and manipulated them... they have an entirely different agenda than just "not liking guns".

When it comes to my life, my family, my freedom, I'm not going to be "moderate".

--Travis--

 

[Baba Louie]

This is, in fact, a civil rights issue.

Everything in moderation... as the saying goes, except for freedoms we hold dear.

At first blush JL, I'd have said no. No Deguello. But upon further reflection, it might be wise to form yet another branch of a Civil Rights Militia, one that is well regulated. One that works with all sorts of people at the grass roots level if... if you can muster adequate forces (bodies) to overcome their inertia to buy into your mission statement and donate their time, monies and energy. So it's gotta be something that hits home, worth defending and fighting for.

(Some) Gunnies are passionate about their firearms and freedom. Others are so so. 4 million NRA members (passionate) vs 80 million US gunowners who are not members (yawn, Honey what's on TV tonight?).

Specific Target Marketing is a key. Education. Organization. MONEY (so very important in a business sense, neh?)! Politics...

Go for it. Make a difference. Great men and women do.

 

[slzy]

dialog leads to compromise,compromise leads to defeat.

 

[gezzer]

NO. Compromise got us the problems we have today.

 

[Luku]

As another poster has already pointed out the Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership (JPFO) sounds like the organization that you are describing.

 

[Joe Link]

Wow it's almost 50/50.

 

[Joe Demko]

If you mean an organization that puts forth a more civilized, cultured image for pro-RKBA sorts, then yes. Whether the chest-thumping, d***-waving segment of our side wants to believe it or not, this is primarily a political battle and political battles are won through politics. The NRA's successes and failures demonstrate just exactly that.
Moving our image away from the anti-fueled popular concept that we're a bunch of slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, sister-humping, gun-brandishing psychos can only be a positive. The better our image is, the less fearful politicians_a superstitious, cowardly lot_will be to resist anti-gun bills.
Hollering "molon labe" is all well and good. I'd just as soon win this fight by using the proven tools of modern media and spin control...we've had our asses handed to us often enough by the other side using them that you cannot honestly say they don't work. Let's try to be as logical and savvy as we like to think we are.

 

[Wiley]

No.

One either understands and supports the Second Amendment or one doesn't.
There is no middle or moderate.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Sounds like a great way to wind up with "logical sensible gun control" that supports hunters and sporting purposes while getting those nasty assault weapons off the street.

I must agree. If you are talking about incrementally restoring infringed rights as opposed to the large gulps in which they've been lost, sure. If you are talking about being "moderate" in the further erosion of right, no. We have already let too much slip away to abide any more. It that causes me (us) to labeled "extreme," so be it.

Our first battle is against ignorance, not the anti-gun zealots. That battle is initiated and utimately won by individuals on an indivitual basis.

 

[Juna]

IMO, any organization, no matter how moderate or extreme, that can bring more anti-gun or indifferent people over toward the rest of us who still believe in the liberties that our founding fathers fought and died for is a fantastic thing!

That's not to say that we shouldn't still have the more extreme, "hard core" pro-gun and pro-rights organizations. We definitely need those, too. But if you're able to recruit some reasonable moderates over a little this way, then that's great. It's a step in the right direction. Then maybe they or their kids will move a little more that way, and eventually we can change things for the better.

The sheeple who blindly go along with the anti-gun media will need organizations like this as a transition point to slowly suck them out of the grasps of the power-hungry antis.

 

[Cliff47]

As a neighbor to your North, and a member of the Washington Arms Collectors, as well as the NRA and the Gun Owners of America, I agree that you have to listen very carefully to what is going on in your particular state legislature concerning gun bills (notice I did not say gun-control bills).

The anti-gunners concept of 'compromise' is to have the pro-gun community give up their rights a bit at a time (like slicing a baloney log), pretty soon, you don't have much to chew on. They never consider backing off on their demands.

I'll get off my soap box now, I feel it starting to flex beneath the balls of my feet.

Shoot safely, shoot often, introduce a non-shooter to the most fun you can have with your hearing protection on.

 

[jrfoxx]

Personally, I voted no.I feel that the more pro-gun groups we have, the more our funding and/our political clout is potentiallly divided.Also, I live in Eugene, a pretty liberal city, and daily wear a baseball hat with a 4" diameter OFF patch (just like the logo the OP shows), and the only people who seem to have given it even a second glance, also went on to ask me about OFF and guns. The logo may actually help attract some fence-sitters.Just my 02 cents though....

 

[deadin]

I don't know, maybe I'm just perverse, but when I looked at the OFF logo, the first thing that crossed my mind was you spray "Deep Woods OFF" to keep the bugs away. Do you use "Oregon OFF" to keep the guns away?

Anyway, with all of the "alternate" groups cropping up to try to fix the perceived problems with the NRA, I sometimes wonder if the theory of "divide and conquer" is being applied. (in some cases)

Dean

 

[Gord]

We already have an "intermediate 2nd Amendment group". They're called "hunters" and they want to keep their guns, but they don't care about those evil assault weapons that only gun nuts use!

An "intermediate" 2nd Amendment group is like an "intermediate" 1st Amendment group: why bother? It's completely missing the point.

As others have said, converting fence-sitters to RKBA is a job for individuals close to said fence-sitters, not for a group such as you describe - if they were going to be swayed by a group with a pretty name they'd already be disciples of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Wiley pretty much wins this thread; there isn't a more succinct way to say it.

Sorry, but no.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Do you use "Oregon OFF" to keep the guns away?

To keep the gun grabbers away.