TexasCHLforum.com

stevie_d_64 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:You are never going to convert the committed anti-gunner. They are zealots for their cause. They will either prevail, or jump off a cliff to avoid surrender.

Good statement!

I wonder if there are folks out there NRA members or not, who are just as committed to the cause as they are opposing us???

Not that I condone a fatalistic attitude or commitment...This battle certainly pushes the envelope, in my opinion, because so many people before us have sacrificed to secure all of our rights and freedoms we enjoy today...Does that mean we should not step up and be that committed to all of that, and not just our right to keep and bear arms in the defense of those sacrifices???

Being an American is not just about bearing arms...It is the ideal that encompasses a committment to promote freedom and liberty around the world, because that brings about stability and peace...

Liberal minded people do not trust enough to let that happen, and must be in control to "force" it in some ways...Forgetting that it is the individual that promotes freedom and liberty by our existance in a country that lives the idea...At the same time liberalism stiffles freedom and liberty because of their mistrust...

Sorry for the political rant, but I felt inspired...

Stevie, my comment was not intended to say that you don't debate with the opposition. I believe you should, because even if you can't budge your opponent, your words may resonate with a third party. My point was that there are a very large number of people near the political center for whom guns aren't a huge issue. They either tend not to have an opinion because they don't own any guns so the issue doesn't touch them personally; or they are mildly anti and believe that, while guns shouldn't be banned, "reasonable" restrictions make some sense to them. Those folks can be turned if you communicate with them in a calm and unthreatening manner, and you point out the logical inconsistencies in their understanding of the matter.

anygunanywhere wrote:Our right to keep and bear arms would still exist even if the second amendment were to be repealed.

Rights exist outside of and separate from the document.

Anygunanywhere

Absolutely.

The way I see it, the Constitution, in enumerating our rights, does so with the premise that these are our 'natural rights,' which the document lists for the purpose of making sure we're all on the same page. It purposes to do so because it recognizes the human tendency to not all be on the same page. It recognizes the idea that these are our natural rights, and it officially codifies that the proper role of government is to protect these rights - because as long as man has had government, of whatever stripe, it has been the nature of governments throughout the history of mankind to try and restrict those rights. The document reminds us that legitimate government not only has no business restricting rights, but must be proactively engaged in protecting them.

Therefore, any American government which then seeks to restrict those rights becomes an illegitimate government because it countermands the intent of the Constitution that government exists to protect them. Those rights are God-given, and they predate and presuppose any government of men. When government becomes illegitimate, I have a moral responsibility to resist it.

The only question remains whether one may do so through established and legal channels, or whether things have progressed beyond that point and civil disobedience is called for. That is a call that each person has to make for themselves, but as a member of my own discussion board posted the other day - I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

I don't know if this will play out or not for others going forward, but I personally joined the NRA at a time when firearms ownership was under massive assault, both at the California state level, and the national level. My dad died in 1990, and I inherited an old 1911A1 he had, becoming a gun owner for the first time. I had been mildly anti-gun until then. At first, I was only interested in owning that pistol because it was a memento of my father's life, and it therefor had emotional value to me. But, it did not initially interest me as a gun. By 1992 (Clinton's 1st election), I was starting to get into the fact that I had a pistol and wanted to learn more and more about it. We were being threatened with the first AWB, and I joined the NRA directly in response to that. The rest is history.

You are never going to convert the committed anti-gunner. They are zealots for their cause. They will either prevail, or jump off a cliff to avoid surrender. Those who can be converted are like I was - mildly anti, but not rabidly so. My guess is that there are many millions of people like that today. They are the people who have doubts about EBRs and "plastic pistols," but don't have a problem sport shooting and hunting per se; and they can understand a person's desire to be able to defend the home, but they are concerned about gun safety and children in the house.

The way to convert those people is to reach out to them. Invite them to the range. Let them try an array of different kinds of hand guns and rifles. Let them see for themselves that this is so often a family activity. You want to take your kids to the range and plink with .22s all day? Invite the guy next door and his kids along. Better yet, talk his wife into coming with you. Bring your wife along. Etc. Let them find out about guns in a non-intimidating, family-friendly surroundings. Those are the folks you can convert, and who will eventually join the NRA themselves when they see that it represents their interests.

Whether or not those new folks choose to obtain CCW permits, or own EBRs, or buy hi-capacity magazines is irrelevant. They will come to see any attacks on those things as the slippery slope which threatens their own gun ownership choices.

Another critical group to evangelize are the young, particularly of college age. That is the point in their lives where they are most likely to be rebelling against authority, and actively personally involved in a more libertine lifestyle. Show them how an abrogation of gun rights is the fulcrum which will leverage the loss of their personal freedoms. Get 'em while they are young, and you'll have gun-rights supporters for life.

Nicolai wrote:Want to reduce mail from the NRA? Easy. Become a Life Member.

That hasn't worked for me. I've been a life member for about 10 years now, and I still get a lot of NRA mail.

I am a life member. I bought my wife a legacy life membership a few months ago. My son is an annual member considering changing his membership to a life membership. Ditto on the junk mail. I don't donate currently as often or as I used to, although I was never rich enough to be a large donator. Unfortunately, my current financial situation simply doesn't allow me to donate at all. Even my tithing is way down simply because my earnings are way down. When things improve for me, I will donate again in the future.

I agree that Wayne LaPierre's strengths are probably better as a tactician than a spokesperson. Beyond that, there are certain things we can do in the culture wars that will increase the importance of our chosen spokespersons. For instance, patronize in large volume the movies, TV shows, books, music, etc., of celebrity NRA members. That gets the attention of media marketers, which will in turn give those celebrities a higher profile platform from which to speak the NRA message. Do to Hollywood what Hollywood did to politics, so to speak.

Defeat the education establishment from within. If more NRA members become educators, then NRA values may eventually co-opt the NEA and other anti-gun eduction associations from within, converting their agendas into gun friendly ones. Remember that the tactics of Saul Alinsky, the political mentor of Obama who advocated taking down government from within, cut both ways. Become conservative moles in liberal associations. If educator associations can be made gun friendly, then programs like Eddie the Eagle will make inroads into the educational system, and kids will once again learn about respecting their heritage instead of reviling it.

Pro-labor politicians aren't always anti-gun. Send communications to labor union members, many of whom are gun owners and enthusiasts, urging them to make sure that their unions support politicians who are gun friendly, or they will vote in new union leadership who will.

On the legal front, I think it would be hard to do a better job than the NRA-ILA has done. They are pure D awesome, and I have no complaints. Plus, they have the wisdom to take the long view, which is far more likely to guarantee our rights in perpetuity than will hot-headed actions which may be right in the spirit, but are tactically and strategically disastrous - as demonstrated by how close the attorneys directly representing Dick Heller came to messing it up for all of us.

One thing which I think that the NRA has failed to effectively communicate is that it is truly a non-partisan organization. They will avidly support a gun-rights friendly Democrat, particularly one with a good record, over a squishy or unknown Republican. We have allowed the MSM to pigeonhole the NRA as a bunch of gun nuts. It would probably be a good move to have NRA members who tend more toward the socially liberal to step up and speak for us as well.