Gun Control Is Never Going Away

[pseudonymity]

I believe the impoverished would love to have access to guns. The usually live in crime ridden neighborhoods and have no means to defend themselves from the predators who target them. Areas live Chicago and D.C. have been unable to defend themselves for generations. They probably need it the most.

^^^this ++++. The thing that is important to understand is that the least privileged are most unable to defend themselves, but only some of the predators are criminals. Many of those predators are law abiding, since the laws are specifically set up to abuse those who most need protection.

To anybody here that has not lived for a time in a large city (lets say 1m or so in the metro area), go ahead and try it out. Just try to comply with all the laws, rules and regulations - parking, zoning, rent control, eminent domain, use permits, shakedowns from local PD. Gun control is just one more rule on the pile, why should they care?

Gun Control is not advancing across the US - 9 states have passed a variant of the Firearms Freedom Act since 2009. The assertion of states rights has not seen this type of support since before the Civil War.

The real strength behind gun control is simple to see - look at a population density map of NY, CA, MA and MD where gun control has taken root, and then again at places like MT, AK and SD. The large cities drive gun control, because they concentrate the poor and impoverished, who have more important things to worry about. They vote for the people who can deliver the most benefits, which is understandable. The people who can deliver the benefits (aka elected officials) want gun control, since the armed criminals are their greatest threat to the control of the poor and dependent living in their communities.

 

[PabloJ]

^^^this ++++. The thing that is important to understand is that the least privileged are most unable to defend themselves, but only some of the predators are criminals. Many of those predators are law abiding, since the laws are specifically set up to abuse those who most need protection.

To anybody here that has not lived for a time in a large city (lets say 1m or so in the metro area), go ahead and try it out. Just try to comply with all the laws, rules and regulations - parking, zoning, rent control, eminent domain, use permits, shakedowns from local PD. Gun control is just one more rule on the pile, why should they care?

Gun Control is not advancing across the US - 9 states have passed a variant of the Firearms Freedom Act since 2009. The assertion of states rights has not seen this type of support since before the Civil War.

The real strength behind gun control is simple to see - look at a population density map of NY, CA, MA and MD where gun control has taken root, and then again at places like MT, AK and SD. The large cities drive gun control, because they concentrate the poor and impoverished, who have more important things to worry about. They vote for the people who can deliver the most benefits, which is understandable. The people who can deliver the benefits (aka elected officials) want gun control, since the armed criminals are their greatest threat to the control of the poor and dependent living in their communities.

Bingo. Folks that deal with armed robberies, break inns, drug dealers on street corners,.... aren't going to like gun a whole lot. One of the reasons large country made of fifty small ones is slowly drying is because people from sparsely populated little country have little in common or interest from those in places that have many large cities and high population density. What do folks in Wyoming have in common with folks in NJ?

 

[CoalTrain49]

If you really want to elect people who will answer to those who elect them then you need to find candidates or elected officials in your area that reflect your own opinions, go meet them at a public event or better yet in one of their field offices, and give them money yourself. I guarantee you that a $100 contribution will buy you face time and recognition to make sure they understand your philosophy but then you have to continue the contact throughout their time in office (they and/or their staff will immediately recognize you after a few meetings) and hold their feet to the fire. Donations to an organization gets consumed partially by the organization and you have absolutely NO control over to whom they might give it. You give your money directly to a candidate and you have 100% control over its allocation, none is consumed by overhead or waste, and you get access to the halls of power. This formula works at any level of political office but it requires you to commit to more than a check in an envelope!

I'm a believer in personal communication. I've donated to the NRA in the past but they lost me a few years ago. I don't like the direction they have gone. I understand how they are an effective political force but I also know that personal participation is more important. Writing checks isn't enough, it's just a small part of it. I'm pretty sure I understand how politics work. I spent a few years as a union official and negotiated several contracts for 3000 employees. Over the course of my affiliation with the union I gave them $15,000. I also gave them a great deal of my time as an officer. Unions have muscle just as PAC's do but too many people don't understand why they have muscle. Most believe a monetary contribution is all it takes but that's not it. The power lies in the direct participation of the members. Unions, like PAC's have become political entities and the big business of buying politicians. The system has short circuited the voting process. As Steel Horse Rider suggests, if you want something the best approach is talking directly to your representative that you elected and giving him/her the money. That would be your active participation. You may not realize it but he/she is already on the payroll and can do the same work that a PAC can. You don't need a national organization. A former speaker of the house once said "all politics is local".

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

The people who recruit at the NRA need to change their approach to resigning their members. I know they turn off a large number of members now with their tactics so they need to hire someone with PR experience who can recruit the new members to return instead of coming across as the sky is falling propoganda agenda they run now. Yes, we are in a fight for our lives (so to speak) but I do not like how they deliver the message. There has to be a better way to recruit and then keep the membership growing every year. We need 20 million members, not 4 or 5 million. That would intimidate anyone running for office.

My brother is the precise type of person that the NRA needs to engage/create. He's an urban dweller, addicted to video games, politically centrist/modest, and owns more guns than I can count. Yet he steadfastly refuses to send a penny to the NRA, and he cites their over the top and bombastic hyperbole as the reason.

I'm all for never letting up in a bareknuckle fight, but the NRA turns quite a few people off with its Chicken Little behavior.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm all for never letting up in a bareknuckle fight, but the NRA turns quite a few people off with its Chicken Little behavior.

Some folks know what the situation really is, and understand that the NRA looks at the worst possible case when making their membership and donation drives. Maybe that's you and maybe that's me.

Some folks really don't want to be reminded of what the situation is, and really prefer to tell themselves, "oh, that's just the NRA being over-the-top." It's much more comfortable to rest in your own inertia if you predispose yourself to assume that your allies' worries are unfounded. That's your brother. If he works up his ire at the NRA, he doesn't have to turn and face his actual political enemies, which would entail admitting that danger is real and present. (A scary thought -- best to pull the covers down over your head tight until the bad folks go away.) If he decides to be "offended" by their marketing, he can hold onto his money and buy another video game or an extra rifle rather than spend it in support of a cause. Besides, others will carry his weight.

Somewhere in between lies the truth.

 

[mrming]

Rich individuals choosing to champion ideas will probably be the most effective solution. Why? well....

non-profits have overhead. And that overhead has been increasing steadily over last few decades to turn non-profits into money makers for their board members. Sure, they don't 'turn a profit'. But some people sure are getting paid aweful pretty.

No way to really reverse that. Long term the 'good' people who keep to the agenda ultimately leave or get flushed out. Later on good people don't tend to stick around if their ideals are being violated by their collegues, assuming they even get in.

So, go find rich people and convince them its in their own best interest. That'd be my vote. The man spending his own dollar being more likely to keep the fat out than someone spending someone else's cash.

A tool is only a tool when it is used as such. We are defending ourselves from less violent crime and hunting less. Few of us work vermin control on a farm. A buggy whip is a tool -- unless you don't own a horse. Then its either decore or a fetish item.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

To address a few things. First as it relates to the NRA. The NRA is a game player. They are part of the game and there are good things and bad things to that when you take it all into account. They have the moxy, the charm, the connections, the history, and the credibility. What they do has to be done with a certain degree of finese. They have to spend their coin of power wisely or risk losing all power. That's why I support them and will continue to support them but also realize we need more.

Forgetting the NRA is like trying a beach landing without naval or air support. And while you need all that you still need boots on the ground otherwise you're just making a ton of holes that can be filled in later.

I'm an NRA supporter but I want more from them, but they aren't likely to listen to me in my opinion. That's why I want what I want. A Trust that functions like a pure democracy almost. Everyone who reaches a certain contribution level or has been a member for a certain amount of time will have a voice that cannot be ignored and will in fact because of the trust have to be solicited and to some extent catered to.

Also why I want my "In The Trenches" approach. Because in the Trenches anything goes. In World War I, when the enemy got into your trenches or you got into them it was a free for all. Flamethrowers, brass knuckles, spades, grenades, rifles, pistols, helmets, knives, whatever you could get your hands on played.

Well in the legal sense I want to do that. It will difficult. There will be a great deal of legal maneuvering but if it was easy everybody would be doing it. But once it is up and running and all the lessons learned, it stands to be unstoppable I feel.

Now Tinman357. I'm brainstorming here at THR and Calguns. I'm learning more than a few things over at Calguns about the idea. Things I hadn't considered, things I need to learn, and that's in part what the internet and forums are for. It's about putting people together to share and shape ideas. To put knowledge in their hands that once was unreachable. Share ideas that help us look beyond our own perception of the world.

I've penned the first parts of the Trust and done an outline. You are talking about a minimum of two hundred pages worth of legalese, then imagine trying to make simple to read and understand for the lay folk out there so they don't have to fear having somehow put there house up for sale and promised their first born (things I've heard from clients).

So give me time, ideas, your input, and your insight. I'll try my best on my end but if you wait for someone to build you a car out of sand, then sand is all you're going to be holding. We all need to work together. And I want people to understand that and that's what I want the Trust to stand for. People working together and regardless of whether or not they are contributing $3 a month or $3,000 a month. It's all about one person, one vote.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

MagnumDweeb; OK. You got my attention. Are you able to set something like this up? Do you have the knowledge to make this a reality? What kind of seed money would you need?

I think you have a great idea. Darned good actually, best I've heard yet. I believe that this would work. I really do. I do have a few concerns. It won't really matter who "runs it". Yes, it will have to be someone who understands your philosophy. But power and money corrupt. How do you intend to prevent this idea you have from being another NRA?

Not to knock them too badly, but most of the power in the NRA are there for the money. Way overpaid employees mean less money for political clout. I was a member for a long time. Got tired of weekly mailings claiming some pending legislation that was going to make all my guns turn into cotton candy. Almost daily phone calls for more money "cuz we're drowning in debt and the NRA leaders need new airplanes "

NRA is to aggressive panhandling money from its members and to quick to compromise RKBA issues. but, they are the only one I'm aware of that is making a dent in D.C.

How much would you need to get started? No, I don't have that kind of money. If I did, you and I would already be talking over coffee. But I do know someone who has told me he wants to be involved in "something that would turn this country around some. Something to fix some of the wrong I see and read about every day. Not another corporation run by bean counters and lawyers, but something that'll give the common man a fighting chance. Something Patriotic"

His words in quotes. I've cut and pasted your posts and would like to talk to him about all this.

Tinman357, to address the issue of it becoming just another NRA. The Trust would have an element of democracy so all beneficiaries at some point would get a vote. So far I'm thinking $360 would be the total amount someone would have to contribute to have a voting power, or they would have to had contributed $3 and ten years later they would have voting power. That is done in part to prevent a hijacking from the MAIG types, and there would be language written in regarding dissolving of the Trust that would keep the money from going anywhere other than the NRA and SAF, but I'm also planning language that would give those those who didn't vote to dissolve the Trust the right of starting a mirror trust and retaining the Activism funds (unless they have a majority vote otherwise) while the Corpus funds are distributed to the beneficiaries in the Trust (the contributors).

It's a headache but that's how it is. Also the Trust would have set scopes and guidelines of performance that would require the Trustee acting in good faith to accomplish them. If he didn't he could be removed via a majority vote for bad faith or incompetent performance before the scheduled election. If the Trustee steals or misappropriates funds, or is giving fiscal favors to his friends and family without majority approval of the beneficiaries (paying someone for example to publish a newspaper periodical for the Trust and then hiring their dad to do it), then he will face potential civil and criminal liabilities.

It's not perfect but few things are. This will all be a "volunteer" effort. We all have different skills and abilities. Something we bring to the table. Some of us are greybeards with decades of wisdom and more knowledge about guns than some museums probably have. Some of us are tech and social media savy. Some of us are willing to be the public face. Some of us add credibility. Etc. etc. etc..

It will give us an undeniable grass roots identity as opposed to the insults of Astroturf. Let them see it is not a few who lead us, indoctrinating us, but a mass of people with voices that demand to be heard. That can coordinate and march in support of each other without the promises of gold and silver, without the risk of corruption and subversion. We want the antis out and so we will play the game (lawfully) to see that that happens. And we will start in California. And if it works there then it's onto Connecticut, New York, Maryland. We just need the momentum. At least that's my hope.

Today I was musing as I ate my homemade peanut curry dish that for grins and giggles, but also SEO purposes, that the Trust's site as it relates to blogs should have a recipe section. Stick with me here. Everyone is going to assume we are right wing nuts, racists, and anti-government types. So what better way then to knock some of that down is to show us making unusual dishes, videos of us talking to folks at 5k races, AIDs walks, and such. We can't just beat our chests and foam at the mouth.

We have to be articulate, sophisticated, and above all things clever (while also not breaking the law in anyway). We have to get the Bubbas in the backwoods to support us. The hipsters to not-not-like us. The artsy types to nod in approval. The usual middle class and working class folks to give us the thumbs up.

It's out there, I know, but that's why we need to discuss these things. We, I, need people to have an input. I have lots of ideas, but some of those ideas might make people shake their head no and tune out.

 

[larryh1108]

MD,
Everything sounds great so far. I appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this and hopefully it will accomplish what your true intentions are. I'll help any way I can as well to make it happen. If you can post areas in which volunteers from THR can help then maybe we can help with some grunt work. If you post general areas that need some type of labor, we can pick an area we have experience or interest in to move it along. Anything to help the grass roots take hold and grow to a firm turf. Ask here and we will respond. At least I will.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

The answer is simple. As former Speaker Tip O"Neil said: all Politics are Local.

So what does that mean? It means that you form groups at the local level. These groups then join together at a regional and state level. It is from this point that power can be exerted at the state and federal level.

So starting within your local shooting group you come together and join with other shooting groups and individuals at the local level. At this point you have a potent lobbing organization to lobby your local congressperson. Add in your gun shop owners and dealers from gun shows and you are well on your way. So once you do this then you start to network with others in your area and State.

There needs to be organized groups within every city.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

The answer is simple. As former Speaker Tip O"Neil said: all Politics are Local.

So what does that mean? It means that you form groups at the local level. These groups then join together at a regional and state level. It is from this point that power can be exerted at the state and federal level.

So starting within your local shooting group you come together and join with other shooting groups and individuals at the local level. At this point you have a potent lobbing organization to lobby your local congressperson. Add in your gun shop owners and dealers from gun shows and you are well on your way. So once you do this then you start to network with others in your area and State.

There needs to be organized groups within every city.

All excellent points QOT, these are things we need to be doing as well. We as a society have become very disconnected and thus our rights have become easier and easier to pick off because those who organize against us know we are less likely to organize amongst each other.

We need to take what we are doing now and amp it up. We need volunteer organizations. We need social groups, we need a sense of community and belonging that welcomes folks of all races, creeds, stripes, and so have you. I'd like to sit down one day between folks from the Appleseed and Pink Pistols over a plate of barbecue and discuss how we are going to bring honest law-abiding gun ownership and education to the impoverished in the city's of New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, etc..

The question is how do we get there?

 

[Deanimator]

When I saw those comments favoring UBC here on THR, I thought someone hacked into the site.

Google "AHSA" for the explanation.

The organization may be dead, but it's zombie acolytes shuffle on...

 

[MagnumDweeb]

The pro-UBC folks who own guns to me fall into three distinct groups (there are more mind you).

1. People with good intentions - these are otherwise enthusiastic gun owners who believe if we just pass the UBC the antis will be satiated and gun crime will be reduced. It's an easy compromise to make, I think that's what they are thinking and feeling. The problem is we know the antis would just use that little bit of surrender to keep demanding more when the UBC fails to make any great changes in a society that is suffering far more than most are willing to admit.

2. Liars who want to change the mind of anti-UBC gun owners - it's part of that hope that gun owners who are anti-UBC will all of a sudden go the Lemming way on the issue if they see their fellow gun owners backing it to.

3. Confiscation By A Thousand Cuts - these types have no interest in preserving the Second Amendment and will take any victory they can get in the hopes of getting the momentum they need to completely destroy the 2nd Amendment and they are prepared for it to take decades or maybe not in their lifetime. They are the most insidious and must not be tolerated or apologized for. They cannot be negotiated with or compromised with. They must simply be resisted at all costs.

Not everyone on THR is an absolutist or purist. I'm sure there are gun owners on THR who are more absolutist than I. I mean I just want a return to the November before Sand Hook plus opening up the machine gun registry, and national reciprocity of CWP, plus national shall issue for CWPs. Some folks might look at that and say I'm not absolutist enough for not advocating for constitutional carry and national open carry and removal of suppressors and SBRs and SBS from the NFA registry.

Still, one must not be seduced to the idea that allowing UBC would somehow ultimately benefit our rights.

 

[phil dirt]

The NRA is the only reason we are still allowed to own guns. Gun owners of America, Citizens Committee For The Right to Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment Foundation, while not as well funded as the NRA, also do very good work. For those of you who have a problem with the NRA, I'd bet that many of you will conger up some excuse for why you refuse to support the afore mentioned, too. I know many gun owners who spend lots of money buying all kinds of guns, but are either too cheap or too stupid to support the Gun groups that send out requests for the money it takes to fight for our gun rights. As some of us realize, we are in a war for our Second Amendment rights, and like all wars, it takes money to fight the likes of Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Barack Obama, as well as the legions of sheep who think that the "people" of the Second Amendment are not the same "people" as in the First and Fourth Amendments.

 

[vito]

In many ways gun owners are their own worst enemy. Most of us probably know someone who is an active hunter, but who could not care less about handguns or concealed carry, as long as they get to engage in their pursuit of deer, or duck, or whatever hunting each year.

We also have gun owners who are ardent 2nd Amendment supporters who foolishly give the benefit of the doubt to the gun grabbers as being just misguided but who share our values. As others have often stated, gun control is less about guns than it is about control.

So called climate change (or global warming) and other so-called environmental issues are just the latest areas where controlling leftists think they can get a stronger foothold over the rest of us because they can cloak it in nice sounding causes to help the world.

And how many gun owners are essentially reasonable people, and when pressed they agree that there can be "reasonable" restrictions on gun owners and that this will end the issue? The anti-gunners will not rest ever, even if they actually achieved a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. Since crime and violence would not disappear (just look at England or Australia where violent crime, not gun crime, is epidemic) they will press for more controls of citizens rights and behaviors. Every concession that we as gun owners make, such as universal background checks, just moves the starting line closer to bans and confiscation, and gains us NOTHING in return.

It is hard to be optimistic for the future, but what choice do we have other than to continue the effort in as many ways as we can, for as long as we can, regardless of how many skirmishes we win or lose? I am an NRA Life Member, but I can't even get my children to accept free memberships that I would provide to them. I'm now pinning my future hopes on my young grandchildren, hoping to influence them without getting their parents (my children and their spouses) to over react negatively.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Vito, your story as it relates to your kids is an too common story. Many just assume their rights are protected no matter what and very few will work proactively to protect. Some may answer the panic of joining the NRA if things look bad, but all too often when things look bad, the chances of losing are quite great.

Being proactive is such a mystery to some people it seems when it comes to RKBA. I should breakdown and get the lifetime membership but I just renew every time I get the renewal in the mail.

It's part of why I want to my Trust idea. So far I'm calling it the California Trench Trust. I'm in the middle of trying to create a condensed explanation of it for folks (my other attempts quickly become a word salad and trying to show the legalese in the Trust without first giving folks a chance to digest what the Trust is and does, seems to just turn people off).

Each contribution goes in part to active activism (huh) and the other part goes to helping ensure there will be activism in the future so that if at some point no one is making contributions, the fight for RKBA can continue.

If it works in California at tripping up the antis, getting more folks CWP in counties where they previously couldn't, and helping more people become NRA supporting gun owners. Then the model of success can be taken to Connecticut, New York, and Maryland.

 

[larryh1108]

I feel that to the newest members to the gun community, the NRA represents the gun thuggery out there and anyone associated with the NRA are radicals and zealots. I feel their PC friends would run and hide if they joined and that the media and politicians have done a good job of making the NRA sound like it's an organization similar to Al Queda. The newest gun owners have no use for the NRA (so they think now!) and a new organization has to pop up with a green theme and recruit these new gun owners with promises of green pastures, green bullets and green people who enjoy this new sport. Until then, the NRA will continue to keep the same 4-5 million members and will never grow until they change their image of staunch, white, middle-aged men who want your money.

 

[torqem]

Thank God for Fox News. Its owner is a hero for individual rights, without a doubt. Ditto talk radio. Without them, and the NRA, we'd have lost our guns long ago. Shawn Hannity was able to say right on TV that he ccw's and has done so for decades.

almost all other media is so statist that they are off the cliff and in the pit.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

^^^^That is simply not the whole truth. There are probably 20-30 million MORE aging white guys that SHOULD belong to the NRA but don't. Even if the NRA was TOTALLY composed of old white guys, they COULD still have a number large enough to scare the crap out of ANY president or politician.

 

[buck460XVR]

Unfortunately, the gun culture is waning in mainstream America. Our young people are hunting and shooting in steadily diminishing numbers. They would rather play games of combat on the laptop or TV instead of learning any REAL martial skills.

Much of this has little to do with guns and gun control. Lack of access to decent hunting areas and places to shoot means folks quit trying. For the majority of us over 45 years of age, we came from a traditional family structure that included a strong male role model. This person was there to teach us how to hunt and shoot and took us when we were too young to take ourselves. They ingrained the love of the sport into us. The last 30 years or so I see more and more children growing up in a one parent family without that strong male role model and a hunting/shooting mentor. Seems every year, the amount of young kids coming to Hunter Safety class with their moms or coming alone increases, and they are just as likely to ask to be included in the youth hunter mentoring program as they are to hunt with dad. The reason so many sit home and play video games is because there is no one there to motivate them off the couch or take them shooting........and they're not old enough take themselves. By the time they are old enough, they have gotten involved in other things.

 

[gym]

Neither are we

 

[huntsman]

Enjoy your guns now, and if you DO have heirs that will listen, teach them about self protection, self reliance, and the value of NEVER letting a government control the PEOPLE.......it should always be the other way around. I'm glad I will be dead; I do not want to live to see it.

you mean like actively spying on citizens, or using the IRS to target opposition?

RKBA is the favorite battle cry, but to chest thumping Patriot wanna-bee's guns are just toys, boys and their toys.

So how does gun control matter? liberty has already been neutered and the guns sit in safes while their owners bitch about ammo prices and fantasize about 10k ammo stashes for WTSHTF, all the while stepping over the crap on the floor.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

^^^^That is simply not the whole truth. There are probably 20-30 million MORE aging white guys that SHOULD belong to the NRA but don't. Even if the NRA was TOTALLY composed of old white guys, they COULD still have a number large enough to scare the crap out of ANY president or politician.

Sharpdressedman, I think part of the reason so many don't want to belong to the NRA is the cost of $35 a year or more. Which seems asinine, I know. But then you add their usual schpeels and solicitations and it starts to get annoying. We are contributing money to an organization we don't truly understand the workings of and if we try we potentially face a nameless beauracrat on the phone who tells what they are doing.

It's why I want to do my trust idea. Anyone with three dollars in their pocket could join and not be pestered and have access to a forum where they could communicate with the Trustee and if unhappy with the Trustee's performance, rally their fellow members to have him booted out in the election held every two years.

I've had to play around with the amount of money one would have to contribute to gain voter power vesting but upon playing with the dissolution language of the trust in such a way as to divest antis of the ability of ever truly destroying the trust and the movement behind it, I think we could allow vested voting power at three dollars.

And instead of pestering the members every few months for more solicitations. Encourage them to spread the word, contribute blog and article postings about guns, history, legislation. And encourage them to save their beer and soda cans for the year, as well as non-reloadable brass, for the scrap yards so that can be the money they donate.

I don't drink a lot of aluminum can served drinks but in preparing to start another charity I held onto all of mine for a year and when I took them to the scrap yard I got nearly five bucks for the trunk full of cans I brought in. So that'd be a fun and cute way of getting members to contribute. Imagine a million members a year contributing their salvage beer and soda can scrap money each year. It wouldn't be a great deal of money but it would add up and in creating a self-sustaining trust that would serve future generations and their RKBA. It'd be an awesome thing.

But that's me and my ideas.

 

[Dean1818]

My personal way is to take new people to the range every chance I get. Get involved and support any youth shooting events you can. Talk respectively and logical to people at work or social setting who do not much about guns. Represent the "gun community" in a positve manner. Support the NRA

You are CORRECT!

This is the right path and will make a difference

 

[MagnumDweeb]

you mean like actively spying on citizens, or using the IRS to target opposition?

RKBA is the favorite battle cry, but to chest thumping Patriot wanna-bee's guns are just toys, boys and their toys.

So how does gun control matter? liberty has already been neutered and the guns sit in safes while their owners bitch about ammo prices and fantasize about 10k ammo stashes for WTSHTF, all the while stepping over the crap on the floor.

Hunstman, I then kindly ask you. What do you suggest? If I'm gathering correctly you are suggesting that gun control is a distraction to an even bigger problem or looming storm of civil rights violations.

Guns are an easy rallying cry. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not happy with the state of things but net privacy and phone privacy are a hard thing to get across to people sometimes. It's not something they can easily identify or hold onto mentally.

Guns and gun rights they can and the threat of having them taken away is something they can easily and readily react to. So what if we start with guns, get people organized about guns and once we have a movement of the people, by the people, and for the people we then turn that model and energy into go after those other issues.

The biggest problem we face is a fatalistic and defeatist attitude. Most folks it seem already feel beat before they even enter the ring so they don't bother. They don't have a sense of community, comraderie, support. They feel alone and isolated and thus don't move to organize. We have to overcome that. And the price of gaining such is often seemingly ridiculous and pointless.

We have to start somewhere. Where would you like to start?