Its tough being pro-gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ain't_the_average_NRA

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
26
Location
Upper Darby, PA (right outside of Philly)
For months now I have been intending to put a letter to the NRA to share my opinions that I am SURE they are interested in. Until I get the chance to do that, I'll just bore you guys. Its tough (in my opinion) to be pro-gun at least for me. I say that because often times those politicians that support gun owners rights are often out of wack in most of the other areas that are of interest to me. As an African American guy originally from the inner city of Philadelphia there are issues that concern me that are not on the top of the list of our politicians who are usually in support of gun rights.

So sometimes I wonder why don't pro-gun groups do more to reach out to politicians on the other side of the aisle in order to get more compromise in terms of guns legislation. Also, why don't they reach out to inner city communities in order to do education on why many of the anti-gun laws being proposed have no true value. Working class people in these cities are tired of the crime and violence. So every Tom Anti-Gun who shouts from the mountain top that he will "get the guns off the streets" gets a vote from the desperate mothers regardless of whether not he ever delivers on his promise. So we need to do more in terms of education and true reform. But I digress....
 
AFA reaching out accross the political aisle, we do to some extent. I know that there are plenty of Pro-2A people here in CA who call their responsive :banghead: representatives :cuss: on many 2A issues. Unfortunately, at least among the leaders and influential entities on the other 'side', there is generally an overwhelmingly uncompromising, extremely anti-2A sentiment. So, I guess you can say that we don't reach out because there's rarely any reaching back. It would be rather foolish to vote for a known anti (or party lead and directed by outspoken antis) hoping that they'll change their mind once in office.

If any pro-gun group reached out to inner-city communites, they'd be ostracized as promoting/profiting off a culture of violence. Not only that, but the left does its best to portray the NRA as a bigoted, anti-minority, elitist organization when that really is not the case.
 
A. The simple answer is that one party is based on reality and the other is based on promises.

B. The problem is that when we let the POLITICIANS run the party, they soon think that acting like the second party will keep them in power.

You are a lot more like the average NRA member or Conservative than you think.

In my experience, Conservatives and NRA members tend to want equal opportunity for all and punishment of those who abuse basic human rights. The work done by Dr. King and others in the 1960s was a very good thing. We all won, let's move on!

We also want the government to not do a whole lot else - besides adhering to the Bill of Rights/subsequent amendments, enforcing business contracts and protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic.

Beyond:
1. Any "you owe me" mentality
2. The extreme spend on welfare programs and
3. The 180-degree racism of Affirmative Action-type programs,
Conservative Republicans I know couldn't care less about your color.

In other words, we tend to care more about the content of your character than the color of your skin.

I certainly welcome an inner-city, minority NRA membership base since the core of most of our current anti-gun laws were created to disarm blacks. The REALLY TOUGH part is that you are in a position to educate people and make this happen.

You have more power than you know - especially when you have the truth on your side.

stopKKK_s.jpg

I'm just a lone internet voice, but please let me know if I can help you at all.
 
It would be great

To teach inner city parents/teachers/kids the truth about gun control. Beginning from the beginning to show them that it started out as racial and now has grown to be social economic based. They are in power and we are the peons (regardless of color) so they can be armed or have armed gaurds but we can't be trusted to own one.
Truth be told, the governments stance in the 50's and 60's shows that it, the government can't be trusted. Just my 2cents.
 
The sad fact is that many minorities have made a deal with the devil, trading long term prosperity, liberty and happiness for the short term "security" of the welfare state offered by the Democratic party. One of the liberties they oppose is the right to be in charge of one's own defense. If you vote for that party by 90% margins, despite the disaster the policies they espouse have created, all you are really doing is telling the other party you don't even care what they have to say. you will vote for the freebies regardless of the extremely negative long term consequences.
 
I truely believe that the left isn't interested in seeing the impoverished (minority or otherwise) rise up an succeed. They are more interested keeping them impoverished so that they can provide them with the barest minimum necesary to appear as though they are helping them in order to gain their votes. It is all about contol. A large part of convincing to on the government to save them rather than their own individual abilities and actions is that of personal safety. They would rather you call the police than take matters of protecting yourself into your own hands.

Just do some brief research into the history of gun control and you will find its roots in racist attempts to prevent newly freed blacks from being able to defend themselves against those unable to see beyond race. Just look up the origins of the term "saturday night special" and "junk gun" laws.

Bottom line, the Left succeeds when individuals relinquish their rights and responabilities to the collective socitety.
 
So sometimes I wonder why don't pro-gun groups do more to reach out to politicians on the other side of the aisle in order to get more compromise in terms of guns legislation.
Click to expand...

Great idea; unfortunately, reasoning with socialists is like trying to teach cats to whistle. As far as "compromise" is concerned, every so-called "small" so-called "reasonable" so-called "compromise" we've ever settled for has merely emboldened the leftist extremists to demand more—and more and more and more.

So-called "compromising" with statist parasites is a lot like persuading yourself you have only a mild, temporary case of AIDS.
 
The Democrat/socialist/gungrabbing party continues to get 90 plus percent of the black vote through misinformation, lies, and intimidation. With liberals in charge of the education system you can count on blacks and hispanics staying 'on the plantation'.

If you went down the street and asked the average black person whether Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat or a Republican they would answer incorrectly. Ask them if they knew that the Republican parties in most southern states were started by freed blacks and they would be dumb founded. Tell them that Republicans championed the Civil Rights Act and Democrats filibustered and their heads would explode. Remind them what party George Wallace represented when he stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama to keep the 'coons' out and they wouldn't believe it. Right now black people choose to ignore grand kleagle of the white empire Robert KKK Byrd as one of the Democrat party's highest ranking senior senators.

Blacks were the original Southern Republican. Fixing the public education system would do both black people and the 2A a great service, not to mention sinking the socialist/communist/racist donkey party for good.
 
Compromise

Compromise is an invitation for a Trojan Horse. Remember the Lawful Commerce in Arms Law ? The first time it went for a vote, it was scuttled because of anti-freedom rider tacked on to it. Now it is law, and there was no anti-freedom provision along with it.
 
The problem is Tyrants. They are not mythical but they are hard to see. As the socialist Republican President Teddy Roosevelt once said, "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people." <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/theodorero169571.html>

These 'invisible' Tyrants have a long-term plan and it ain't democracy. They have plenty of money to win "friends" and influence people (phrase taken from a book title). They also have managed to have history revised completely. Now, we are told that Americans have never owned many guns and firearms are far more available today than in the past. Somehow the millions of guns sold off as surplus after WWII are ignored.

What the Second Amendment says is clear and unambiguous. If the drafters had intended to say "as part of" instead of a comma then they would have. They had an excellent command of the English language and wrote exactly what they meant.

There is no rational reason for a debate here but the lackys of tyrants do not need one. All they need to do is keep the debate going while the right is removed, one little piece at a time. During each cycle they let citizens think they have won a great victory by preserving 95 percent of the right. Of course, this means that there will be zero Second Amendment right in twenty cycles.

After that, no right will be safe from Tyrants.
 
I completely agree with you Ain'tTheAverageNRA, I'm always so conflicted come poll time. It seems like those most willing to protect my guns rights are most usually on the opposite end of the rest of my table. but that aside, I agree that progun groups should really put some focus on the inner city. I spent alot of my early childhood in a fairly crime/drug ridden part of Detroit and now live in the suburbs. Being involved alot more again in various organizations in Detroit I have become friends with alot more African Americans/hispanics than I would of just sitting around in the suburbs. through conversation I noticed my buddies didn't really have any hard facts about gun safety and gun control etc. I'm sure alot of unneccesary accidental deaths would be prevented, and alot more homes would be defended if more organizations (and individuals) would just reach out. What was your experience with your friends/family's view on guns in the old neighborhood? haha just to annoy some Anti's, next food donation/soup kitchen event everyone should show up with twice as much food to donate and become buddies with a family or two in need and try to get them out to the range or atleast involved (pamphlets for everyone!). the Anti's won't know what to do. hhhmmm now that I think about it none of my current neighbors seem to know much about guns..... I gotta lot of work to do.
 
Ain't the Average NRA, I agree that reaching out needs to take place, but more importantly, YOU and those who think like you are responsible for changing your leaders. Politicians who support the 2A do so, in many instances, because they know their constituents require it. If they didn't, the would be replaced. You need to communicate to politicians that otherwise meet your needs, that they need to have a more pro-2A approach or you will not vote for them.

Politicians will not change because the other side asks them to, they will only change when those who vote for them REQUIRE them to.
 
I remember back in the 1970s when the Black Caucus in the Congress jumped up and raised a ruckus against legislation which would have outlawed "Saturday Night Specials". They pointed out, back then, that poor folks have a right to be armed, just like those who could afford high-dollar handguns.

The last time I read anything about the Black Caucus' position on guns, they were notably anti. More controls, right in there with Schumer and Pelosi.

Same thing for the present leadership of the NAACP.

Both groups have changed some 180 degrees from neutral or pro into full-bore antis.

So: Who gets media coverage? The very few among the blacks who are "allowable" or "moderate" conservatives in the eyes of the media, or the Jesse Jackson types?

When folks like Dr. Thomas Sowell of Stanford are called "Uncle Tom", even by white liberals, I wonder if there's any hope for this society...

Art
 
Remember the hysterical reception the Libretarians got when they tried to hand out toy guns in Harlem, in response to NYC banning them? It's an up-hill battle to say the least.
 
Zen21Tao was saying
>I truely believe that the left isn't interested in
> seeing the impoverished (minority or otherwise)
> rise up an succeed. They are more interested
> keeping them impoverished so that they can
> provide them with the barest minimum necesary to
> appear as though they are helping them in order
> to gain their votes.

True. The Democrat party likes to appear to be defenders of the downtrodden and disadvantaged, but it has degenerated into simply buying votes with promises of give-aways, paid for by "the rich." The anti-gun philosophy fits in well with the idea that the people simply can't take care of themselves. Leave it to the state.
Marty
 
So sometimes I wonder why don't pro-gun groups do more to reach out to politicians on the other side of the aisle in order to get more compromise in terms of guns legislation.
Click to expand...

The real problem is wondering why someone doesn't do something. Most pro-gun groups are run by volunteers. If it needs done, do it.
 
aint the average nra.

I'm from PA also. Right up the road outside of Hershey. I can also see how libral some of our reps. in this state are. But We have Santorum, and Tim Holden who is a supporter of the nra and hunters. Plus is a Dem. I email him on every gun bill the nra informs me about. I'm sure that he sees I am regesterd Rep. I tell him every time to vote infavor of the 2d a or I'll stop voting for him. The internet is a easy way to get senators attention. If you can get enough people to help. Please PM me if there is any way I can help, and if I can I will.
 
Compromise did not work where have you been?

Compromise has gotten us where we are now.

NO MORE
 
I agree with your setiment, but do not agree that comprimise is the answer.

I do agree that a lot of outreach needs to take place, though.
A big problem of mine with the NRA, and a large number of pro-gunners is that they demonize the opposing side.

For example, I have been hearing, "THE Democrats WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!!!" for the last month, constantly, nonstop.

In response, the pro-gun community goes, "THOSE DAMN Democrat LIEBERAL SOCIALIST DEVILS! THEY WANT TO CONTROL EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE! I HATE THEM!!"

Very rarely have I heard the pro-gun community be the bigger person, and wonder why there's an anti-gun movement? The few that do, ridicule people that feel that gun control is a worthy objective.

Most anti-gunners have never touched a gun in their lives, and know nothing about them. I think simple education and outreach, REAL OUTREACH can do wonders. I'd love to see the NRA, or the JPFO, or some other org have monthly "Take an ANTI to the range day", where members pledge to take someone that is afraid of guns to a shooting range, teach them the safety rules, and perhaps talk to them, one on one, about our differences on the issues.

You'd be suprised what reasonable discourse can accomplish.

Also, I think we should LISTEN to the anti-gunners! They are anti-gunners mostly because they are afraid (and ignorant) of guns.
I
I was an anti-gunner for 20 years, longer than i've been pro gun (the last 10 or so)

Reasonable discourse by a fellow I worked with was the catalyst that changed my thinking.

Every time I hear, "THEY WON'T LISTEN" it makes my blood boil. Of course, you'll always have a few that wont, but it doesn't mean you should stop talking. Or stop listening.

That doesn't mean we should give up an inch, but it means we need to be more open, more reasonable, and most importantly, CIVIL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top