Thread: Obama, NorthwestFirearms, and where we go from here...

As all of you know, Barack Obama is the next President of the United States. I'm not going to discuss that, what's done is done, but we do need to think about where we go from here both as members of this community and as gun owners. One of our members, emanon, wrote a couple things in a thread today that I can't say better myself, so I'm going to quote.

Originally Posted by emanon

Stop Whining!

Regardless of who was elected we always have to keep standing up for our rights, now we'll just have to work harder.

We have things way better off than almost anywhere else in the world to start. We've also seen considerable improvements in guns laws around the country: concealed carry is legal in almost all states, the AWB went away and even a (decent) pro-2nd Amendment SCOTUS recent decision that has already caused some long-time gun-banning politicians and cities to change their tune.

Things were far from perfect before the election and we already had work to do. The best thing we can do now is work harder to educate people and to get new folks into shooting and self-defense, particularly the folks who decided this election and will be deciding in the future. To be blunt: we NEED more pro-gun women, children, people of color and yes, even Democrats!

If you really care about your rights then fight to defend them!

Excellent post. We're going to have to work harder than ever if we want to get through this administration with our gun rights intact. Haven't we been fighting since we all got into firearms? I know I have. This is no different, aside from the fact that this opposition is most likely going to be unlike any I've seen before.

Originally Posted by emanon

Things were far from perfect before the election and we already had work to do. The best thing we can do now is work harder to educate people and to get new folks into shooting and self-defense, particularly the folks who decided this election and will be deciding in the future. To be blunt: we NEED more pro-gun women, children, people of color and yes, even Democrats!

If you really care about your rights then fight to defend them!

I can't agree with this paragraph more. Most of us firearm owners hold fairly strong conservative beliefs. However, on issues such as gun rights, we really need to set those beliefs aside and not let them interfere with the goal of preserving and expanding our gun rights. I know a few people here on NWFA voted for Obama, which to the majority here (including me) seems unfathomable. Well not everyone votes strictly based on a persons position on the second amendment, and it's their right to choose who they vote for. The fact is, we need Democrats working within their party (like many in the gun section of DemocraticUnderground and other Dem websites) to try and change the minds of other Democrats. Guess what? It works.

I know many of you are saying that just because they're gun owners it doesn't matter because they still vote for anti-gun Democrats. While that's true, they also often exercise their ability to pressure the leadership of their own party to leave the gun issue alone. Now more than ever Democrats are seeing the gun control issue as something that's costing them votes and support; we need to help them keep this momentum up.

With the gun issue, we have a choice. We can let it divide us, or we can use it to unite us; bringing us together and making us stronger in the pro-gun rights battle. I ask every one of you, please choose the latter. Fact, conservatives and liberals are going to be fighting back and forth forever, it's never going to end. If we attach our gun rights to that battle, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. We need to approach the fight for our gun rights in a bi-partisan manner. This website is and always will be non-partisan. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, even Communists, they're all welcome here.

Going forward from now on, the Legal and Political section is only to be used for gun-related political discussion (and legal stuff, obviously). This was the original intention of the section, but I knew I needed to allow all the dirt on Obama because he himself is most likely going to have a direct impact on our gun rights. He's now our next president, so there's no longer a reason to discuss his tax plan, where he was born, or anything else about him that isn't gun related.

If we reach out to our fellow gun owners across the aisle and come together to achieve our goals, it'll be better for all of us.

Originally Posted by Joey Link

Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, even Communists, they're all welcome here.

Are you trying to say that we're all OreGUNians to you?

Something about semantics and labels needs to be stated, because the terms conservative and liberal are, in reality, psychological levers which serve to keep the nation divided and the masses of pro-gun folks in the dark.

Liberty is the important word.

Clearly, the civil rights violations on the part of the Bush administration, including but not limited to the Patriot Act were huge steps away from liberty.

A cursory examination of the GOP in its present state and the stated principles of the Republican platform shows clearly that the two are not in alignment. Bush expanded the powers of government in ways no true fiscal conservative could have imagined.

A similar examination of the Blue side, shows just as clearly that the so-called 'people's party' is bought and sold from the bottom to the top by banking institutions such as the Federal Reserve.

My point is that fighting about these two parties is a waste of time. I agree with the above statement---work actively in whatever capacities we have to ensure gun owning rights. But also, Do Not get hoodwinked by the one party system.

The distinctions between Dem and Rep are negligible and both serve the same master.

Many gun owners saw the light and heard the truth in Ron Paul's libertarian message. However, the masses of people just can't seem to get over the fact that the Libertarian party is a third party and of course, there are complications in voting third party. And then there's the media bias---incalculable in its evil.

If the entire gun owning community would simply follow the money that trails both Red and Blue, it would be shocked at the overall corruption. Perhaps, it already is. Still, I agree that we need to stay vigilant but at the same time, adaptation is one of the hallmarks of survival.

An adaptation away from the wasted time spent on party politics and an embrace of true libertarian, Constitutional leaders would be wise.

"The society that trades freedom for security will wake to find it has neither." ---Participating in the illusion of the two party system enslaves us, trades our freedom to choose and does not offer any security.

Aslinged, you've written more than a few ideas there. Remember, though, just 8 1/2 years ago, the press made a point of swapping red for blue each four years on their election night maps. We are all united together after all. Clearly, there are simply two wings of one party currently. With the butchering of the first 10 amendments many in my circle of friends noticed the rise of facistict party ruling. Joey might be spot on as those from all stripes are no longer afraid of the boogie man d'jour. But, instead notice the otherwise disperate groups standing shoulder to shoulder much to their surprise to push back in demands of the free man.

While it's true that liberty should be the primary rationale for determining ones vote on any given election, the unfortunate fact of the matter is it ultimately comes down to the lesser of two evils on election night.

Yes, it's not "fair" and absolutely you should work diligently for the candidate who most clearly reflects your values for as long as you possibly can but when the day comes to make your final vote you need to put aside your desires for the "perfect" candidate and vote for the one who has the BEST chance of defeating the one you DON'T want.

If the person who agrees with me 100% of the time stands NO realistic chance of winning and the person who agrees with me 60% of the time does... I'll go with the 60% person over the 0% person everytime.

But regardless of the outcome, the real work lies between the elections where you should work as hard as you can to build up the chances of your 100% person so that they have a better chance of winning in the future (in addition to holding the 60% person's feet to the fire for their 40% "errors" if they do win. )

The "purple" party will implode eventually.

:soapbox:

Perhaps we need to reflect back on what I believe the intent of the Second Ammendment was. Those who framed the constitition were fresh out of a war breaking ties with a (by any measure) tyranical government. The "colonies" were subordinate to a ruling heirarchy, where one man had the final say. Opinions were of little import, and advise was always given to benefir the king. In order to ensure this could never happen in the new United States, the framers set about creating a set of laws that would protect the people from such tyrany. Many laws dealt with the running of the state and the states, but the most important where aimed and the individuals... YOU and ME. They wanted to ensure that nobody's voice could not be heard, and that no one single government entity could supress us. Key among these rights afforded us was the right to ensure that our government could not, in any great measure, strip us of our liberties by ensuring that should such a government arise, we would be able to rise up in opposition and, if need be, exert our will by force of arms. We must, however, be extremely careful and prudent when doing so. If ever we are to take arms against the government to set things right, it must not only be for the right reason, but it must also be in accordance with the strictest abidance of the original laws of the land.

That being said, we as gun owners have far more responsibility than protecting ourselves, our families, and out posessions. We have an obligation to our nation to ensure that nobody's freedoms are taken away, and that our government does not step too far beyond it responsibility to its citizens.

"A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Maslows theory had food, water and shelter as the most important things in life for life to exist. After those most important things comes security. You can never reach your full potential as a human being unless you have personal security. Any party,group or organization that wants to take from you your ability to defend your home and family is tyranical at best but criminal to say the least.

IMHO it isn't very bright to turn your back on the actions of political parties that want to control our rights. To invite them in won't change them and it won't protect your rights. It isn't like a melting pot anymore. However as I have said before, it is your house and I will follow the rules, but I just won't support those who will take away my rights nor those who help them by giving them a forum.

jj

Let me add, I am 57 and have been fighting for your rights most of my adult life. We have had one enemy. That same enemy not too long ago used a sniper to shoot a woman holding a baby and went on to shoot Americans at Waco. Their actions brought out every loone and wacko that America had.

Like it or not BHO has hired the same people to be his government. Be forwarned of what is comming your way and pick your friends and allies carefully. Yep call me tin foil if you want but you had to watch Americans being burt alive over gun charges to understand....

jj

Where to go from here?

I suggest networking with like minded websites to broaden our membership.

Picking a small legislative battle to engage. (like the law in WA where you are allowed to own a suppressor, but not use it)

I am looking forward to the "Law Changing" aspect of this site.

Originally Posted by coctailer

Where to go from here?

I suggest networking with like minded websites to broaden our membership.

Picking a small legislative battle to engage. (like the law in WA where you are allowed to own a suppressor, but not use it)

I am looking forward to the "Law Changing" aspect of this site.

That's exactly what we need to do; work together with like-minded organizations and network so we can pool our resources. With a little luck, NWFA will be the 'hub' that brings these organizations together and rallies the troops.

Scott told me about that law tonight and I couldn't believe it. That's one law I'd like to see changed, and another is the fact that Oregon and Washington don't reciprocate for CHL's.

As a democrat I know first hand what the Oregon party is like. We are one of a few state Democratic Parties that has a GUN OWNERS CAUCUS! We should be thankful for that. Not many other state parties give gun owners a say and welcome their opinions. If you want a place to start, throw out a hello to them, most of them arn't .50BMG wielding black rifle fans but the fact is they want their gun rights and are working to make sure the state party stays on message with them.

http://www.oregondemocrats.org/gun_owners

The third requirement to joining is...
"3. I am willing to promote public recognition of the DPO's pro-Second Amendment Position, perform outreach to Second Amendment supporters on behalf of the DPO, and/or work for the election of Democratic candidates."

Maybe we should go look for them?
I used to be largely involved with the DPO and the College Democrats as a national officer/state officer and local school leader, I went to the College Republicans second ammendment days as their token "favorite democrat", not sure who will remember me now but if there is something I can do send me a PM.

-Travis

This is the kind of bi-partisan outreach we need if we're going to fight for our rights. Democrats in office are going to listen to fellow Democrats much closer than they will to us Republicans. Just one more tool in our arsenal.

Call em as you see them Joey but did the reaching across the table help McCain??

jj

It sure didn't. Though, I think one issue stuff like we're fighting for is quite different than running for president which encompasses many issues. He tried to move far right to gain the conservative base while touting his 'moderate' and bi-partisan record, which nobody bought. I think the Republican party made an error in selecting him to run, though I'm not sure any other Republican would have done much better.

McCain was too far LEFT for his base to vote for him. His stand on immigration and his supporting our gunshow background checks showed his base he was a rino. The right has no leaders who will stand up for the values the right has. It doesn't mean we have to lean to the left to protect our gun rights. Set standards and values then lead and others will follow.

What we value is where the contention with the left comes about and only seriouse "change" is going to make the lefties go right.

jj

Exactly, I agree 100%.

I hope nobody gets me wrong in thinking we're going to 'compromise' with the left when it comes to our gun rights. What I am saying is if they agree with us and want to help us in the fight, they're more than welcome. I know a few lefties that go right when it comes to the gun rights issue

I agree with Jim. Mcain lost it by being to far left. I did like his running mate though.

Why is it that the only "compromise" that is recognized by the media is when a republican sells out his principles?

They LOVED McCain until he was the only republican left in the race then they turned on him in spite of the fact that they lavished him with adoration early in the primary season.

Too many people have no clue what a "primary" is even for!! This ignorance is why the Republicans didn't get to select their own nominee this cycle. The liberal and so-called "moderate" cross-over voters gave us McCain.

But it didn't help that the field was weak all around.

never mind the heller decision it is being ignored and no action is being taken against those ignoring it and It was a one vote decision obama will appoint at least one and that will make it a one vote the other way. It may be nessary to form a nation wide militia to have people everywere backing one another so a "ruby ridge or Waco" situation would not be an act of aggression against isolated people but against a nationwide organization that could respond in kind against the people who preformed the act as well as those that ordered and condoned it. A group that has another surrounded may have a different attitude when they find they are just the middle ring and are surrounded themself. I'M an old man and can recall ordering rifles off the back of comic books and if i wanted a pistol i just went to the maytag appliance dealer and bought one or the hardware. I took my 22 to school because i went hunting before or after school and ran my traps on winter mornings on the way to school. We never had the violence we have today because moms and dads had control of their kids not the local gang.If I messed up my folks or grandparents knew it before i got home and no one had a telephone and i could count an an a$$ busting.

Hopefully the old coots on SCOTUS will hang on for at LEAST four more years... that way maybe Palin can pick their replacement.