USA Today Full Page Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK. If we avoid donations from the gun organizations, gun manufacturers, and bigwigs in the gun organizations then we take away the ability of the pro-tyrrany camp to paint us with the "gun lobby" brush. Sounds promising to me. Grass roots all the way.

If we get 1300 subscribers who after the ad was run got together a petition drive with the ad as the text. If each of the 1300 got ten people to sign the petition and agree to get 10 people to sign the petition and find 10 more signers...that would be at least 1.3 million signatures. Wonder what Congress' reaction would be to a petition such as this? Maybe headed by We, the People? Put petititions in every gun store, gun show, shooting range in the country.
 
Snubber,

I see how it could be somewhat confusing to a person not familiar with the issues. Rob, how about this?

To Congress, the legislatures of the individual states, the county commissions thereof, and all municipal legislative bodies:


No more. No more bans. No more restrictions. Not one more type of firearm, variant of a firearm, or individual firearm. Not one class of ammunition, caliber nor type of bullet. Not a single accessory, tool nor book related to firearms. No more limits on the types of guns, the number of guns, nor the amount of ammunition that I can own. Nor any restrictions on the frequency with which I can add more of the aforementioned to my collection. If you want them, come take them, all at once... otherwise, leave us in peace.


[This message has been edited by Spartacus (edited March 04, 1999).]
 
I know. Im old and Im slow but I am still not clear on what you hope to accomplish.
Im not for profanity in newspapers either,Mort.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Ed,

The least that will accomplished will be to clear my own conscience. I will be able to sleep peacefully saying to myself,"I tried to tell them but they would not listen. I spent time, effort, and money to warn them of the future."

If it causes one Congressman to pause, to reconsider, to ponder-it will have been worth the effort. Will it do so? I don't know. I just know that I must do something.
 
Count me in for $50 and the use of my name. Also, I agree that we shouldn't run it on July 4th. Readership is way down on holidays. I truly believe that a grassroots effort is what we need. Anti-gunners need to know that "average Joe citizen" will not take this crap any longer.

PLEASE feel free to contact me for help with this effort, whether it be getting signatures, donations, etc....

[This message has been edited by mckeea (edited March 04, 1999).]
 
One more thing, perhaps this could be a joint effort between members of TFL, Glock Talk, AR-15.com and other pro-gun sites. After all, we're all in this together.
 
This will certainly need to be a combined effort. We cannot get all the needed contributors here at the Firing Line. Let's get things fairly nailed down first though before we take it to the other lists.
 
Snubber (and Ed?),

I am not concerned with the average 4th grade readling level guy browsing the paper looking for lingerie ads. I am looking for two groups:

Media & Gun Owners.

The latter will (hopefully) be motivated by the statement to take a bit more of a pro-active stance against further restrictions.

The former will hopefully give it a whole bunch of attention, multiplying our $68k thousands of times with a few seconds here and a few seconds there on TV, or a few lines in other papers/magazines/websites.

I don't really think that it will change anyone's mind about gun control, nor get the federal gov't to stop its move to restrict indivdual freedoms (by itself).

I am 50-50 on the "hell" thing.

I really don't feel like it belongs there, on the one hand.

On the other hand, I think it might just be inflamatory enough to make it clear that we are regular people, not some trying-to-be-seen-as-moderate NRA backed bunch of lobbyists. This, to me, is not a "reasonable" request.. it is a demand.


Almost forgot-----

On the topic of "Big" companies and organizations, I am in favor of not letting any commercial entity or organization in, as such. (TFL excluded). If Bob Delfay or Waynne LaPierre wants to put his sname on it, great.. but no NSSF or NRA.
------------------
-Essayons

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited March 04, 1999).]
 
I'm afraid I have to agree with Snubber. I am aware of the issues and I find it confusing. I think the statement needs to be clearly written; it is not now. Remember, tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and tell them what you told them. Very expository… a deductive syllogism if you will.
 
I agree that we have to target media and gun owners, with the former being the primary target. Care should be taken so they local 5 O'Clock news will have a hard time just billing the ad as propaganda being pushed militia/NRA quacks. A clear, straghtforward message is crutial, or consider money lost.
 
That's two for a re-write. I will think about it over the next week or so, submissions for the re-write are not necessary.

Anyway, I am still discussing the situation with USA Today, hopefully, I will hear from a CPA soon.



------------------
-Essayons
 
I've got to put my two cents in here.

Assuming that this goes in the paper, and our names are signed to it, it will read as an ultimatum, much like the Declaration of Independence.

Are we prepared to defy any further legislation that goes contrary to this declaration, to whatever extent necessary, or are we just full of hot air?

We will be tested, make no mistake.

Will we stand up to the bully?

Sincerely,


------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
I say leave "Hell" in. It provides an emphasis to the message. If the networks can put it into sit-coms, we can put it in the ad.
 
John,

First of all, no one here is trying to incite a rebellion.

That said, I don't write things just to excercise my fingers. I write what I believe. If other (enough) people believe in it, you will see it in the paper. Do I think that the ATF is going to knock on my door the next day, no I don't. If they did, I'd deal with it the same way I would if it happened this morning. This is a statement of feeling, not some kind of thinly vieled threat.

I'm sure that different people will have different reasons for signing on, if yours is to draw a line in the sand and let people know that you will start shooting if they cross it.. well, that is your thing.

------------------
-Essayons
 
I'm in as an individual. There should be no company sponsors on this. I think we need a petition that can be downloaded and printed and signed at show's or we need a unified banner that can be placed on web sites notifying (sp) people of this project. If 100 web sites all had the same banner on them that leads to a home page statement on this project we just might be able to get it off the ground. That page ahould be updated weekly with a dollar figure so people can see how close we are getting to the goal. (hope I made sense)

------------------
www.customholsters.com
M/D ENTERPRISES Custom Concealment Holsters
Gunleather so nice it's almost a crime to conceal it
mde@icsi.net
 
FREEZE.. drop your HTML editor....

Good Idea, Mark.

I'll make the webpage some time between now and Monday.

Furthermore, I'll publish the webpage after we have established the framework of the project.

USA Today has a policy that they require everyone whose name will be included in any "advocacy ad" (btw- that's what we, have an Advocacy Statement) to sign a specific waiver. You can imagine the headache this is going to cause. I don't even know if they will accept faxed copies yet. I am working through it right now. Believe it or not, they may be considering it a solution to the problem if everyone writes their own individual check, so it could be a real blessing for the project.



------------------
-Essayons
 
Rob,

I know there are things that we do not see eye to eye on, but I must say that, to me, this notice reads like an ultimatum. If it is thus then it will be tested. If we back down then let's not waste our money.

If it is not, then it needs to be re-worded, so that it is not so challenging and confrontive.

Not everyone is going to read it like you do, or like I do. So we must find a wording that sends whatever the message is that you want to send. After reading your last response I'm lost as to what that is.

You also wrote in a previous post, "This, to me, is not a "reasonable" request.. it is a demand."

Well Rob, demands are not made without some resolve to do what's necessary to see that it is met. Unless of course there is no backbone, then it's just a pleading whimper.

So please clarify this for me so that I can make an educated choice in favor of or not in favor of this action.

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited March 05, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited March 05, 1999).]
 
John,

I have sent you a private Email that may be a tad bit clearer than this, but here goes:

Yes, this is a demand.

No, I am not going to expect everyone who signs it to be in my front yard the day the ad runs loaded for bear, just in case the black helicopters come zooming in. Get it?

Furthermore, I understand that contirbuting to this project will mean different thing to different people. Some will do it because they are fed up and they will not, under any circumstances, give in to any more restrictions. Some people will sign it simply because I ask them to. Some will sign it because they don't want their name to be missing when the ad runs. Some will sign it becuase they think it is the "right" thing to do.
Maybe there is a whacko out there who thinks that signing it means that he should do somehting drastic to the next person that proposes another gun control law or launches the next law suit against a manufacturer.. I hope not, but it is possible.

I cannot expect everyone to be in agreement and unless I propose that we just publish the text of the 2nd Amendment, no one will think the wording is perfect. I think everyone will agree that to simply re-hash the 2nd amendment would be meaningless, though.. so we got what we got.
(if someone doesn't think it would be meaningless, just think about how many times you've tried to use the "2nd Amend." argument.. it doesn't work. It's been around for 200 years and people (especially the fed. gov't) have gotten used to ignoring it)

------------------
-Essayons
 
Indeed, Rob. This isn't about the 2nd amendment. This is about a declaration on behalf of gun owners. No excuses, legal justifications, or or even reasons why we should have guns. We are simply, forcefully stating that we will tolerate no more impositions.

About "not backing down": If this statement is made, I, personally, will hold to it. If more restrictive gun laws are enacted, I will NOT obey them, for I am free. That freedom springs from me as a human and is not granted to me by a benevolent oligarchy. Who's with me?
 
In.
Hell, yes.
I agree with what Rob has said. I like the web linkage idea.


"Gentlemen, we must hang together...or, we will all hang seperately."-Ben Franklin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top