monotonous_iterancy
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 915
Today I've had a few strains of thought in my mind, I started thinking of the SAFE act, and that made me remember a post Midwest made months ago.
I think it's a great idea, and I started thinking about it.
Another thought I've had bouncing around is an article I read discussing the political compass test. The base of the Democrat party is far more to the left than most Democrat politicians. The author of this article scored far to the left, but she said,
That's good. She's in the center of gun issues, we can work with that.
It also made me think of a long article posted here long ago that approaches gun rights from a left-wing perspective.
So that tells us that
1. The political base that elects anti-gun politicians might not be as anti-gun as those elected.
2. If we can create a single issue coalition, we can make inroads in areas we're losing ground in.
I don't know if a non-partisan fund or PAC exists for this purpose, but if not, I started thinking of how to implement it.
Here's my thinking -
Step 1. Say I start a PAC, it costs nothing. The hardest part is making contacts and getting this out of our mind and into reality. Now that I have the structure, I talk to my friends, family, any pro-gun individual I know about this. Then, and this is important, I go to local gun shops and solicit support. Maybe we make a deal that a small amount of profit goes towards this fund, or maybe we just set up a way for customers to make voluntary donations, either way, we create institutional funding within the gun culture. This can be done on a decentralized wide-spread scale.
Step 2. Someone goes to the areas we're trying to target, say Massachusetts, or New York. They make contact with local political groups that might be receptive to a pro-gun message. Here's my caveat. The NRA is a great organization, but in these areas, they're viewed as a tool of the Republican party. Our goal will be to talk to whoever will listen, of any political persuasion in order to get them to support this fund.
The trick is tailoring the pro-gun message to different persuasions. I think this can be done. Part of what stops us now is the reasoning we use. It comes from a primarily right-wing perspective. I'd imagine that most of us at THR call ourselves conservatives or libertarians. Fine. But let me use an example. Both a socialist and a libertarian oppose Obamacare. They do so for completely different reasons. That's okay. We'll put our "why" aside and focus on action. Maybe we speak to a conservative or libertarian group and talk the usual, it probably won't be difficult to persuade them to support us.
Or maybe we talk to a progressive or socialist group, or a group of community activists in a high-crime area, and we tailor our language to them or whatever group we're speaking to. We get to the heart of their fears and why the 2nd amendment is needed to protect themselves. Maybe it's crime, or tyrannical government, or maybe it's the capitalist corporate militia of a fortune 500 bank.
Midwest said:Yes we CAN do something to help in other states, even though we don't live there.
If every one of those 100 million gun owners would just contribute $1 each yearly into a National Fund purely for the election of pro-gun candidates, maybe we would not be having these threads. If every gun owner in the country would contribute $5 each, that would be 1/2 billion dollars per year, that would make a difference.
If every gun shop in the country would let each customer take out an extra $1 or $2 to contribute to this National fund, that would be the easiest way to raise money.
Would would administer it?
NRAILA
GOA
A separate organization?
The money would be specifically earmarked for all pro-gun candidates especially in anti-gun states and areas. Someone buying a rifle in Idaho could earmark an extra dollar or two (if he or she wanted) to help elect pro-gun candidates in anti-gun areas like the Northeast.
This way even though we live in a pro-gun state, would could do something to help our fellow gun owners in anti-gun states and areas.
I think it's a great idea, and I started thinking about it.
Another thought I've had bouncing around is an article I read discussing the political compass test. The base of the Democrat party is far more to the left than most Democrat politicians. The author of this article scored far to the left, but she said,
I believe the 2nd Amendment is important but does not come without any limits.
That's good. She's in the center of gun issues, we can work with that.
It also made me think of a long article posted here long ago that approaches gun rights from a left-wing perspective.
So that tells us that
1. The political base that elects anti-gun politicians might not be as anti-gun as those elected.
2. If we can create a single issue coalition, we can make inroads in areas we're losing ground in.
I don't know if a non-partisan fund or PAC exists for this purpose, but if not, I started thinking of how to implement it.
Here's my thinking -
Step 1. Say I start a PAC, it costs nothing. The hardest part is making contacts and getting this out of our mind and into reality. Now that I have the structure, I talk to my friends, family, any pro-gun individual I know about this. Then, and this is important, I go to local gun shops and solicit support. Maybe we make a deal that a small amount of profit goes towards this fund, or maybe we just set up a way for customers to make voluntary donations, either way, we create institutional funding within the gun culture. This can be done on a decentralized wide-spread scale.
Step 2. Someone goes to the areas we're trying to target, say Massachusetts, or New York. They make contact with local political groups that might be receptive to a pro-gun message. Here's my caveat. The NRA is a great organization, but in these areas, they're viewed as a tool of the Republican party. Our goal will be to talk to whoever will listen, of any political persuasion in order to get them to support this fund.
The trick is tailoring the pro-gun message to different persuasions. I think this can be done. Part of what stops us now is the reasoning we use. It comes from a primarily right-wing perspective. I'd imagine that most of us at THR call ourselves conservatives or libertarians. Fine. But let me use an example. Both a socialist and a libertarian oppose Obamacare. They do so for completely different reasons. That's okay. We'll put our "why" aside and focus on action. Maybe we speak to a conservative or libertarian group and talk the usual, it probably won't be difficult to persuade them to support us.
Or maybe we talk to a progressive or socialist group, or a group of community activists in a high-crime area, and we tailor our language to them or whatever group we're speaking to. We get to the heart of their fears and why the 2nd amendment is needed to protect themselves. Maybe it's crime, or tyrannical government, or maybe it's the capitalist corporate militia of a fortune 500 bank.