Potential Wrinkle and Lessons Learned

[GunBum]

I've been informally polling all of my "pro-gun" friends and aquaintences to see what kind of support we will get. All of these responses are from gun owning people who believe in the 2nd Ammendment. Most are NRA/GOA members.

I'll only post the responses that I've gotten from multiple sources.

"There is nothing wrong with reasonable restrictions that keep guns out of the hands of criminals or terrorists" Straight from the mouth of an NRA Life Member

What's wrong with making a gun dealer have a license? From the same NRA Life Member

"No one is going to seriously support lifting any Machine Gun/Assault Weapon bans." :mad: :mad: :mad: This one pisses me off because it has come out of the mouths of all but 1 guy.

This one is really disheartening. "Who cares if they ban the import of cheap guns/barrels/parts. We should be making them here anyway." One guy who is really sharp and who I thought would be helpfull to the cause has been playing devils advocate. This response didn't come from him, but he thought that is was just a matter of time before the "free trade" arguement gets used against us. He actually laughed outloud because the guy who mentioned this is very pro NAFTA.

Here's my point: Although I believe that there should be NO RESTRICTIONS to the private ownership of Arms of any sort, NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THE SAME WAY.

We must be very carefull to try to make our progress incrementally. We cannot expect widespread support for a complete repeal of all anti gun laws. The laws came up slowly and incrementally, and that's how they need to go away. One step at a time.

If we take it that way, we have the support of 15-20 strong, well respected members of society in Beaverton Oregon. If we go straight for a 100% repeal of all gun laws, we have the support of 2.

[O.S.O.K.]

How many people were supportive of breaking away from Britian and forming a new country at the beginning of the revolution?

Very few. Most people thought that for the most part, English rule was good - it was just a few tax issues and trade restrictions that were "wrong".

The more steps towards that goal that were acheived, the more that people climbed onto the wagon and began to see the light. They began to understand that those types of controls would continue to invade their lives and restrict how successfull and free they would be.

This is just the way people are - this is taught in marketing (I have a BBA in Managment Science). There are "pioneers" - the first people to try something new and then there are people that follow the pioneers and finally, the hold-outs come on board and a product becomes a huge success. You kown, personal computers were once an expensive extravegance - a few pioneers bought them and started forming groups - it spread and look where we are today. I could sight many many examples.

Look at the immigration, open border situation. Just a few people got enough attention that more and more people signed-on and our elected rep.s began to respond. God bless the Minutemen.

Have faith.

EDIT: Another thing to consider. The incrementalism you are suggesting is very correct. It is also covered in spades by NRA, GOA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, etc., etc. THIS movement is about calling attention and bringing pressure on our elected officials to quit fucking around with our constitutional right to keep and bear arms - period. It will send the message that we are tired of the "game" and are willing and able to organize and take concerted action. Any national, concerted movement is a threat to elected leadership and brings action. See?

You are a pioneer, your buddies are not. Don't worry, when they see things begin to develop, you will see a change. :D

[GunBum]

I'm already convinced and don't need a lecture. Spend your time trying to convince the people sitting on the fence instead of trying to drive your friends away with irrelevent arguements.

Arguements like this.....

1) About the Revolution, you are wrong. There was a general discontentment with the British and their interference in the ways the Colonies were being run. The movement that eventually became the Revolution did not start out as a movement to create a new government. The Declaration of Independence was not the start of the movement, it was the result of years of discontent. 1776 was not the begining of the movement, it was the middle.

2) The NRA/GOA/2nd Ammendment Foundation/etc are not trying to incrementally get our rights back. They are trying to give them away incrementally through "compromise" and "reasonable legislation". All I have to say is FUCK THEM. I gave up on them a long time ago.

[slaphappy]

I'm already convinced and don't need a lecture. Spend your time trying to convince the people sitting on the fence instead of trying to drive your friends away with irrelevent arguements.

Arguements like this.....

1) About the Revolution, you are wrong. There was a general discontentment with the British and their interference in the ways the Colonies were being run. The movement that eventually became the Revolution did not start out as a movement to create a new government. The Declaration of Independence was not the start of the movement, it was the result of years of discontent. 1776 was not the begining of the movement, it was the middle.

2) The NRA/GOA/2nd Ammendment Foundation/etc are not trying to incrementally get our rights back. They are trying to give them away incrementally through "compromise" and "reasonable legislation". All I have to say is FUCK THEM. I gave up on them a long time ago.

Taking this a little more off course, it's been said by historians that 1/3 people wanted revolution, 1/3 of the people wanted to stay under the British, and the remaining 1/3 didn't give a rats ass because it didn't affect them. So 2/3 of the people had no interest in a revolution.

I would hesitate to bash the NRA after such a huge success last week. Remember, this is the first time in a couple of generations that there has been a pro-gun party in control of the House, Senate, and White House. The NRA has made compromises in the past, largely becase they had to. MOST states have SHALL ISSUE CCW laws now. The NRA was behind that. The fact is, we need the NRA, and whatever we do should be done to supplelment what they, and all the other pro 2nd groups do. It seems like we are so used to losing we can't see momentum when we have it.

[Ragin Cajun]

I got a similar response from my grandfather, another Life NRA member. He agrees with the assault rifle ban.

He didn't have an answer for me, however, when I told him that gun owners in this country are THE last line of defense against foreign invasion, as well as another system of 'checks and balances' against the government getting any uppity ideas.

I think even a waiting period would be acceptable if we are allowed to purchase fully auto weps again. Say, a week or two waiting period in which background checks would be conducted. It'd keep your average gangbanger from going to a gun store and purchasing assault rifles; he'd just have to get em from Joe Shmoe, freelance gun broker, just like they do now.

[GunBum]

Taking this a little more off course, it's been said by historians that 1/3 people wanted revolution, 1/3 of the people wanted to stay under the British, and the remaining 1/3 didn't give a rats ass because it didn't affect them. So 2/3 of the people had no interest in a revolution.

THAT'S WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT AND YOU GUYS DON'T FUCKING GET IT.:mad: :mad: :mad:

STOP ARGUING AMOUNGST OURSELVES AND GO CONVINCE OTHERS!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU FELL INTO THAT DAMNED TRAP.

It isn't about what historical reference is right or wrong. It is about our freedoms and arguing amoungst ourselves is BS. When someone baits you, let it roll off your back.

I got a similar response from my grandfather, another Life NRA member. He agrees with the assault rifle ban.


Look! Someone gets it!

[gunnut1]

Typical!!!!! Most gun owners could care less about assault rifle. I call them Joe Sportsman. They see no use for them. They do not understand or care about the laws. All they care about is their high dollar deer rifle that they shoot once a year at the range right before deer season to make sure the "scope is where I left it!"

You should not be surprised!

[mike26038]

Ahh Gunnut1, your wrong.. Joe Sportsman shoots his deer rifle twice a years.. Right before hunting season, and right after "I don't know why I missed, damn scope must have been off?"..

Listen, everyone is right.. Most gun owners could give a rats ass about our position.. I'm afraid that when we finally get them on our side, it will be too late/ For when they see the light, it will be attached to the action end of the enemy's rifle..

[O.S.O.K.]

Gunbum, cool your jets man, we're on your side here!

I wasn't trying to lecture, but rather pointout that things always start with a few, dedicated people. And also that this is about doing something that no other 2A rights orgs are doing - getting the people out to demonstrate. If there truely is no support for the restoration of our 2A rights, then we are wasting our time.

I think there really is support - as indicated by all of the recent positive steps in our favor.

I just want to speed the process up, before the momentum slows to a halt.

[GunBum]

OSOK,

I hope you are right. My barometer out here says most serious gun owners (and I'm not talking about the average deer hunter) have given up hope, or have bought into the BS that they hear on the news.

[O.S.O.K.]

I hope I'm right about this too.

I do fully understand your frustration - with your friends and the NRA, etc..

I've always felt that the NRA isn't agressive enough - should be organizing more protests, more agressive legislation, etc... and when I talk to a supposedly pro-gun person who is ignorant of the facts and implications, it pains me.

I think if we are successful and "aim high", that we will get an incremental response - regardless of what we want.

[El Laton Caliente]

Gunbum, I think you are looking at a regional thing. Indiana and Texas are no problem because they are more libertarian and understand the incremental methods in use. The west coast sucks as does Chicago with way too many leftists.

[gunnut1]

Ahh Gunnut1, your wrong.. Joe Sportsman shoots his deer rifle twice a years.. Right before hunting season, and right after "I don't know why I missed, damn scope must have been off?"..

Yeppers, I have heard that one many times. How about: "Damn, I could have sworn that I shot that deer with my 22-250 at 700 yards. The bullet travels at 5000 per second so it is flat out to about 1 mile. Don't understand why I missed." I actually heard this one!

[GunBum]

Yeppers, I have heard that one many times. How about: "Damn, I could have sworn that I shot that deer with my 22-250 at 700 yards. The bullet travels at 5000 per second so it is flat out to about 1 mile. Don't understand why I missed." I actually heard this one!

:lool: :lool: :lool:

I think we've hunted with the same people.

[hillclimber]

Ironic isn't it, that the 2nd Ammd. was designed to protect against enemies, both forigen and domestic, but the very kind of weapons best suited to that task have been made illegal.
Think they're trying to tell us something????
Those hunters wont think it's so funny when their hunting guns are declared "sniper rifles" will they???

[O.S.O.K.]

They are sniper rifles.... maybe we need to start calling them what they are just to make them understand... nice sniper rifle you got there George! "Whah?" Yeah, they are next on the list - sniper rifles... "really?" Yeah, didn't you know?.... :rolleyes:

[gunnut1]

The guy that I heard the line about the 22-250 calls his a sniper rifle. He invited me to go hunting with him. He then proceded to tell me that in the evening he likes to sit on the tailgate of his truck, drink beer and shoot targets at 700 yrds. He also told me that he takes a 6 pack of beer to the deer blind with him.
I declined.

I asked him one time what he would do when Congress banned sniper rifles. "Oh they will never get mine!"

Yea OK what ever!

[Thylacine]

I can ALMOST wish that a a ban that included every freakin hunting rifle would come about. Then all the asinine hunters around here might (I doubt it even in this case) get a clue. I did say almost.... :cents:

[avanarts]

The guy that I heard the line about the 22-250 calls his a sniper rifle. He invited me to go hunting with him. He then proceded to tell me that in the evening he likes to sit on the tailgate of his truck, drink beer and shoot targets at 700 yrds. He also told me that he takes a 6 pack of beer to the deer blind with him.
I declined.

I asked him one time what he would do when Congress banned sniper rifles. "Oh they will never get mine!"

Yea OK what ever!

That reminds me of a time about a year before the AWB passed. I was trying to tell a guy in Medford, OR, about what was coming; that they wanted to pas a ban on a semiautos with "high capacity" magazines. His response was that "they can never do that." Well, crap, they did. Fortunately, the law had a sunset clause. I don't expect to be as lucky next time.

We'll have to see how "joe deer hunter" feels when they ban his "sniper rifle."

Yeppers, I have heard that one many times. How about: "Damn, I could have sworn that I shot that deer with my 22-250 at 700 yards. The bullet travels at 5000 per second so it is flat out to about 1 mile. Don't understand why I missed." I actually heard this one!

My favorite is "I missed because I had my rifle sighted at 100 yards and the deer was only 50 yards away." No sheet, that was a real line from a "hunter."

[hillclimber]

They'll never know what hit 'em.
The fools will sit around and cry.
Then they'll all buy shotguns, black powder and compound bows.
On nights like tonight they'll sit around, drink beer and talk about the good ol' days, and how they wished they had listened. :letssee:

[UGACherokee]

"Reasonable gun control measures" have been the order of the day for the mainstream media, workplace risk-management, the high-school and college classroom for two decades, and people have a legitimate fear of the economic and social repercussions of being labelled a "gun nut".

The next time you talk to one of these folks - one of these people who qualifies their gun ownership with a "justification" - remind them of the following.

"The people who want to ban private firearms ownership in the US have held your job, and your good name in the community as blackmail to silence your voice in support of your right to keep and bear."

Perhaps a recognition of the "chilling effect" the Anti's have leveled against the First Amendment rights of American gun owners will stir some of the Bubbas into action. . .

[MaMaPyCb]

Thats one thing that really burns me up. People that Are SOOOO SECOND AMENDMENT, but are the first to Deny the Existance of the first.

ISnt the point of the 2nd amendment to keep the rest of the Consitution and our government safe?( the government being the Written paper, not the jackasses "in power")

What the hell is the point of owning a firearm if you are not willing to DIE FREE instead of Live Opressed?

hmm...... " I may not agree with what you have to say, but i will defend to the death for your right to say it?"

Also In the Aspect of fighting Enemys forgen and domestic.. dosent that mean we have to be able to fight our own military? ... Lets see what a Remmington 700 has to say aginst a M-60??

Oh and one more random thought.........

We make gun laws because we dont trust people, so we trust they will obey the law?

IF the we ever went to a militarty state with curfews and what not, and no-one in my city stood up and fought......... I think I'd Turn My "ASSULT WEAPON" on myself...............

Just some thoughts......... :soapbox:

[Flinter]

They'll never know what hit 'em.
The fools will sit around and cry.
Then they'll all buy shotguns, black powder and compound bows.

Don't bank on it man. I'm in the NRA and the NMLRA. The goverment tries to ban or severely regulate black powder about every 10 years. The first thing Clinton shouted should be banned after Columbine was black powder. Far as I know there wasn't even any there. I'm sort of shocked that it hasn't already been banned in the name of homeland security.

[GunBum]

Thats one thing that really burns me up. People that Are SOOOO SECOND AMENDMENT, but are the first to Deny the Existance of the first.

That's why I'm Pro Constitution, not any particular Ammendment.

Also In the Aspect of fighting Enemys forgen and domestic.. dosent that mean we have to be able to fight our own military?

It sure does, but it also is dependent upon us outnumbering the military.

Lets see what a Remmington 700 has to say aginst a M-60??

Remington 700's are useless? That's why the Army uses them as a sniper rifles. :up:

[Hostile]

Ahh Gunnut1, your wrong.. Joe Sportsman shoots his deer rifle twice a years.. Right before hunting season, and right after "I don't know why I missed, damn scope must have been off?"..

Listen, everyone is right.. Most gun owners could give a rats ass about our position.. I'm afraid that when we finally get them on our side, it will be too late/ For when they see the light, it will be attached to the action end of the enemy's rifle..


Joe Sportsman had better watch his ass too or he's gonna lose that "Sniper Rifle".