The political game is like bargaining at a pawn shop. I believe the anti gunners along with our president know that they are not going to get all of their agenda passed. The general public believe, it or not is in our corner on most issues. It is pretty much accepted they won't get an AWB passed,the high capacity mag is on the fence post,the back round check is supported by the general public,they find it reasonable. What we should be making public is that the UBC would be another piece of useless,un-enforceable legislation (criminals certainly are not going to submit to a back round check) and it would have no effect on crime.However with that being said It is supported and will probably be passed. I think we should bargain for other things which would benefit our cause and which would effect crime. Let's get passed a national CCW permit that would make your state CCW recognized nation wide. Let's get rid of no gun zones like hospitals,malls,govt. buildings etc.and I'm sure if we put our heads together other pieces of pro-gun legislation that would directly protect our rights and have an effect on crime.
We Need To "Just Say No"
- Thread starter LKB3rd
- Start date
- Status
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
AlexanderA, I see two problems with your proposed legislative strategy:
1. It assumes defeat before there has actually been a defeat. Since I was a small child I've been told things like "a majority of the public supports a ban on handguns" or "a majority of the public supports a ban on assault weapons" etc. Yet on the legislative front we have won on those issues - so much so that nobody even tries to sell the idea that bans of any kind have popular support.
One reason we win is that because Congressmen learned through experience that regardless of what their polls said, they'd lose their job for crossing the NRA in most places. So when you say "Something" is going to get passed, I question why that would have to be a UBC instead of say a more comprehensive version of the 2007 NICS Improvement Act?
2. By adopting a "something is going to pass" attitude AND conceding on UBC's, your strategy is ultimately doomed to failure. As I pointed out, another shooting WILL happen. Everyone knows it. If this round doesn't lead to registration but only UBCs, the next shooting will bring registration since after all, something is going to pass anyway, and registration is not as immediately bad as a ban; but it still won't stop the shootings from happening, so once they have registration, you can bet bans will not be far behind. You are just letting the alligator eat your legs rather than your head in the vain hope he'll get full before he eats something vital. Instead you've got to drive that alligator away by making him understand he is going to get hurt trying to eat any part of you.
1. It assumes defeat before there has actually been a defeat. Since I was a small child I've been told things like "a majority of the public supports a ban on handguns" or "a majority of the public supports a ban on assault weapons" etc. Yet on the legislative front we have won on those issues - so much so that nobody even tries to sell the idea that bans of any kind have popular support.
One reason we win is that because Congressmen learned through experience that regardless of what their polls said, they'd lose their job for crossing the NRA in most places. So when you say "Something" is going to get passed, I question why that would have to be a UBC instead of say a more comprehensive version of the 2007 NICS Improvement Act?
2. By adopting a "something is going to pass" attitude AND conceding on UBC's, your strategy is ultimately doomed to failure. As I pointed out, another shooting WILL happen. Everyone knows it. If this round doesn't lead to registration but only UBCs, the next shooting will bring registration since after all, something is going to pass anyway, and registration is not as immediately bad as a ban; but it still won't stop the shootings from happening, so once they have registration, you can bet bans will not be far behind. You are just letting the alligator eat your legs rather than your head in the vain hope he'll get full before he eats something vital. Instead you've got to drive that alligator away by making him understand he is going to get hurt trying to eat any part of you.
AlexanderA
Member
Sam1911 wrote:
No, my strategy would have been to go on the offensive from the beginning with an alternative plan that would have stolen the opposition's thunder. For example, we could have proposed a voluntary plan under which private sellers could access the NICS and get a "proceed" or "not proceed" indication on the buyer, with no centralized records being kept on either the gun or the buyer. The incentive to use this could have been civil and criminal immunity for the seller if the gun was later misused. And there could be blanket exemption (and immunity) if the transferee was either a family member or a concealed-carry permit holder -- and we could have thrown in nationwide reciprocity for concealed-carry permits, for good measure. And allow interstate sales by private individuals, if this procedure was followed. (Of course FFL's would scream bloody murder, since this would eat into their artificial monopoly.)
By proposing something like this right out of the starting gate, the antigunners would have been the ones playing defense, instead of the gun owners.
Well, that's a problem. The NRA has boxed itself into a corner, so that any deviation from its own hard line would be seen as a sign of weakness. In turn, the hard line resulted from years of stirring up the base in order to maximize contributions -- needed to pay the huge salaries of LaPierre & co. (Let's be honest.) The situation is playing out like an ancient Greek tragedy.
It's exactly the opposite -- each loss makes the next loss more likely, the situation snowballs, and in the end the NRA starts looking like a toothless tiger. You have to husband your own political capital. The antigunners are actually salivating at the prospect of bloodying the NRA's nose on something they consider the "low-hanging fruit." I know, because I read their stuff.
No, my strategy would have been to go on the offensive from the beginning with an alternative plan that would have stolen the opposition's thunder. For example, we could have proposed a voluntary plan under which private sellers could access the NICS and get a "proceed" or "not proceed" indication on the buyer, with no centralized records being kept on either the gun or the buyer. The incentive to use this could have been civil and criminal immunity for the seller if the gun was later misused. And there could be blanket exemption (and immunity) if the transferee was either a family member or a concealed-carry permit holder -- and we could have thrown in nationwide reciprocity for concealed-carry permits, for good measure. And allow interstate sales by private individuals, if this procedure was followed. (Of course FFL's would scream bloody murder, since this would eat into their artificial monopoly.)
By proposing something like this right out of the starting gate, the antigunners would have been the ones playing defense, instead of the gun owners.
Well, that's a problem. The NRA has boxed itself into a corner, so that any deviation from its own hard line would be seen as a sign of weakness. In turn, the hard line resulted from years of stirring up the base in order to maximize contributions -- needed to pay the huge salaries of LaPierre & co. (Let's be honest.) The situation is playing out like an ancient Greek tragedy.
It's exactly the opposite -- each loss makes the next loss more likely, the situation snowballs, and in the end the NRA starts looking like a toothless tiger. You have to husband your own political capital. The antigunners are actually salivating at the prospect of bloodying the NRA's nose on something they consider the "low-hanging fruit." I know, because I read their stuff.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
As it SHOULD be. I'm not supporting an organization that can't see "compromise" for what it is. The NRA simply needs to help us make the other side pay in political blood for every single inch. That's IT. Period. The idea that we have some position to offer them trades doesn't wash. If we say, "we'll accept this kind of extra background checks for the ability to do interstate trades..." they'll simply say, "GREAT! The NRA has come out in favor of these background checks!" (Period, full stop, no mention of the crumb we wanted, ever.)
Oh my goodness. That old tripe again? "OOOH that meanie fatcat Wayne makes waaaaay too much money!!!" Yeah, sure. Tell you what, I want MY lobbiest to make more money than ANYBODY ELSE'S lobbyist. He's the head of one of the largest lobbying organizations in the nation -- in fact, the most powerful gun-rights organization in the world. I'm really not interested in paying for the second-stringers, understood? Pulling the "paid too much" card rips any legitimacy out of your argument because it makes you look out of touch with the reality of modern politics.
You know what they say because you read their stuff. Great. That doesn't make it legitimate, or a cause of concern to us.
I've considered your position here and I completely disagree.
Make every single inch they take so incredibly painful, politically, that the legislators who do vote against us are not willing to ever touch gun control again -- or are out of office by next term. Make them die on that hill, if they want it so bad.
That's in our power and it should be our only strategy.
hogshead
Member
Well said Sam1911. So many gun owners are ready to roll over and die and let them have the ubc . Saying oh we will get this or that. We will get nothing except for registration which leads to confiscation. Nuff said so tired of arguing this point with people who should know better. Alexander you need to quit reading the lib propaganda its going to your head.
Very well said.Sam1911 said:
Re: the NRA and compromise. I became a life member last year. I wasn't prior, because in the past the NRA has been seen as the gun right organization most willing to "compromise."
I'm glad that they appear to have wised up. I'll continue to give them money every year if they stay true to this course. When they negotiate another NFA, or GCA, I will stop funding the organization forever
Here's to no compromise! <lifts diet Coke can in toast>
PapaGrune
Member
A Great Read Fiction or Not. Thanks for the link. I will post it else where if that is OK of the OP
AlexanderA
Member
Sam1911 wrote:
That would make sense if he was effective. By all appearances, he hasn't been particularly effective (in this crisis). (His disastrous press conferences are a prime example.) The NRA is just like most large corporations and organizations, in which executive pay is disconnected from performance. The management simply perpetuates itself and votes itself whatever compensation it wants. It would take a "shareholders' revolt" on the scale of the so-called Revolution at Cincinnati to unseat the management, and such a revolt won't take place in the middle of this crisis atmosphere. So LaPierre & co. are safe, and can do whatever they want. People, they're secretly laughing all the way to the bank. I'm amazed at the naivete and gullibility of the typical NRA members. And I say this as an NRA Life Member since the early 1970's.
I suspect that a dedicated advocate, who has taken a vow of poverty, would be more effective than the "fat cats" (your term) now running the NRA. Pay is absolutely no indication of effectiveness. Did Gandhi become rich leading India to independence? How about our own Founding Fathers? How many of them became wealthy from the Revolution?
That would make sense if he was effective. By all appearances, he hasn't been particularly effective (in this crisis). (His disastrous press conferences are a prime example.) The NRA is just like most large corporations and organizations, in which executive pay is disconnected from performance. The management simply perpetuates itself and votes itself whatever compensation it wants. It would take a "shareholders' revolt" on the scale of the so-called Revolution at Cincinnati to unseat the management, and such a revolt won't take place in the middle of this crisis atmosphere. So LaPierre & co. are safe, and can do whatever they want. People, they're secretly laughing all the way to the bank. I'm amazed at the naivete and gullibility of the typical NRA members. And I say this as an NRA Life Member since the early 1970's.
I suspect that a dedicated advocate, who has taken a vow of poverty, would be more effective than the "fat cats" (your term) now running the NRA. Pay is absolutely no indication of effectiveness. Did Gandhi become rich leading India to independence? How about our own Founding Fathers? How many of them became wealthy from the Revolution?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Pay is no indicator of effectiveness? 
Well, LACK of pay sure is. I'll stick to my "decently compensated" lobbyists, personally. As a good capitalist, I tend to believe that if you'll work for peanuts, you're probably WORTH IT.
...
Wait, you're looking for an RKBA monk to take a vow of poverty, move to D.C. and spend a life of service fighting in the Senators' and Representatives' offices, appearing before the UN, meeting with heads of national and international bodies to fight for our rights, what... in sackcloth and ashes?
Oh.
Ok.
Well...I guess let us know when that happens. Meanwhile...I don't want the NRA to go a' compromisin' for me.
Well, LACK of pay sure is. I'll stick to my "decently compensated" lobbyists, personally. As a good capitalist, I tend to believe that if you'll work for peanuts, you're probably WORTH IT....
Wait, you're looking for an RKBA monk to take a vow of poverty, move to D.C. and spend a life of service fighting in the Senators' and Representatives' offices, appearing before the UN, meeting with heads of national and international bodies to fight for our rights, what... in sackcloth and ashes?
Oh.
Ok.
Well...I guess let us know when that happens. Meanwhile...I don't want the NRA to go a' compromisin' for me.
AlexanderA:
It is a fallacy to think that the political struggle over guns is a legitimate negotiation. If you are tied to the tracks and the train's a-comin', you can't save your life by slowing the train. You have to stop it.
I'm with Sam. If we lose, we lose. If we concede, we lose. I'd rather go down fighting.
It is a fallacy to think that the political struggle over guns is a legitimate negotiation. If you are tied to the tracks and the train's a-comin', you can't save your life by slowing the train. You have to stop it.
I'm with Sam. If we lose, we lose. If we concede, we lose. I'd rather go down fighting.
"Gun owners are disproportionately white, old, Southern, rural, and male"
This part of your post is absolutely not true. I live in Wisconsin and almost everyone I know owns one or more guns . Us northern guys/gals like our guns too. All of us North / South / East / West are in this together and the only way we get through these attacks on our rights is together.
AlexanderA
Member
GAF wrote:
Yes, of course there are gun owners in all parts of the country. But I've seen statistics that show that Southern people own guns at a higher rate than that of the general population. The same goes for each of the other categories that I mentioned. I think it's fair to say that among Southern white rural males, gun ownership is practically universal. Among Northern urban blacks, on the other hand, gun ownership is less than 20%. These percentages are reflected in how people vote on the gun issue.
Yes, of course there are gun owners in all parts of the country. But I've seen statistics that show that Southern people own guns at a higher rate than that of the general population. The same goes for each of the other categories that I mentioned. I think it's fair to say that among Southern white rural males, gun ownership is practically universal. Among Northern urban blacks, on the other hand, gun ownership is less than 20%. These percentages are reflected in how people vote on the gun issue.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
But none of that means that the proportion of old white southerners is the one, or the only, segment of society which is increasing gun ownership at the moment. That would seem to be untrue on the very face of it.
ALL segments of society appear to be increasing their levels of gun ownership. I sure do see a lot more young folks, women, black, latino/latina, and so forth out at the ranges and in competition now than I ever did in previous years.
Heck, two of my bestest shooting pals are women, and one of them hits a few categories...black, woman, veteran and current service-member, doctor, and industry sponsored shooter. Times they are a'changing!
ALL segments of society appear to be increasing their levels of gun ownership. I sure do see a lot more young folks, women, black, latino/latina, and so forth out at the ranges and in competition now than I ever did in previous years.
Heck, two of my bestest shooting pals are women, and one of them hits a few categories...black, woman, veteran and current service-member, doctor, and industry sponsored shooter. Times they are a'changing!
AlexanderA
Member
Sam1911 wrote:
Ralph Nader was exactly like that in his early days. As I recall, he was pretty effective as a lobbyist.
One problem that the NRA has is the public perception that it's a bunch of fat cats, representing the gun industry, and disconnected from the rank-and-file gun owners. We know that that's not true, but it's still the public perception -- a perception cultivated and taken advantage of by the antis. Just think if we could "play against type" and have an NRA spokesperson who defies stereotype -- say, a woman, a minority, etc. Such a person above all would need to be approachable and sympathetic -- qualities not projected by Wayne LaPierre.
Ralph Nader was exactly like that in his early days. As I recall, he was pretty effective as a lobbyist.
One problem that the NRA has is the public perception that it's a bunch of fat cats, representing the gun industry, and disconnected from the rank-and-file gun owners. We know that that's not true, but it's still the public perception -- a perception cultivated and taken advantage of by the antis. Just think if we could "play against type" and have an NRA spokesperson who defies stereotype -- say, a woman, a minority, etc. Such a person above all would need to be approachable and sympathetic -- qualities not projected by Wayne LaPierre.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, I can't argue against that. I'd love to have a more cosmopolitan, relatable face to be the public representative of gun rights. I like Chris Cox for that, but he's still a white guy. Maybe someone like Jessie Duff. (Yeah, that would bring a whole lot more of the young male population to our side, at least!) Or many other diverse and well-spoken people.
But, as I said in another thread:
Maybe he's not the best in the role, and maybe he IS the best in the role.
The role is not "spokesmodel" or "everyone's best pal."
But, as I said in another thread:
Maybe he's not the best in the role, and maybe he IS the best in the role.
The role is not "spokesmodel" or "everyone's best pal."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
