2cents on Dudley brown?

[Norm0931]

Jim and Taku, just relax a little. Jim hopefully you still have a computer man, no reason to throw it like it sounds like you are ready to do.

I think what Usagi, the bunnyman, is trying to say is that we won't change most gun grabbers. End of Story there. I've changed a few within my own family, but the large number of anti-gunners will forever be convinced that the police are the only thing that can protect them and anyone who owns a gun is a sociopath. We CAN however change the minds of people who lean anti-gun, but honestly don't have a set opinion. We do that by being above the bullbubblegum.

Who would you rather vote for, Chicago Style Politics like Obama, or Average Joe who is polite, doesn't run negative ads, and is straight forward and honest?

I'm not saying don't prove them wrong or don't call them out on their lies, but you need to do it with some tact and professionalism. Make the pro-gun argument an intelligent and rational one, that we all know it is, and others will be more inclined to listen. We need to start being better about pointing out, without going crazy, how many anti-gunners give veiled death threats in public. Show the public who are the ones who really advocate violence.

We all cherish our rights and we all love our country. We all MUST recognize that if we are not smarter than the other side in the PR war we will lose both. Part of that is not being the "crazy gun nuts" the anti-gunners keep claiming we are. When we show people that average law abiding citizens with intelligence and rational arguments are the ones Bloomberg and his Mom's are targeting then we will start to win.

 

[U201491]

Jim and Taku, just relax a little. Jim hopefully you still have a computer man, no reason to throw it like it sounds like you are ready to do.

I think what Usagi, the bunnyman, is trying to say is that we won't change most gun grabbers. End of Story there. I've changed a few within my own family, but the large number of anti-gunners will forever be convinced that the police are the only thing that can protect them and anyone who owns a gun is a sociopath. We CAN however change the minds of people who lean anti-gun, but honestly don't have a set opinion. We do that by being above the bullbubblegum.

Who would you rather vote for, Chicago Style Politics like Obama, or Average Joe who is polite, doesn't run negative ads, and is straight forward and honest?

I'm not saying don't prove them wrong or don't call them out on their lies, but you need to do it with some tact and professionalism. Make the pro-gun argument an intelligent and rational one, that we all know it is, and others will be more inclined to listen. We need to start being better about pointing out, without going crazy, how many anti-gunners give veiled death threats in public. Show the public who are the ones who really advocate violence.

We all cherish our rights and we all love our country. We all MUST recognize that if we are not smarter than the other side in the PR war we will lose both. Part of that is not being the "crazy gun nuts" the anti-gunners keep claiming we are. When we show people that average law abiding citizens with intelligence and rational arguments are the ones Bloomberg and his Mom's are targeting then we will start to win.

LOL these forums are not real life. Just battle boards for the most parts. Good venting arenas
Real life is generally handled much differently. Street meet, or Legislative meet, or forum head ons are all different. Still the main tact must stay zero compromise. We can no longer allow them to gain so much as an inch. They are takers, we must become non givers. That is a straight fact that cannot deviate from anymore.
The stakes are far too high. The anti's do not realize it, but they lead the nation into dangerous territory and yes it is them that will bring the doom, they will cause it should they continue but their ignorance will not allow them too stop. Its all just a mater of time..

 

[usagi]

the straight fact is that the new initiative process changes everything.

keep playing by the same old "grassroots" tactics, and we are gonna get screwed.

the initiative process insulates legislators from all accountability. the NRA's traditional sphere of influence is useless with initiatives. there's no politicans to lobby, no legislators to threaten with recalls.

there are only two ways to combat initiatives:

* outspend them
* submit competing initiatives

alienating voters is a guaranteed recipe for losing. it's totally a PR game now.

 

[Gunguy45]

If SAF, who have done more in their SLEEP to help gun rights Than this Dudley clown can even remotely claim to have done puts out THIS http://www.saf.org/?p=3617
message, you know he's a dirtbag.

I have no use for loud words and ginning up hysteria among those already supporting us. I'm interested in efforts that convince people on the fence to come over to our side.

Dudley certainly isn't going to do the latter, and from everything I've seen he seems to be worse than the NRA by a longshot when it comes to loud talk and no action. HOW many lawsuits has he won for us? Oh, yes, NONE.

When his organization has 1/2 as many unqualified wins for us as CCRKBA and SAF and NRA has had in the last decade alone, he can criticize others. Until then he's a windbag, and his "organization," with him.

 

[U201491]

the straight fact is that the new initiative process changes everything.

keep playing by the same old "grassroots" tactics, and we are gonna get screwed.

the initiative process insulates legislators from all accountability. the NRA's traditional sphere of influence is useless with initiatives. there's no politicans to lobby, no legislators to threaten with recalls.

there are only two ways to combat initiatives:

* outspend them
* submit competing initiatives

alienating voters is a guaranteed recipe for losing. it's totally a PR game now.

There is another way................................ its coming.

 

[U201491]

If SAF, who have done more in their SLEEP to help gun rights Than this Dudley clown can even remotely claim to have done puts out THIS http://www.saf.org/?p=3617
message, you know he's a dirtbag.

I have no use for loud words and ginning up hysteria among those already supporting us. I'm interested in efforts that convince people on the fence to come over to our side.

Dudley certainly isn't going to do the latter, and from everything I've seen he seems to be worse than the NRA by a longshot when it comes to loud talk and no action. HOW many lawsuits has he won for us? Oh, yes, NONE.

When his organization has 1/2 as many unqualified wins for us as CCRKBA and SAF and NRA has had in the last decade alone, he can criticize others. Until then he's a windbag, and his "organization," with him.

I don't support that Dudley guy, but I do nto belittle any pro gun group either. I prefer NRA, GOA, OFF, and since SAF does WA, and little in Oregon, I do not spend time on them.
My top 3 are the ones I mentioned, Oh and USCCA, Oregon's arm of the NRA, but they are mostly about range issues.
Kevin Starrett does most of the good work here. I do not appreciate people that badmouth the NRA either. Those that do, do not know their history or what they have done for the past hundred+ years. If you are in a state they concentrate their work in you would sing a different tune. I have been a life member of them and OSSA since the 50's and urge everyone to join them as well as any other active pro 2nd organization.
When you bad mouth a pro 2nd organization like that you are definitely no friend of the 2nd amendment, and personally I suspect their commitments, I don't care who you are., They have done more to protect the 2nd Amendment and train our Military and Our LE than every other pro gun group in this country put together. You really need to go to their site and read their full history !

<broken link removed>

 

[U201491]

NRA.ORG | History | America's Longest-Standing Civil Rights Organization

<broken link removed>

<broken link removed>

 

[Gunguy45]

I must be failing at reading or something.

Am I correctly understanding Jim and Taku to be saying that essentially anyone not specifically with us is automatically with the enemy?

Because the "Enemy" is a VERY small portion of the population. Well-funded, but small.

The great majority of opinion there is out there is at worst somewhat hostile, or simply doesn't give a damn.

Gallup poll from 2008. -And I guarantee our side has gone up in that poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-Supreme-Court-Gun-Rights.aspx

We have WON. Consistently. For over a decade now!

AWB sunseted -CHECK
Heller vs. DC -CHECK
McDonald vs. Chicago -CHECK
9th and 10 U.S. Circuit court ruling saying that concealed carry is a right -CHECK
Successful Recall of sitting legislators over CO's new gun law and Governor in danger? -CHECK

And you're worried about NY or a Dist Judge in MD? You couldn't even get an AWB through the DEMOCRAT legislature when it was floated in 2009!

All you're paying attention to is the negative when the positive has given tens of millions of people rights they had lost, and for many millions, rights we wouldn't have dreamed of them having just 10-20 years ago.

Are we under assault? You bethca!

Do we need to make ourselves heard? Of Course!

But the people we need to convince are people mostly already on our side. If you will accept nothing less than total capitulation to your views on every possible front then you're going to be very disappointed in every political endeavor you ever undertake.

I'm not proposing compromising a damn thing. But if you insist on treating people who are already 80% our allies as 100% enemies, then why the Hell should they support us?

I'm talking about the guy who shot a .22 rifle once in the Boy Scouts. He never thinks about guns, doesn't want one nor fears one. It's never occurred to him that he might want one. He just doesn't give a damn.

"Sure, have your guns, whatever... just don't bug me."

That guy describes a huge amount of Washington voters.

And if all he hears is one side that sounds like they want to start Civil War part deaux and another side that he doesn't particularly object to, Who ya think think he's gonna vote for? It's not us.

Stand up for our rights. I'm all for open carry rallys with signs. Hell, I'd pick up trash like I did in NH long ago. I'm all for calling Bloomy a liar in so many words. Signs with "Gun Control kills women" are great conversation starters.

But I don't talk to my neighbors like that. And I don't think either of you two do either.

All I'm asking you to remember that people you meet on the street or at work or wherever, are probably already predisposed to agree with us. The facts speak for themselves. I convinced a life-long hard core socialist (card carrying) that gun control was bad. All I had to do was ask how he'd feel with the next J. Edgar Hoover being the only one with the guns. -He changed his religion on guns on the spot.

You guys both know how to convince people, I'm just saying most folks are pretty open to being convinced if you aren't a militant jerk about it.

 

[U201491]

But I don't talk to my neighbors like that. And I don't think either of you two do either.
.

ROFLMAO...................... BINGO

 

[balaperdida]

<snip>
9th and 10 U.S. Circuit court ruling saying that concealed carry is a right -CHECK<snip>

Googled 9th and 10th Court rulings. Unless I have misread, I found:

1. It appears that the 9th ruled in early 2014 that CC is a right, but Calif is appealing to the full Court. No Google return on the full Court ruling.

2. The Google returns on the 10th Court indicate that this Court ruled against CC, using, from Heller, decision section III, "For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Since the 10th ruling appears to be tied to Heller, the outlook for CC is not very rosy.

In addition, although the NRA and others consider Heller to be a major win, I am not so sanguine:

1. The SCOTUS in Heller, decision section III, ruled not only that CC could be prohibited, but also that States have the right to limit firearms for several enumerated reasons. [Side notes: 1. Prohibition of CC is illogical in the context of self-defense, since CC is a major self-defense strategy. 2. On the brighter side, those jurisdictions that prohibit CC would find it difficult to prohibit OC. 3. The impediments to self-defense imposed by I594 have enough similarity to those imposed on Heller by DC such that a Constitutional challenge should be worth the effort.]

2. The lawyers for Heller were careless, which allowed SCOTUS to rule that a license to keep a handgun in one's home would be sufficient relief.

3. Finally, the binding thread in Heller is that the individual right expressed by the 2nd Amendment is the right to self-defense only. Perhaps that includes self-defense training, but otherwise no hunting, no plinking, no competition, no targets, ad nauseum.

While I have observed a few bright spots in the past 50 years, GCA68 precipitated a gathering darkness with no light at the end. What fight I have left is reserved for my grandchildren's rights.