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

[Joe Link]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. I've contemplated starting a gun advocacy/owner organization because I feel there is a large void that needs to be filled when it comes to these types of groups. I have many different friends. Friends on both sides of the political spectrum. Friends of different races, different religions. Rich friends, poor friends, and everything in between. I meet many many people who would most likely support 2a rights and/or would be interested in learning more if the right organization was there to facilitate.

The two largest gun groups in Oregon are NRA and Oregon Firearms Federation. Have you ever asked a non-white person what they think of the NRA? I'm sure it's different in different parts of the country but here the leftists have been successful in evoking thoughts of racists from the deep south; an old organization of white people who are intolerant of other races. I by no means agree with this, it's just what I've heard over and over. I've found in many parts of the country where people predominately swing to the left that this seems to be the stereotype. Even if these people believe in gun rights they still see the NRA in that fashion and refuse to support them. I believe the organization has a serious image problem and it's deterring would be supporters of the cause.

OFF is an excellent group who I have and will continue to support as Oregon's "no compromise" gun lobby. Often times they're the only organization aware of anti-gun bills trying to slip through the legislature and they do an excellent job of rallying the troops. It is absolutely necessary this group exist in this state. If they didn't I seriously doubt we'd enjoy the rights here we do in the manners we do. The problem I've found with this group is similar to that of the NRA, image.



Put yourself in the shoes of even a moderate gun owner, let alone someone who doesn't have an opinion. The message a name and image such as that conveys is not a positive one in any sense. Many people have asked me if the OFF decal on my truck was "some sort of militia" or a possible reference to the confederate army due to the use of the word "federation". I'm pretty good at seeing peoples perspectives and although it's pretty outlandish I can see how it would cause them to wonder. I'm not so sure how successful you'd be at gathering support for an organization with that image from the average citizen. If only the average citizen "got it" like we do here on THR. Sad fact is, they don’t.

As I've said, I've imagined starting an organization. The organization would be called "Citizens for a Safer Oregon". Hear the name? Who doesn't want a safer state? I guarantee just having a name like that would get you at least a minute or two to explain your cause. This organization wouldn't be *primarily* about gun rights and laws (OFF does a great job of that) though that would no doubt be a result. It'd be about making the state a safer place through education as well. What good are the laws if people don't know their rights and how to properly use them? I see this organization as a much more "approachable" organization with a softer image. The problem with these other organizations is they scare away would-be supporters of their cause with the hard delivery. Although this organization I'd like to start doesn't fall directly in line with others, it's very similar. I believe this could and would work in our effort to help others see what we already know. What do you think?

 

[johnsonrlp]

You mean attracting non-gun people too? There are a lot of them in between us and the antis. Sounds brilliant.

 

[Joe Link]

That's exactly what I mean

 

[Zedicus]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[clutch]

Using the right words to frame the debate sounds like a good idea. Every antigun bill seems to have a high sounding name to put lipstick on a pig.

Consider the "Violence Against Women" act that introduced ex-post facto removal of 2nd Amendment rights. Think it would sold as "A bill for retroactive Removal of Constitutional Rights"?

I think I picked up on intermediate vs uncompromising. It might not been the best choice of words in casting the debate. But I get your drift that it might seem more welcoming to those we would seek to be allies in the fight. Once we get them thinking correctly, we can upgrade them from intermediate to uncompromising

The thing that hurts us most, is that for whatever reason, most gun groups tend to be white and male. I'm thrilled when a lady joins the club and shoots. We don't have a large minority population where I live but it sure wouldn't bother me a bit to have someone that doesn't look like me shoot with me.

The people that most likely will need a firearm for self defense are women and minoritys afaikt. This seems totally upside down since male whites seem to be the ones with CCW permits for the most part.

About the only group I know about that is outside the traditional mold is the pink pistols. I only know that because I read posts on a state e-list signed by big gal al and checked the website under his sig.

Depending on ones biases and I sure have mine, when dealing with someone that might be interested in RKBA, keep the conversation there and don't stray off into judgemental religious or political issues outside of those directly related to RKBA.

There are serious changes coming down the road. The base of hunters seems to be diminishing as a percentage of the population. We need to cultivate a base of practical people that realize that self protection starts with the person taking the time and effort to be ready and able to competently protect oneself and family. I think Shall issue CCW is what may keep the Durbins and Schumers of this world from snuffing out RKBA.

Wes S

 

[nelson133]

Politics is driven by the people on the edges. Intermediate groups confuse the issue and give aid and comfort (and an edge to pry on) to the enemy. What give gun owners their political strength is politicians knowing that a swing group will vote for or against them based on one single issue. The anti's batle tactics are small compromised over time, seeking a middle ground means having the ground cut out from under in small bites.

 

[NukemJim]

May not be a bad idea. The antis are already doing with with numerous orgs that use the word safety.

NukemJim

 

[Superpsy]

sounds like a great idea!

 

[1911Tuner]

Attracting Possble Supporters

A suggestion that has worked well for me...but it does require taking a non-gunner shooting. Reactive targets. They're just plain fun...as opposed to
punching holes in paper...which can get boring, even for some paper-punchers.

My ex-BIL...along with the rest of the family...was pretty much anti. His wife, who spent a lot of time at home alone asked me to teach her to shoot.
Wasn't long before he felt the Feral Man stir within him, and decided that he wanted to be on an equal footing with his weak, meek other half, who was doing well with shooting and very excited over it.

So...I took him to the rifle range first. Went over the basics of hold and squeeze with a .223 bolt-rifle. He caught on pretty fast, and when his first 12-ounce Pepsi can fulla water blew up at 200 yards...he was hooked. Veritible putty in me hands, he was.

He called me the next week to ask me when "we" were gonna "go down to the range" again. After the second trip, he wanted to try it with a pistol.
Sister and I did the Divorce Court Shuffle shortly afterward, but I hear through the grapevine that he has not only pursued it with vigor, but he has also converted two out of three of his older brothers.

Battin' .750! Not too shabby...

 

[RealGun]

Know your enemy. People bring to the discussion what they learned through the media and their general upbringing. Changing that significantly requires use of a blunt instrument. I think abolishing slavery and all that went with it is a good case in point.

The only thing recruiting of people, who are soft or confused on the issues and who have no motivating investment in protection of their ownership and use of guns, will do is find more who might contribute money. Then the organization takes on an education burden to hold the tentative membership together. I just think you would have too many that are uncommitted to the cause and not qualified to fight its battles. Even among the gun owning faithful, it requires guntotin' lawyers to really make the best calls on various strategies. Nothing is very clear cut because of an imperial court system and the need for legislators to get reelected.

Gun organizations could do lots of things, especially in education or public service messages, but with the funds available are distracted by fighting off legislation that infringes upon the RKBA or advancing bills that correct some wrong. Whatever the expansion of scope in their membership, they have to keep their eyes on the ball. That would need to be in pretty hard-nosed fashion, and thus the "no compromise" mantra, not "can't-we-all-get-along?".

 

[longeyes]

The way to "sell" RKBA is to sell a passionate regard for civil liberties. The Second Amendment, as we understand it, is the final guarantor of those individual liberties. The problem is that many Americans today, including those in the penumbral group you speak of, don't really have much understanding of or respect for individual liberties when all is said and done, believe that all rights emanate from the State and would just as soon see a protective matriarchy ensuring womb-to-tomb "safety." Those who want safety over liberty are not and will never be in our camp. The defense of RKBA is a huge cultural project that will takes years of hard struggle and may never appeal to a great many of our fellow citizens who have already fallen under the sway of leftist propaganda.

 

[Joe Link]

Hey guys, thanks a lot for your responses. It seems a couple of you are concerned that this organization would work to "bridge" the gap between gun owner and anti, thus requiring some degree of compromise. This is definitely not the case. I'm positive it's possible to be no compromise and still pull in people from the vast middle section of the political spectrum if you 'soften' your image, as I said before.

nelson133, I agree with you when you say politics are driven by the people on the edges. OFF does an excellent job fighting gun control here in the state but as I said, their image makes them unapproachable for many people. What I want to do is make it easier for people to jump from the middle or possibly left to where we are by closing the gap. Rest assured this is a one-way road to where we are; think of it as a 'path'. You know how huge the gap is right now? I'm well aware many people make the swim from the middle and/or left to where we are but it's not very common, especially around here. Someone needs to build an bridge. Again, when I say bridge I don't mean it could go either way; this bridge leads to 2a and self defense rights, aka our side of the edge.

1911Tuner, my favorite strategy as well I can't tell you how many people who now own guns come up to me and say "Man Joey, I NEVER thought I'd own a gun", then "Man Joey, I NEVER thought I'd have my CHL and carry a gun for personal protection". It's all started just the way you said, taking them to the range. At my range I can bring two guests per visit, and I try my best to do so.

RealGun, I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. The thing is that many of those people who are soft and confused are that way because they've been shielded from the fact that guns can be used for good. Unfortunately they just don't know the facts. Many of these people standing beside us fighting for our RKBA were once soft and confused themselves.

longeyes, that's PERFECT. Especially here in Portland wants to be seen as a "champion of individual liberties". Only thing is they almost always exclude the 2nd amendment. All they'd most likely be required to change is their outlook on one amendment by educating them on the importance of the constitution as a whole. Thank you for pointing this out to me, definitely something to keep in mind when we're forming our tactical plan.

 

[Joe Link]

I wish there was a way to require those who voted in the poll to make a post, even if just a couple words. I'd especially like to hear the people who vote no.

 

[RealGun]

Many of these people standing beside us fighting for our RKBA were once soft and confused themselves.

But they generally own guns and value their right to do so. What stirs them to action is realizing how much effort there is to infringe upon their rights. I thought you were talking about people who don't yet actually relate to personal ownership and use of guns. Trying to get more actual gun owners involved is nothing new.

 

[another okie]

The NRA was founded by people who had just spent several years killing southern racists and many of whose friends had just died to put an end to slavery.

The NRA was and is mainly a marksmanship and safety organization.

The NRA is hardly the most extreme gun rights organization, and any other organization you found will be subject to the same campaigns of lies that have attacked the NRA.

The fact that the media has perverted the image of the NRA just means we need to get that message across.

 

[Soybomb]

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.

Sleep with the dogs, wake up with fleas.

If you really want to make a difference I think its better to educate people on the organizations goals and reasons past what the media has told them and to take new shooters to the range.

 

[Joe Link]

The fact that the media has perverted the image of the NRA just means we need to get that message across.

I tell everyone I speak with on the topic about the merits of the NRA and OFF and how they're image has been skewed. I'm disappointed the NRA hasn't done more themselves to improve their image. Seems to me an expanded membership would mean more money and more people to further their cause.

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.

Sleep with the dogs, wake up with fleas.

If you really want to make a difference I think its better to educate people on the organizations goals and reasons past what the media has told them and to take new shooters to the range.

Please read my response to nelson133 above

I agree with your last paragraph.

 

[orangelo]

The NRA is the intermediate group.

 

[jnojr]

No. Here's why.

You have a scale of 0 to 100. 0 is a complete ban on the private ownership of firearms, and 100 is complete freedom. Everyone "compromises" at, say, 90. Now 91-100 are banned, and 90 is now the top of the scale. Now it's time for another "compromise", and the top 10 or so gets lopped off. We never add rights back on... NFA '34 is, in the absence of a massive sea-change in politics, irrevocable. Same with GCA '68. Same with the '86 machine gun ban. There is no way to say "Well, we compromised, so that's it... there can never be another gun law". So, "compromising" just means the slow erosion of all of our rights.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

NO!

It'll send the message that some gun owners are OK with infringements. I think it's just a ploy to divide anbd conquer. But, freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably being what they are, you are free to take your shot at diminishing our chances of ever getting the infringements removed.

Woody

 

[Joe Link]

I really think some of you are missing my goal with this. I suppose it may be my fault for not adequately putting my thoughts into words. If that's the case, I apologize. I didn't mean for it to sound like this would be a group that would work with anti-gunners to come to some sort of agreement, ie "compromise". This organization would probably be MORE "no compromise" than the NRA (not difficult). The main purpose for this would be to act as a pathway or bridge to the other side for those who aren't educated on the topic but shy away from initiating contact with a group such as the NRA or OFF due to some preconcieved notion (image problem).

 

[Ian Sean]

Hmmm, your looking for an organisation then, that can legitimately refute the "redneck" and or "racist" persona of us evil gun owners?

Try the JPFO

Linky...http://jpfo.org/

 

[Shweboner]

I say yes, heres why.

As I understand it, this group you are talking about would be local level? I think you are on to something, a local group with a name that is vague enough to the antis but clear enough to the pro-RKBA set would work.

It would do well to not only support the 2a, but make a statement abuot other violations of our rights. Thus bringing you more exposure and aligning the name with issues that anyone can relate to. When this happens people will start to make the connection between the 2a and the other rights they have that are being eroded.

Make a point to bring in new shooters, have one day per month that anyone can sign up and go to the range with a member. Volunteer around the community. Remember that it is about winning the hearts and minds here. People need to see that gun people are some of the most trust-worthy people out there. Having a group that stands up for all rights and at the same time plays a part in the day to day dealings of the population.

I like the idea, and if done right could take off.

I am in the Portland area, if you are serious about this, I would be willing to help however I am able. PM me sometime.

 

[Blackfork]

I'd find and support and publicize the local Pink Pistols. Beyond that I would become active in Demcratic Party Politics....as a pro-BOR gun-rights, empowerment activist.

A Pro-gun Democrat at this point may do more good than a pro-gun libertarian.

 

[Joe Link]

I say yes, heres why.

As I understand it, this group you are talking about would be local level? I think you are on to something, a local group with a name that is vague enough to the antis but clear enough to the pro-RKBA set would work.

It would do well to not only support the 2a, but make a statement abuot other violations of our rights. Thus bringing you more exposure and aligning the name with issues that anyone can relate to. When this happens people will start to make the connection between the 2a and the other rights they have that are being eroded.

Make a point to bring in new shooters, have one day per month that anyone can sign up and go to the range with a member. Volunteer around the community. Remember that it is about winning the hearts and minds here. People need to see that gun people are some of the most trust-worthy people out there. Having a group that stands up for all rights and at the same time plays a part in the day to day dealings of the population.

I like the idea, and if done right could take off.

I am in the Portland area, if you are serious about this, I would be willing to help however I am able. PM me sometime.

You and I are definitely on the same page.