JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
ALMOST 5 Million of that 17 million "Liberal" Firearm owners live in California and in last 19 years have NOT been able to slow the Anti Firearms juggernaut that a Democrat Majority & Super Majority has allowed here.
 
What worked in the 10 & 14 election cycles, Unify our own votes and WIN ELECTIONS ( With an emphasis on STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES whose 2A & RTKBA credentials are impeccable .

I think we're all in agreement here, electing pro-2A candidates has always been our goal :)

What we're discussing here, is what do we do when that doesn't work, or in a place (such as California or Portland) where that isn't an option?

I hope people know I'm definitely advocating traditional strategies as well as litigation, but I just realized I think I've failed to convey that :oops:
 
I have a 30-year-old daughter who lives in Seattle (who is also fairly conservative and pro-gun). The tactic I use when discussing gun issues with her friends is not to scream "2nd AMENDMENT SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED" but to put it in the context of protecting your family or self defense.

Here's the typical interaction:
Them: "I don't see why anybody needs to own a gun"
Me: "What if someone broke into your home in the middle of the night while you were home? What would you do?"
Them: "I'd call the police"
Me: "That's great but they could take a long time to get to your house. What do you do while you're waiting for them? What if there is more than one person? What if they are armed?"
Them: "That's why nobody should own a gun, because criminals can get them."
Me: "The fact that criminals don't obey the law hasn't stopped them from breaking into you house has it? So adding another gun law would have stopped them how?"
Them: "Well, I just think…uh… um…"
Me: "That's fine for you but what if you were home and <insert significant person here> was home with you. How would you protect them?"
Them: "I haven't really thought about that… I guess I'd still call the police but..." (this is the typical answer almost every time)
Me: "Again, what do you do for the time period while you are waiting for the cops to show up? How do you protect <named person>? What if getting out of the house isn't an option?"
Them: "I'd hide…"
Me: "And if they find you, wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself?"
Them: "I hadn't really thought about it that far…"

Throughout the interactions I'll introduce how ineffective most gun control laws are at stopping crime and are only focused on restricting access for law-abiding citizens. With 594 I added a discussion about not being able to quickly loan a gun to someone if they needed to protect themselves during some kind of dire emergency (Rodney King riots, Hurricane Katrina, some idiot threatening their family, etc.). If the person is female I will add a series of items regarding "leveling the playing field" if their assailant was a man or if domestic violence could ever become an issue.

I'm not saying this works every time but it stops the knee-jerk attitude that some young people have from years of indoctrination. Many of the kid's friends have come around and several are now proud gun owners (and spreading the gospel of self defense and right to protect yourself and family). It's not a pure Constitution or Bill of Rights argument, it's a common sense; "here's how this proposed law, measure, etc. effects you" approach. It takes more time but prevents arguing.

Think about it, the anti's use the "wouldn't you agree…" approach to framing their argument to strip people of their rights and the soft-minded willingly buy it. Why can't we use the same approach to present our side? No yelling, screaming, arguing, etc. How can someone argue against protecting his or her spouse, children, parents, siblings, etc.? That would be crazy.

YMMV
 
So WTH aren't those SIXTEEN MILLION pro-2A Democrats stepping up and cleaning their politcal house? o_O

As far as embracing pro-2A Dems... Personally I think Betsy Johnson is the shizo-manizo and seems to be an oxymoron to what her party stands for, for the most part.
 
Long way around the mountain here but the article is a focus on how change is going to have to be made. When I was young we had a conservative Democrat party that really stood for America. Today's party is no where near the old Democrat party. So being conservative I moved to the Republican party and they too changed away from conservatism. I am now not with any party. Point is if you want something you have to change the party.

You change the party by changing the priorities of the people in it. You are never going to change the people but you can change what is most important to them. For it to happen quickly some big event will make change like 911. If we are going for change in the long run it has to be a concentrated effort in incremental change.

First you change the language to get people thinking. Gun free zone are free to gun you down zones is one I can think of but it's going to take pointing out differences that are not insulting to others but work toward our cause. Hate to say this but to change people you may have to become like them in some ways. If you become the community organizer just like bummer you can lead the masses to what ever you want:D
 
I have a 30-year-old daughter who lives in Seattle (who is also fairly conservative and pro-gun). The tactic I use when discussing gun issues with her friends is not to scream "2nd AMENDMENT SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED" but to put it in the context of protecting your family or self defense.

Here's the typical interaction:
Them: "I don't see why anybody needs to own a gun"
Me: "What if someone broke into your home in the middle of the night while you were home? What would you do?"
Them: "I'd call the police"
Me: "That's great but they could take a long time to get to your house. What do you do while you're waiting for them? What if there is more than one person? What if they are armed?"
Them: "That's why nobody should own a gun, because criminals can get them."
Me: "The fact that criminals don't obey the law hasn't stopped them from breaking into you house has it? So adding another gun law would have stopped them how?"
Them: "Well, I just think…uh… um…"
Me: "That's fine for you but what if you were home and <insert significant person here> was home with you. How would you protect them?"
Them: "I haven't really thought about that… I guess I'd still call the police but..." (this is the typical answer almost every time)
Me: "Again, what do you do for the time period while you are waiting for the cops to show up? How do you protect <named person>? What if getting out of the house isn't an option?"
Them: "I'd hide…"
Me: "And if they find you, wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself?"
Them: "I hadn't really thought about it that far…"

Throughout the interactions I'll introduce how ineffective most gun control laws are at stopping crime and are only focused on restricting access for law-abiding citizens. With 594 I added a discussion about not being able to quickly loan a gun to someone if they needed to protect themselves during some kind of dire emergency (Rodney King riots, Hurricane Katrina, some idiot threatening their family, etc.). If the person is female I will add a series of items regarding "leveling the playing field" if their assailant was a man or if domestic violence could ever become an issue.

I'm not saying this works every time but it stops the knee-jerk attitude that some young people have from years of indoctrination. Many of the kid's friends have come around and several are now proud gun owners (and spreading the gospel of self defense and right to protect yourself and family). It's not a pure Constitution or Bill of Rights argument, it's a common sense; "here's how this proposed law, measure, etc. effects you" approach. It takes more time but prevents arguing.

Think about it, the anti's use the "wouldn't you agree…" approach to framing their argument to strip people of their rights and the soft-minded willingly buy it. Why can't we use the same approach to present our side? No yelling, screaming, arguing, etc. How can someone argue against protecting his or her spouse, children, parents, siblings, etc.? That would be crazy.

YMMV


I don't know why the hypebole of "yelling and screaming" at anti's is being used. I've never yelled, screamed, nor shouted down anyone when discussing the politics of any subject.

I do know that as a white male, I'm automatically categorized as a racist, homophobe who hates women, and wants to overthrow our goverment if I disagree with ONE iota of the progressive mantra.

As for using that argument strategy, that's exactly what I do, and in fact have hushed many of my Australian anti-gun relatives doing exactly what you just illustrated. It made them think, and the timing is especially awesome because of the Muslim extremist attempting to run amok over there.
 
I think we're all in agreement here, electing pro-2A candidates has always been our goal :)

What we're discussing here, is what do we do when that doesn't work, or in a place (such as California or Portland) where that isn't an option?

I hope people know I'm definitely advocating traditional strategies as well as litigation, but I just realized I think I've failed to convey that :oops:
I'm proud of you guys (This Community) you can see things differently than the calguns.net folks who are very caught up in their inclusion of "Other Issues" when tempering their desire to discuss the political issues revolving around 2A/RTKBA.
 
I don't disagree with either of you for the most part. I know exactly what folks on the D side will vote as well as I know what folks on the R side will vote. But my suggestion isn't to turn D's into single issue voters (that's just not going to happen), so are we going to convince them to vote for an R. So let me say this again and see if I can be more clear, because I may not have been to this point.

Acknowledging that people are, by and large, unlikely to change on a grand scale when it comes to their political views, and given that most will vote party lines, having a hope that they will vote for someone else is very highly unlikely. But I'm suggesting that there is another way - a way beyond simply voting for the 'right' people. What I'm suggesting is to mobilize the liberal gun owners in such a way that they don't feel like they are compromising on their personal beliefs by jumping parties. It's been suggested here that many of them don't like to come to places like this because the minute they chime in, we shout them down, call them names, deride their views. Yet these are people that, often, love guns as much as we do.

In talking with one of the liberal members here, he pointed me to a liberal gun owners group so I could do a little more research on this issue. Since I'm not against learning something new, I decided to check out their forum site. In the process of reading some items on their forum, I found a link to a rather curious article: http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/sandy-hook-the-agony-of-the-liberal-gun-lover-82964 Now, I'm not asking you to read it if you don't want to, it is a liberal article and I know some folks won't care to even click on the link. But to summarize what it says, it states that many liberal gun owners have found themselves rejected by their fellow liberals and are also rejected and isolated by conservative gun owners, leaving them stuck in the middle with no place to call home. Per the article, a Gallup poll indicates there are 16 million gun owners that identify as liberals in this country. 16 million! Can you imagine the political power that can wield? The NRA has just over 5 million members, and look at what they can do. I also found, in doing some reading, that many seem just as unwilling to add more 'common sense' laws such as expanded background checks and magazine restrictions - hmmm, sounds familiar doesn't it? To me, it sounds like some folks I'd like to meet.

To be blunt, we're ignoring a huge potential resource for gun rights. Many have the same views about guns that we do, but they don't agree with the rest of our politics, just as we don't agree with theirs. They also don't necessarily care for the way they, and other liberal gun owners are treated by us, the traditional 'defenders', if you will, of gun rights. Can you imagine if tomorrow, we could present 16 million vocal gun supporters to legislatures all over the country? If more anti-gun legislators knew that they would receive pressure from their own people with regard to gun issues, then, I am suggesting that perhaps, just perhaps, those legislators would consider gun control more of a dead issue, and just leave it alone. Those politicians aren't going to listen to us, but they may just listen to their own base. And while these folks likely won't threaten to withhold votes for them, they can withhold money, they can withhold support in other areas and they can be damn loud and bothersome with phone calls, emails and at public events. Basically, they could hold their own folks feet to the fire with respect to this one particular issue.

In reality, gun control has become just one in a myriad of attack points for the left against the right. In similar fashion, the right has attack points against the left. If a large, vocal group of liberal voters demanded that their politicians leave the gun control measure alone, maybe we could affect the change we've been unable to make these many years.

I care deeply about protecting our gun rights. I want to see the attacks on those rights stop. And while I'm not suggesting that trying to get pro-gun politicians into office is a plan that should be abandoned (it shouldn't), I'm suggesting there is an area that is still ready and available to be tapped, if we can find the right way to go about it. But that will require those gun owners from both sides to at least be able to sit down together and be civil to each other. If their own party is rejecting them at times, perhaps we can give them a safer place for this particular belief, even if only for this belief. We can continue to hate the other's politics, but since we both have a vested interest in protecting our 2A rights, let's find a way to harness the power of numbers to all our benefit.

Change starts small. I'm meeting with a liberal member here in person in the near future. He sounds excited at the prospect, as do I. Maybe we can find just enough common ground to help start to make that change. 16 million more pro-gun supporters? I'd love to see what kind of influence that could have on anti-gun politicians. We've already seen some D politicians that are unwilling to vote for gun control measures because they do get pressure from their constituents. Couldn't that be done to more of them?

That's my 2 cents on the matter, for what it's worth.

That is a noble idea and one that is probably worth pursuing, but I see (a) big problem(s) that needs to be addressed. The main being that even in this forum we can't agree on many aspects of laws, conduct, ect, open carry being one of the big ones. If we here can't even get together, how are we going to bring more people into the fold, let alone more liberals and/or progressives? Then if we can get them with us, how are we to get everyone on the same sheet of music? Specifically those who are willing to have or want more regulations on guns (which I believe to be 99% of liberals and/or progressives) as evidenced by the article you linked (emphasis mine).........


The Agony of the Liberal Gun Lover said:
Within Sara Robinson's progressive circles, she says, "attempting to objectively explore the research that might lead to truly effective gun policy—the tack we would have taken with any other issue, and which I really wanted to pursue—just got me tagged as an apologist."


We can't even get our house in order now, I don't know how in the hell we would do it by adding people who are the polar opposites of most of us here. I would like all gun owners to be on the same page in reference to gun rights, but I'm at a loss for how to accomplish it. Hopefully someone smarter than me can figure it out and unify us.



Ray
 
Deal is you are going to have to educate and organize the public if you want change. Use language that makes a difference and puts you on their side and promote their well being by the use of fire arms.
 
Deal is you are going to have to educate and organize the public if you want change. Use language that makes a difference and puts you on their side and promote their well being by the use of fire arms.
Without the Media & 21st Century Pop Culture on our side, educating must be focused on keeping the choir involved & interested not the disbelievers...
 
So WTH aren't those SIXTEEN MILLION pro-2A Democrats stepping up and cleaning their politcal house? o_O

That's a question I've asked here numerous times, but the people that can answer that question are not (largely) here. That's why I want to seek some out and get that answer directly from them.

That is a noble idea and one that is probably worth pursuing, but I see (a) big problem(s) that needs to be addressed. The main being that even in this forum we can't agree on many aspects of laws, conduct, ect, open carry being one of the big ones. If we here can't even get together, how are we going to bring more people into the fold, let alone more liberals and/or progressives? Then if we can get them with us, how are we to get everyone on the same sheet of music? Specifically those who are willing to have or want more regulations on guns (which I believe to be 99% of liberals and/or progressives) as evidenced by the article you linked (emphasis mine).........

We can't even get our house in order now, I don't know how in the hell we would do it by adding people who are the polar opposites of most of us here. I would like all gun owners to be on the same page in reference to gun rights, but I'm at a loss for how to accomplish it. Hopefully someone smarter than me can figure it out and unify us.

Ray

You're right, there are a lot of problems on our own side as well as the other. The short answer is that it won't be easy, but I refuse to think it's impossible. You would like all gun owners on the same page with regard to gun rights - I 100% agree. Can it ever happen? I don't know, but for my part I'll at least give it a try. That seems a better option than throwing our hands in the air and claiming defeat. We should be looking for new ways to go about this until we find what works.
 
Without the Media & 21st Century Pop Culture on our side, educating must be focused on keeping the choir involved & interested not the disbelievers...

In general it's a waste of time to preach to the choir or the die hard enemies. The best use of our efforts is to win as many to our position not necessarily to our party, in the hopes of pressuring all politicians, regardless of party, to protect, rather than attack, our 2A rights.

As for the media - they'll do what they want, but if we give them more fodder to use against us by acting like belligerent idiots (only some, not all do that) they will continue to run those stories. We need to stop writing those stories for them.
 
Right now we are living in the most opertune time I have seen in my lifetime to make a difference in gun control. Government is pushing fear like I have never seen in my life and that fear could bring in a lot of gun owners and people thinking toward our cause. Bad as it may sound we may have to build on that fear to get the masses educated and changing their party, both parties.

I believe we have been divided as a nation so we won't stand together for our right of self defense. Since government has done so many social changes that create fear that fear can bring gun owners together as a block. It's a perfect storm for us if we can just use it right. Fear of police, fear of riots and fear of terrorism all push people to self defense. A little community organization and we will get laws on the books that will guarantee our rights so well we won't need an NRA fighting for them.
 
You're right, there are a lot of problems on our own side as well as the other. The short answer is that it won't be easy, but I refuse to think it's impossible. You would like all gun owners on the same page with regard to gun rights - I 100% agree. Can it ever happen? I don't know, but for my part I'll at least give it a try. That seems a better option than throwing our hands in the air and claiming defeat. We should be looking for new ways to go about this until we find what works.

I hope your right and you find the magic bullet............Maybe you'll be the guy to unit us.


Ray
 
I have a 30-year-old daughter who lives in Seattle (who is also fairly conservative and pro-gun). The tactic I use when discussing gun issues with her friends is not to scream "2nd AMENDMENT SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED" but to put it in the context of protecting your family or self defense.

Here's the typical interaction:
Them: "I don't see why anybody needs to own a gun"
Me: "What if someone broke into your home in the middle of the night while you were home? What would you do?"
Them: "I'd call the police"
Me: "That's great but they could take a long time to get to your house. What do you do while you're waiting for them? What if there is more than one person? What if they are armed?"
Them: "That's why nobody should own a gun, because criminals can get them."
Me: "The fact that criminals don't obey the law hasn't stopped them from breaking into you house has it? So adding another gun law would have stopped them how?"
Them: "Well, I just think…uh… um…"
Me: "That's fine for you but what if you were home and <insert significant person here> was home with you. How would you protect them?"
Them: "I haven't really thought about that… I guess I'd still call the police but..." (this is the typical answer almost every time)
Me: "Again, what do you do for the time period while you are waiting for the cops to show up? How do you protect <named person>? What if getting out of the house isn't an option?"
Them: "I'd hide…"
Me: "And if they find you, wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself?"
Them: "I hadn't really thought about it that far…"

Throughout the interactions I'll introduce how ineffective most gun control laws are at stopping crime and are only focused on restricting access for law-abiding citizens. With 594 I added a discussion about not being able to quickly loan a gun to someone if they needed to protect themselves during some kind of dire emergency (Rodney King riots, Hurricane Katrina, some idiot threatening their family, etc.). If the person is female I will add a series of items regarding "leveling the playing field" if their assailant was a man or if domestic violence could ever become an issue.

I'm not saying this works every time but it stops the knee-jerk attitude that some young people have from years of indoctrination. Many of the kid's friends have come around and several are now proud gun owners (and spreading the gospel of self defense and right to protect yourself and family). It's not a pure Constitution or Bill of Rights argument, it's a common sense; "here's how this proposed law, measure, etc. effects you" approach. It takes more time but prevents arguing.

Think about it, the anti's use the "wouldn't you agree…" approach to framing their argument to strip people of their rights and the soft-minded willingly buy it. Why can't we use the same approach to present our side? No yelling, screaming, arguing, etc. How can someone argue against protecting his or her spouse, children, parents, siblings, etc.? That would be crazy.

YMMV

A perfect example of the tactful methods we need to employee when speaking with others. This right here is how I've successfully converted many friends and family members.
 
A perfect example of the tactful methods we need to employee when speaking with others. This right here is how I've successfully converted many friends and family members.

And if you look at those events in an honest manner then you will see fear was used to promote self defense. Fear is a big seller and as I said I have never seen so much fear in the USA in my life.
 
Fear has always been the motivator when it comes to voting. You fear the world will change to become something you can't live with. Politicians just manipulate your fears with their words. They can turn you to hate if they have the media behind them and even to kill if they can stir up enough hatred and demonize who they want dead.

It will be a huge gain for humanity if we turn that fear into something productive like self defense. People who learn self defense are less motivated by fear and can vote with reason, not panic.

Is anyone understanding what I am saying?:D
 
It probably bothers ya'll to see how easily politicians manipulate people, it really bothers me. I wish the world were more like Maslows theory that let's us build a life to our ability but that life has to be built on our own personal security in order to really become what life can give us. Anyway I have said enough, people will either get it or not. I will shut up and let others bore you too:D
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top