Lessons to be learned from the Million Moms?

bestdefense357

New member
At the risk of being flamed, I think we should look at what we can learn from the MMM. While I totally disagree with their goals, I have to give them credit for achieving their objectives. What can the pro-gun movement learn from them?

(1) Emotion/passion. For too long, our side has been bogged down in arguments about the 2nd Amendment, statistical analysis, and political statements that leave non-gun-owners with glazed-over eyes. While I believe that all of these are necessary, it is my long-held belief that we must fight emotion with emotion. If we don't, I'll guarantee you we're going to lose. Look at what happened when a (for once) truly passionate Wayne LaPierre attacked President Clinton for "blood-dancing" on victims of gun violence. It made people stop and think and re-evaluate their positions. That's the only time I've ever seen LaPierre show any passion at all, and it worked.

We should make a massive effort to get the national media to do stories on victims who fought back with guns and won. I'm scheduled to be on ABC radio Wednesday, and I plan to make that appeal to the ABC news wonks. I would like to see the NRA set up a speaker's bureau of armed victims who defended themselves to speak at everything from the Rotary club to Frontline, and all points in between. I plan to approach the NRA about doing this. Once I write my letter to them, I will publish it here, and I'd like to see other NRA members write similar letters.

(2) Public relations/media. The Million Moms (well-connected as they were), played their public relations card to the hilt. Their media reps pushed the march and built it into a sort of grassroots soccer mom fashion statement. Now, all of a sudden, its kewl to be anti-gun.

We HAVE to find a way to break the barrier that the news media has placed in front of us. The only way to do that is through passion and emotion, similar to LaPierre's statement about Clinton. I don't have all the answers here, as the media is obviously prejudiced against us, but we all saw what happened with K-Mart and Rosie. We must figure out a way to get the self-defense message heard.

(3) Act/react. As always, the pro-gun movement was a reactionary force. By that, I mean, we waited for the Million Moms to organize, then we organized a smaller counter-demonstration. Pro-gun legislators wait until an anti-gun bill is presented, then try to fight it down.
What usually happens is that part of the bill gets passed, and the pro-gun legislators declare a major victory because the whole bill wasn't passed. Of course, in the next session, the same thing happens--ever wonder where the 22,000 gun laws came from?

We need to develop a strategy for winning, not aways react to outside events (although, of course, that is sometimes necessary).

Any suggestions or comments will be welcome.

Robert http://www.ocala4sale.com/bestdefense
 
Can't use their methods.

"For the collective good" all guns would be banned. Utilitarian argument won't work.

Most people want guns banned incrementally. Don't take the SAS's smaller turnout as some sort of tactical error, that pretty much summed up sentiment.

The second amendment is to protect citizens from disarmament by govt. Since govt. is selected by majority, it protects the minority who can not protect their rights to bear arms democratically.

If the majority want guns banned the second amendment is needed. Get the bill of rights recognized, and they'll then have to consider cutting a piece out of the bill of rights to ban (what's left of the ) guns.

Battler.
 
I completely agree. 100% (With the original post.)

[This message has been edited by Erik (edited May 15, 2000).]
 
It would be a whole different ballgame if we had 3.5 million members in the GOA.

No compromise.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now joing the GOA!
 
As a suggestion, you might present the truth that we, the serfs, own our own lives, not the King. Therefore, why should we have to crawl on our hands and knees and beg permission from the King and his Reeve (Reichfuhrer/SS Reno), for permission to save our own lives, if we are attacked by vicious criminals? If that is the case, then we do not actually "own" our own lives, the State (King Klinton) owns our (the serfs) lives.

Just as do the Marxist Socialists, and did the medieval Kings of feudal Europe and Great Britain.

Also, if we are to disarm, shouldn't the King's Secret Service agents and USMC Presidential Protection Detail, also disarm, all in the spirit of "being an example" to the serfs and peasants??

Oh well... The Locomotives Continue Racing Toward Each Other. J.B.
 
Back
Top