Are The Pro 2A Organizations Doing Enough?

[rugerman07]

We are constantly seeing new anti gun laws being proposed on a federal, state, or local level. Some are challenged by pro 2nd amendment groups, others are not, they remain neutral on some. One that recently comes to mind is SB 1034, http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1034&GAID=11&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=84&GA=97. The pro groups remained neutral on this, why? The anti's keep coming up with new bills or upgrades to current bills but the pro's don't. Why don't the pro's come up with new bills to support our 2A rights or bills to repeal the many unconstitutional anti gun laws currently in force? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the pro groups are doing enough.

 

[rugerman07]

WOW! Not a popular topic! Sorry I wasted my time posting it!!

 

[Owen Sparks]

Of course not. The right to keep and bear has been infringed and some of us will not be happy with anything short of the abolishment of all federal gun laws and all state and local laws that preclude constitutional carry of small arms by law abiding citizens.

 

[RBid]

A better question is:

Are WE doing enough?


Most fear is a byproduct of lack of knowledge or familiarity. The best way to advance our cause is to seek out opportunities to educate those around us, and to be examples of responsible, unaggressive/peaceful gun owners. We need to help dispel fear.

Politicians respond to the power wielded by voters. Winning voters = winning legislative battles.

 

[Sam1911]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the pro groups are doing enough.

I think every single one of us wishes the pro-gun groups would "do more." But unless you believe that they're sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs wondering how to fill their days ... ... they do what they are able to do.

Do you have some plan for helping the pro-gun groups do more with the money and influence they have? Are you involved in their workings beyond sending in a check each year? Do you actually know what, specifically, they actually have done or are doing? If not, how do you know they should be doing "more?"

Which leads me to...

The other thing to point out, which seems to get lost in our discourses here sometimes, is that with twice the money and twice the political access, there would still be limits to what "more" these groups can do. We aren't paying them to pass legislation we like. We're paying them to speak with our voice in the ears of those who will write and vote on laws. Many other people -- including the constituents of those legislators, other legislators in their party, and other interest groups on the opposite side of the issue as well -- also get their turn to express their wishes. It is the foundation of our democratic legislative process that everyone has a chance to have a voice. Many of those voices disagree completely with us, and they have a right to influence their law-makers as well. So, no matter how much our gun-rights groups DO, they cannot FORCE laws we like to be written or voted into being.

To some very real degree, we get the laws that we, as a society, DESERVE (or at least claim to want). If 100 of your neighbors want stricter gun control and 10 of your neighbors don't -- your job is to change the minds of 90 of your neighbors. Not to grouse that the pro-gun groups didn't "do more."


Having said all that, if you do know of instances where your pro gun groups have dropped the ball -- where there was a need to speak and to use whatever influence they do have, and they missed that opportunity, or acted badly -- by all means take them to task for those specific actions or inactions!

But let's be very specific. Get involved. Find out what your gun-rights groups are spending their time and (your) money doing, and see what you could do to help them be more effective. Make your voice heard, to them, when their actions are not correct, laud them when they succeed, and encourage them when they try their very best, but the legislative process works to foil their efforts.

It is intensely discouraging to put years into an effort, have that effort fail despite your best efforts, and then have all your supporters grouse that it was your fault and you didn't do enough.

 

[Owen Sparks]

What if a million of us marched on Washington peacfully bearing arms?

There would not be enough jails to hold us or courts to process us.

It worked for Martin Luther King and Ghandi.

 

[brickeyee]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the pro groups are doing enough.

Donated to NRA/ILA?

Why not?

 

[JohnBT]

"We are constantly seeing new anti gun laws being proposed on a federal, state, or local level."

Session after session, year after year, new anti gun laws are being proposed. But they aren't being passed.

Therefore, I conclude that the pro-2A organizations are doing enough. And not only are they holding their own, they're making progress by getting bad laws changed.

John

 

[Sam1911]

Such a thing has been discussed before, to include "open holster" protests.

What you have to consider is that that is kind of a "nuclear option." Armed protesters have marched on Washington D.C. before. They didn't get what they wanted, and our lives got worse because of it.

A million marchers walking peaceably into DC? Yeah, that's attention-getting. A million armed protesters openly committing felonies?

You sure better know the precise cause you're fighting for, and be absolutely certain you can accept the fallout from that action.

 

[steelerdude99]

My concern is the swaying of public opinion towards anti. You know … a minority got the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution ratified and it took a full thirteen years to repeal it.

It seems that the media is pushing to expand the masses of the anti’s by pushing news coverage of those who do bad things using guns. The media even pushes incidents such as when an individual causes a ruckus by conceal carry in a movie theater on the 6 o’clock news. Someone spots someone “printing” or actually exposing their firearm and alerts police or management. Even if the person was legal by having a permit and the venue not posted. The scene of ten to twenty officers with guns drawn sends a message to the public as well as the individual who is in the seat with all of the sights on him. It’s a knee-jerk reaction to send so many officers just to make a show. If one officer cannot discreetly handle the scene, then what kind of police are we training? To escalate a possible legal activity to a “there is crisis” (NOT "there may be a crisis.") does not make much sense. Remember the often told story of the Texas Rangers only sending one Ranger to a riot. Then the punch line, “There was only one riot”.

One last thing; recent mass shootings seem to be individuals who buy a gun, and then within short order commit a terrible and widely publicized crime. They are NOT "gun persons"; they are individuals who used guns as way to get what they wanted. Unfortunately, that’s what sticks in the mind of the public and gets laws passed. Statistically these events are like airline crashes and have a very small chance of happening to any one person. However, some politicians will use such an event to further their career as well. Introducing a bill that gets passed gets them notoriety both inside and outside of their own districts and subsequently re-elected.

Chuck

 

[Owen Sparks]

What you have to consider is that that is kind of a "nuclear option." Armed protesters have marched on Washington D.C. before. They didn't get what they wanted, and our lives got worse because of it.

When, what was it about? Are you refering to the draft riots of the 1860's? That had NOTHING to do with the 2A. With enough people civil disobedience works. Remember this case from a few weeks ago? A group of 2A walked down the street armed in a show of defiance. No arrests were made. This is exactly the sort of tactic that Martin Luther King used to end government enforced segregation in the South. Peaceful non-compliance works. See for yourself:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/116550.html

LIBERTY IS never granted. It must be taken.

 

[Sam1911]

When, what was it about?

Bonus Army

The Bonus Army scared the powers that be enough to significantly influence the passage of the National Firearms Act two years later.

And I didn't say it had anything directly to do with the 2nd Amendment. I said armed (or presumably competent with arms) men marching on Washington is something that aught to be used with the very greatest caution. It scares people, badly, legislators less than the "good folks at home" who clamor for the government to end the "threat" posed by such extremist groups.

Someday there may be a time to stand up and commit felonies in protest of government actions. Especially considering that we're currently in the midst of the greatest string of 2nd A. victories and progress of our lifetimes, I'd recommend this isn't the time.

 

[Owen Sparks]

As I understand it, the bonus army was generally not armed. They were a group of squatters living in tents on the mall in Washington demanding an early retirement for service in the First World War. This was not about guns at all, but about entitlements that were promised by a dead president and a mostly retired congress.

 

[hso]

What if a million of us marched on Washington peacfully bearing arms?

You mean a "peaceful" armed march? Somewhat of an oxymoron, isn't it.

If you want to provide the Antis with fodder to create fear in the public so they can get restrictive legislation passed that's a pretty good way of doing it. The symbolism of armed marchers would be shown as that of an armed threat, real or implied.

A march on Washington with empty holsters, sure. March into the streets of Washington with firearms, no.

BTW, Ghandi and MLK didn't organize peaceful marches with armed members representing a threat of violence to the public. The people in those marches were unarmed as a demonstration of the courage of peaceful protest without a threat of violence. The display of weapons was the sort of thinking in demonstrations by Panthers. We win the political struggle when we win the culture struggle by getting enough people see gun owners as the same as them and not as some threat the Antis want to make us.

 

[Hypnogator]

The symbolism of armed marchers would be shown as that of an armed threat, real or implied.

That would certainly be the perception. Plus, how do you, the march organizer, guarantee that one of the hotheads in your march won't throw down on, or even fire at officers attempting to affect arrests? Gun owners, as with all groups, harbor some real wack-jobs in their midst!

 

[Owen Sparks]

When enough people "break" the law, the law gets changed. The American Revolution is a prime example.

 

[X-Rap]

rugerman, how about we start with the idea of every resident of Illinois become life members of the NRA and start exerting that muscle on Springfield.
I bet the gun laws there would change in one election cycle.
Lets just use that as a test.
My point is that numbers are king, I would say following Illinois we then move to NY, Mass, NJ, and CA. there are so many freeloaders in those states alone that if organized and ignoring their union demands the 2A would again become a right like it is in many other states.
So yea I say 2A orgs are doing their part and then some, it's time for those riding the wagon for free to step up and do their part.

 

[ErikO]

There are those of us NOT in the ILA are working on RKBA issues as well. Just because the ILA is the biggest game in town doesn't mean it is the only one.

 

[hso]

Owen Sparks,

It is how you've suggested the law be broken that would cause too much collateral damage and most likely result in setting our cultural and legal struggle back. Ghandi and MLK threatened prejudices and ideas and not the average person's feeling of safety.

***

Why don't the pro's come up with new bills to support our 2A rights or bills to repeal the many unconstitutional anti gun laws currently in force?

rugerman07,

Please provide some examples since most of us don't know what you're talking about. You live in one of the worst states for gun rights, but most of us don't. What laws on the national level would you have pro 2A organizations try to have repealed or are you just asking why the laws in Illinois aren't attacked?

After a long work week and a long hot day at the gun show, I spent the evening promoting donations to a raffle for firearms at a wildlife conservation/hunting group event. I'm beat, but it was worth it.

 

[loadedround]

How many of us NRA members just open donation requests fron the NRA and ILA and just chuck them in the waste basket? Come on guys be honest. Have you also received mail from the NRA asking for help? I am not going to be the one to "cast the first stone" but I have made several donations to the NRA/ILA and am making calls once a week on their behalf for the upcoming election. Gun owners, 10 or 15 bucks won't break you, donate! Help protect the Second Amendment and our future gun rights.

 

[Sam1911]

This was not about guns at all, but about entitlements that were promised by a dead president and a mostly retired congress.

I've said that, myself, twice already. If you can't understand the parallels to what you're promoting (which, itself, would be MUCH more alarming to the public) I don't know what to say to you.

The ISSUE you're marching for doesn't change the reaction of the public and the legislature to your actions. An ARMED march on Washington D.C. would terrify about 95% of the US population (including MANY/MOST gun owners!) and pretty much bomb our movement back into the stone age.

 

[JohnBT]

Dues cannot be used for lobbying according to federal law. That's why they're always asking for donations.


Donations can be directed to specific NRA programs.

http://nrahq.org/givejoinhelp/giving/general.asp

Opening mail from the NRA can get expensive. I've opened just enough of them to reach Benefactor.

John

 

[ilbob]

The 2A groups are by and large not interested in supporting the 2A so much as they are interested in keeping the donations flowing in. They are not going to support bills that don't gain them something in the fund raising arena. They are almost entirely fund raising oriented. If they support bills that the people sending them funds don't care about, the funds will stop flowing in.

While this may sound cynical, it is the way things have to be. If the funds stop coming in, the organization will cease to exist, and the good things they do will go away, so fund raising is the number one priority. Like every other entity, survival is at the top of the list.

 

[Sam1911]

The 2A groups are by and large not interested in supporting the 2A so much as they are interested in keeping the donations flowing in. ... Like every other entity, survival is at the top of the list.

Does this really MATTER? Does it change the discussion in some way?

Kind of like saying "The airlines don't care so much about TRAVEL as they care about making money, so they'll only travel if people pay them."

The people who do this work day-in and day-out do so because it is their passion. But they can't do it without money, both as operating capital for the organization and in the form of salaries so they can feed their families while they do their good work.

These "they just care about the money" gripes are petulant and self-defeating.

 

[Midwest]

Some have suggested ( in comments on other forums) that the NRA threw New Jersey under the bus and that is the reason NJ is what it is today. I'd like to see documentation that the NRA, or other pro-gun organizations tried to turn around New Jersey's draconian gun laws. The 1966 law requiring pre-approval of the police was two years before the 1968 GCA and required fingerprints, references, background checks and fees in order to buy a rifle.


As far as having armed marches into DC to protest gun laws. Need I remind anyone that in 1967 carrying loaded weapons became illegal in California because of The Black Panthers.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-619176.html

"The Second Amendment means nothing to CA politicians. When CA politicians get scared they enact more gun control. Prior to 1967 the carry of loaded guns in CA was legal. In 1967 CA politicians were scared of the Black Panthers. The result was the Mulford Act that outlawed the carry of loaded weapons."


If you want the details go to http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

"It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement. "