Gun Rights- Fighting And Winning

How do any of the rants about the constitutional process of amending the constitution or even what the right entails with or without the explicit amendment in question, fall under the aspect of "... discuss[ing] strategies for fighting and winning the war on gun rights, ..."

That was what the OP wanted.

The OP also wanted us to stay on topic so the thread wouldn't get locked....

Glenn hinted. I demand it. Get it back on track.
 
As gun owners we are in a slightly different position fighting for our rights than other minority groups.

Other groups are fighting for rights (actually the exercise of rights) that they had previously always been denied.

We aren't. We're trying to keep what we once had, and not lose more...

We got here due to a culture shift that began after WWII. The result toady is a large segment of our people believing anything militaristic is "bad", and any kind of "blood sport" is repugnant, unless it involves MEN beating the crap out of each other, then, its "entertainment".

Additional factors of less and less rural environment, the social & political views of the majority of those educating our children, and an entertainment culture that glorifies "gun violence", have a greater and greater impact of the views of each upcoming generation.

"Normal", (and often "right and proper") is what ever social and political conditions exist as you grow up, and become aware of what they are.

It isn't "Tyranny" it's normal. Tyranny only happens when you go beyond what you're used to.

I grew up in New York state in the 60s. Filling out the permit forms, paying the fee, providing 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs, 3 character references (not family) and a few weeks wait was NORMAL in order to buy a pistol the first time. After that (you had a permit) and additional guns just meant additional forms and fee and wait, each time.

Moved out west in the 70s, and discovered a wonderful land where you could buy a pistol by walking into the store, paying for it and taking it home in 3-5 business days if you didn't have a concealed weapon permit, and the same day, if you did. Not at ALL like NY.

To someone raised (and indoctrinated) in the repressive culture of NY and some other places, what was done in other places was (at best) hugely irresponsible. TO those of us in other places, what was done in NY was tyrannically oppressive.

Tell me how you "win" the hearts and minds of people who's only experience with guns, from cradle to present is what they see on tv and the evil done with them by criminals in their local neighborhoods.

the only way to do that is to get them to think, calmly and rationally, without emotion, about the facts, not the slogans, and sadly, neither our educational system nor our culture in general are well set up to do that.
 
Right boil down to this, you only have the rights that you or a large enough group are willing to fight for. If you can’t fight for a right, then others have to do it on your behalf. I don’t mean violence, at least initially, I mean a political fight: by voting, protesting and other means. There’s too much complacency and not enough commitment in the gun world.


Gun owners are as much to blame as gun control advocates. Lots of no one fighting going on:
No one in Texas fights for rights in California.
People in Arizona could care less about the plight of New Yorkers or Washingtonians.
“We don’t need bumpstocks”
“We don’t need 30rd mags”
“We don’t need 1000rds of ammunition”
“We’re ok with UBCs”
“You don’t need a semiautomatic to hunt”
“You don’t need 10 rounds to hunt”
“I’m ok with hunting rifles”
“I’ll register my guns if I get to keep them”
“Target sports is the only valid reason to own a gun”
“Hunting is the only valid reason to own a gun”
This and more has been said or done on the pro-gun side.
Pro-gun side is just a bunch of teacup poodles with some catchy slogans like “come and take it” “molon labe” and the likes.
We don’t fight, we comply. Because it’s not a right that most of the public approves of or even really cares about. We are not much more than people who want to keep their toys.

Fairly intensive indoctrination going on in public schools, I’ve heard many recordings of public school lectures, it’s not rumor or conspiracy theories. We all know about the media and politicians too.
 
As much as I hate to suggest it, a major aspect of fighting to protect our right to keep and bear arms is to (as the saying goes) "put your money where your mouth is." We can sit behind our keyboards and pontificate about the Second Amendment and the nature and origins of the RKBA, but (for the most part) when we post here we're preaching to the choir. And while we're busily reinforcing each other regarding how right we are and how wrong "they" are, "they" are hard at work crafting more anti-gun legislation to propose at all levels of government.

How do we combat that? With votes ... and with money. First, if you aren't involved in your state's most active and effective gun rights organization ... get involved. If you can't make it to meetings, support them with money. Support the NRA-ILA. Remember, the NRA itself is an educational non-profit organization. The NRA cannot engage in lobbying. The ILA is a legally separate organization that CAN engage in lobbying ... and does. The ILA is financially separate from the NRA, so be sure to direct some money to the ILA to continue the fight. I also like to support the Second Amendment Foundation, since they are also active and involved.

And then we get to the sense of John F. Kennedy's famous speech, in which he enjoined us to, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." I expressed this recently as borrowing from the environmentalists' playbook: "Think globally, act locally." It's impossible for the NRA-ILA, the SAF, or any other gun rights group to keep track of the myriad of local and county ordinances on the books and being proposed. WE have to do that. And sometimes the only way to fight these local laws is to step up the plate and open our own wallets.

A few years ago I became aware of a particularly onerous and absurdly written local ordinance in my own home town. The way it was written, even though I have a state-issued permit to carry, if I carried while walking out to my mailbox on the street curb, I was in violation of the law. My state's gun rights organization, of which I am a member, was engaged in a legal battle against the state on statewide legislation, so I didn't want to even ask them to siphon money away from that fight to take on my town. So I hired an attorney on my own dime to take it on. I financed a year's worth of negotiations ... which didn't generate any changes. In year two, my attorney was able to obtain some grant money from the NRA to enable us to continue the negotiations, and we did ultimately succeed in getting the town to revise the ordinance.

I wanted repeal, of course, but that simply wasn't going to happen. The changes we were able to generate resolved many of the worst problems with the ordinance. We didn't get everything I would have liked, but in retrospect I have to admit that the revised ordinance is much less bad (I don't like to say "better," just "less bad") than the original. I'm not asking for praise in saying that the revision wouldn't have happened if I hadn't taken on the fight. I just want to use my case to illustrate that the fight is on-going, and on many levels. Somebody has to be willing to step up and take on the smaller cases that are too minor for the NRA, the SAF, or any of the big players to go after. We can't sit behind our keyboards and expect that somebody else will do it.

If you know about it, and if you're in a position to do something about it ... then by all means DO something about it. Don't sit back and post on gun forums that "somebody ought'a do something." The anti-gun forces are coordinating all across the country. In the course of my local fight, we learned that there is an attorney "down state" who is consulting with towns all over the state on adopting anti-gun ordinances. That's their strategy. They realize they probably won't get what they want through federal legislation, so they are going after lower-level legislation to accomplish the same result. Instead of a nuclear bomb, they're taking a "death by a thousand cuts" approach.

If we can use that same approach, and start attacking these local and county ordinances, and the state laws, and if we do it well and we WIN ... that's how we'll force the anti-gun forces to slow down, back up, and reconsider their strategy. But we can never assume that if we won yesterday, we'll be safe tomorrow. The anti-gunners aren't going to go away. They'll just regroup and come back from a different angle. So we have to remain involved, and keep track of what they're up to so we can do our best to counter it. And each of us has to recognize that maybe today it's our turn to carry the water.
 
We know what “we” want and why.

What is it that “they” want?

Why do “they” want it?

“They” must know, just like “we” do that gun restrictions have little effect on safety. So what is the end goal if it’s not going to lower crime? The real end goal, not the stated goal of lowering crime.
 
What is it that “they” want?

Why do “they” want it?

“They” must know, just like “we” do that gun restrictions have little effect on safety.

But restrictions DO have an effect on "safety".. THEIR safety. What do they want? TO be "safe", no matter what they do. Why do they want guns removed from the hands of everyone (that they don't control)? for their own safety.

It doesn't matter whether the people in power are left, right, or somewhere else, the bottom line is that, ultimately, people that disagree with them, and have guns ARE a threat to their power, and their safety.

Bottom line is if/when the forces of government come for you, for what ever reason they feel acceptable, if there are no guns in your hands, resistance is a LOT less effective.

If every time the Sturmtruppen raided an apartment block to "relocate" people a couple of them had been shot, things might have worked out differently.

here's the point, you cannot be a successful dictator if the people retain both the will and the arms to resist. So, while they can call it anything they want, (public safety is the preferred stalking horse), the reality is that its their own safety they are concerned about, NOT ours.

They don't care about criminals preying on us with guns (no matter what they say in public), what they want is to prevent US from resisting THEM, and their goals.

Those pesky colonial colonists grumbled and protested at the Crown's taxes, and lack of a voice in government. But we didn't FIGHT, until the Crown tried to seize our guns. And once the fight started, we didn't quit.
 
As much as I hate to suggest it, a major aspect of fighting to protect our right to keep and bear arms is to (as the saying goes) "put your money where your mouth is." We can sit behind our keyboards and pontificate about the Second Amendment and the nature and origins of the RKBA, but (for the most part) when we post here we're preaching to the choir. And while we're busily reinforcing each other regarding how right we are and how wrong "they" are, "they" are hard at work crafting more anti-gun legislation to propose at all levels of government.

How do we combat that? With votes ... and with money. First, if you aren't involved in your state's most active and effective gun rights organization ... get involved. If you can't make it to meetings, support them with money. Support the NRA-ILA. Remember, the NRA itself is an educational non-profit organization. The NRA cannot engage in lobbying. The ILA is a legally separate organization that CAN engage in lobbying ... and does. The ILA is financially separate from the NRA, so be sure to direct some money to the ILA to continue the fight. I also like to support the Second Amendment Foundation, since they are also active and involved.

And then we get to the sense of John F. Kennedy's famous speech, in which he enjoined us to, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." I expressed this recently as borrowing from the environmentalists' playbook: "Think globally, act locally." It's impossible for the NRA-ILA, the SAF, or any other gun rights group to keep track of the myriad of local and county ordinances on the books and being proposed. WE have to do that. And sometimes the only way to fight these local laws is to step up the plate and open our own wallets.

A few years ago I became aware of a particularly onerous and absurdly written local ordinance in my own home town. The way it was written, even though I have a state-issued permit to carry, if I carried while walking out to my mailbox on the street curb, I was in violation of the law. My state's gun rights organization, of which I am a member, was engaged in a legal battle against the state on statewide legislation, so I didn't want to even ask them to siphon money away from that fight to take on my town. So I hired an attorney on my own dime to take it on. I financed a year's worth of negotiations ... which didn't generate any changes. In year two, my attorney was able to obtain some grant money from the NRA to enable us to continue the negotiations, and we did ultimately succeed in getting the town to revise the ordinance.

I wanted repeal, of course, but that simply wasn't going to happen. The changes we were able to generate resolved many of the worst problems with the ordinance. We didn't get everything I would have liked, but in retrospect I have to admit that the revised ordinance is much less bad (I don't like to say "better," just "less bad") than the original. I'm not asking for praise in saying that the revision wouldn't have happened if I hadn't taken on the fight. I just want to use my case to illustrate that the fight is on-going, and on many levels. Somebody has to be willing to step up and take on the smaller cases that are too minor for the NRA, the SAF, or any of the big players to go after. We can't sit behind our keyboards and expect that somebody else will do it.

If you know about it, and if you're in a position to do something about it ... then by all means DO something about it. Don't sit back and post on gun forums that "somebody ought'a do something." The anti-gun forces are coordinating all across the country. In the course of my local fight, we learned that there is an attorney "down state" who is consulting with towns all over the state on adopting anti-gun ordinances. That's their strategy. They realize they probably won't get what they want through federal legislation, so they are going after lower-level legislation to accomplish the same result. Instead of a nuclear bomb, they're taking a "death by a thousand cuts" approach.

If we can use that same approach, and start attacking these local and county ordinances, and the state laws, and if we do it well and we WIN ... that's how we'll force the anti-gun forces to slow down, back up, and reconsider their strategy. But we can never assume that if we won yesterday, we'll be safe tomorrow. The anti-gunners aren't going to go away. They'll just regroup and come back from a different angle. So we have to remain involved, and keep track of what they're up to so we can do our best to counter it. And each of us has to recognize that maybe today it's our turn to carry the water.
Agreed. I think gun dealers should refuse to do business with people who aren't a member of some gun rights organization, or at least should have a 10% up charge for those who are not..

The NRA being only 7 million members is sad - should be at least half of gun owners, ie 50 million anyway. People are so damn foolish. Not saying the NRA is the end all organization but joining any similar organization is the responsible thing - there is no excuse for not being member of some organization.
 
I think gun dealers should refuse to do business with people who aren't a member of some gun rights organization, or at least should have a 10% up charge for those who are not..

And I think that idea is a bunch of crap. It is just as fascist/elitist as gun control laws, just in the opposite direction. I get that you want to make a point, and its an important point, but penalizing law abiding citizens for not actively supporting your political point of view is the wrong way to go about it.

Now, if you wanted to convince gun dealers to offer a discount to gun rights group members, I'm ok with that. But you don't refuse to do business, or ADD cost just because someone isn't a card carrying NRA or other gun rights group member. It's WRONG!

This is NOT the same thing as Barrett, or Ruger refusing to do business with the state of California, because of what the state has DONE to restrict firearms, you are proposing a punishment on people who YOU feel haven't done ENOUGH to support firearms ownership. I think its wrong and a very bad idea.
 
So.. giving a 10% discount to gun rights group members is OK, but charging non-members 10% more is evil and wrong. You realize that either way, the end prices could be the same amount (group members pay less), right?
 
So.. giving a 10% discount to gun rights group members is OK, but charging non-members 10% more is evil and wrong.

It's not so much the what,. as the why.

Lots of retailers give discounts to members of certain groups. It's a business arrangement, worked out between the retailers and the groups. It's commonly done.

But charging people extra, or refusing their business if they don't belong to groups on your "approved" list? The idea wasn't for a "members only" store but for all dealers to shun or charge extra if you weren't a member of an "approved" group.

If you think needing to get a govt permit is an infringement of a basic right, how can needing to be a member of a certain group NOT be???

Sure, businesses can, within the law, set what ever policies they wish, but really...is it right to turn down my business, or charge me extra because I let my NRA membership lapse? Are you going to ask for my voting history next??

Membership in gun rights groups should be encouraged (and that's what a discount would do). They should not be REQUIRED in order to exercise a basic right.
 
JN01 said:
So.. giving a 10% discount to gun rights group members is OK, but charging non-members 10% more is evil and wrong. You realize that either way, the end prices could be the same amount (group members pay less), right?

44AMP said:
...but really...is it right to turn down my business, or charge me extra...

Whether it is right or not, that isn't something vendors do because buyers would dislike it.

The grocery down the road charges hapless men who shop infrequently more than other people, so if I am sent to get bread or soda, I may be charged 20% more than the normal price unless I take my wife's card for that store. The store calls it a discount, but people who grocery shop there normally have that card. Without the card, I pay the sucker's price.

I would note that the private ranges in my area will not admit someone as a member unless he is an NRA member.
 
Well I think mostly if you own guns and aren't a member of some gun rights organization its usually pure ignorance. People dont because they dont want to spend the 30 bucks or make a small donation, they think someone else will do it for them. Kinda like not voting- if that's an elitist point of view I'm ok with it.
 
Well I think mostly if you own guns and aren't a member of some gun rights organization its usually pure ignorance. People dont because they dont want to spend the 30 bucks or make a small donation, they think someone else will do it for them. Kinda like not voting- if that's an elitist point of view I'm ok with it.

Think whatever you like, but I own guns, I'm pretty well informed on Constitutional matters, and I don't partake in discretionary organizations -- no advocacy groups, no alumni associations, no political parties, no social clubs, no religions, no nothing. And why's that? Because all organizations are corrupt, and I'm not voluntarily supporting any of them. Non-negotiable.

I also believe in a competitive marketplace. If my local gun shop refused to do business with non-NRA members (which is utterly absurd), that'd just mean someone else would. And if they offered 10% discounts to NRA members only, I'd wave cash under their noses in exchange for the same discount. It's up to them, but my money's green, and customers have options.
 
Think whatever you like, but I own guns, I'm pretty well informed on Constitutional matters, and I don't partake in discretionary organizations -- no advocacy groups, no alumni associations, no political parties, no social clubs, no religions, no nothing. And why's that? Because all organizations are corrupt, and I'm not voluntarily supporting any of them. Non-negotiable.

I also believe in a competitive marketplace. If my local gun shop refused to do business with non-NRA members (which is utterly absurd), that'd just mean someone else would. And if they offered 10% discounts to NRA members only, I'd wave cash under their noses in exchange for the same discount. It's up to them, but my money's green, and customers have options.
If it weren't for the gun right organizations we wouldn't have the guns to buy. Stop making excuses and think about it.
 
Some people just don’t want to be on some list that kinda puts them into a category or gets thier information sold.
The NRA doesn't take information beyond name and address, which is available publicly anyway.. You can be a member under "Codename Cheezewiz" using a PO box address if you are that paranoid :)
 
Some people don’t want to be associated with any particular group.

I donate frequently several times a year to the NRA but not a member. Then I get solicitations from the NRA and other gun groups, so they find out somehow.

I’m not the one that thinks gun owners should be forced join gun groups.
If someone doesn’t want to join, so what. Calling people paranoid for legitimate concerns isn’t the way to get people to join the NRA for sure
 
But restrictions DO have an effect on "safety".. THEIR safety. What do they want? TO be "safe", no matter what they do. Why do they want guns removed from the hands of everyone (that they don't control)? for their own safety.

It doesn't matter whether the people in power are left, right, or somewhere else, the bottom line is that, ultimately, people that disagree with them, and have guns ARE a threat to their power, and their safety.

Bottom line is if/when the forces of government come for you, for what ever reason they feel acceptable, if there are no guns in your hands, resistance is a LOT less effective.

If every time the Sturmtruppen raided an apartment block to "relocate" people a couple of them had been shot, things might have worked out differently.

here's the point, you cannot be a successful dictator if the people retain both the will and the arms to resist. So, while they can call it anything they want, (public safety is the preferred stalking horse), the reality is that its their own safety they are concerned about, NOT ours.

They don't care about criminals preying on us with guns (no matter what they say in public), what they want is to prevent US from resisting THEM, and their goals.

Those pesky colonial colonists grumbled and protested at the Crown's taxes, and lack of a voice in government. But we didn't FIGHT, until the Crown tried to seize our guns. And once the fight started, we didn't quit.
That's a darn fine post there 44 AMP.
 
Back
Top