National Voting, Lobbying What do they really Do for 2nd Rights?

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by DuneHopper, Nov 7, 2018 at 8:28 AM.

  1. DuneHopper

    DuneHopper
    (2- " Q " -+1)
    Civility is a two way street. Diamond Supporter Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,779
    Likes Received:
    17,770
    This is an excerpt, from my book being released in about a month. I hope to have the book released earlier in hopes it may help others think. However I think at this point at least having a partial release may be appropriate given the results of the election. ( pre-proofed version)

    Voting, and lobbying what do they really do for Second Amendment rights?

    Voting, and lobbying work on a basic premise to allow the public to make a difference on legislation. One is done by influencing power, known as lobbying. The other is done by a majority, in most cases, and we call that voting. You may know this but is key to understand that both have the same effect. But are constructed differently.
    Lobbying, only has strength, when the influence and power are equal or greater than the opposition. When a lobby that has no voice, or influence on the legislators themselves. They're basically wasting their time, and members money.
    In the state where I live, second amendment lobbyists, have been a minority lobby, for decades. It also shows clear, that there effect on laws does not equal the amount of funding from members. Meaning tens of thousands of dollars are donated each year, however influencing power is not represented by these funds. It's important to realize, that lobbying itself in representation of citizens, only works when there is equal opportunity. If a lobby does not have the ability to affect that majority vote the system fails to work. However lobbying does work, if courts are involved. Courts allow evidence and information to be equally presented, so if laws are passed that have effected the minority, do have the ability to rebuttal this in a courtroom, and this gives a minority power and influence.


    In this nation as voters, we have a unique gift that was handed to us by our forefathers. The ability as a singular individual to make a difference in our nation. This is done so that the individual that may be seen as a minority, can join with others and gain power and influence through their numbers. It is with this huge responsibility, and gift that we are given, that we must take serious the affects the individuals have. it truly does not matter, what party you choose to represent you. The voting process, allows the equality within the system. Why demographics may play a part, it is still the majority that wins, using small singular voters to accomplish this task. Each year, depending on where you live you will find several parties representing themselves, hoping that there ballot measures, or politicians they vote for will make a difference. However, right now in this country there are only two major parties that make a difference, most of the time. Our Democratic Party, and our Republican Party, rely on the strength and influence that is handed to them by the people they represent. There also exists small independent type parties. These existing parties tend to shake up, and affect the strength and influence of others, by their votes.
    A better way to explain this, is imagine you are part of the union at your place of work. And you want to vote in a new union president, that will replace the one you have now. As you are not happy with the job they are doing. The person, that is the current union president does not want to step down. So the opposition has the opportunity to present a candidate, through power and influence that will exceed the current power of the union president)( thru Votes). However within the members of the union there are three other candidates, that have no power or influence but wish to be part of the process and apply for candidacy. At the time of voting for the union president, the two top candidates are voted for. However at the end of the election, the original president, has been reelected. There was great support for another opposing candidate, and this candidate had influence and power within the votes. However, other representing candidates being voted for, directly effected the outcome, and took away power from the opposing runner for the position of union president. This is an example of how even minority players can effect the outcome.



    I realize this may be a long paragraph, but is important that we understand the logistics and demographics involved, and how they affect the minority, and majority influences. This year lobbies in Oregon and Washington state, will tell you to give them more money so they can speak on your behalf in the legislative sessions, but they are no longer powerful, or have influence. They barely had it before and now with a super majority in Oregon and Washington, lobbies will have to do much more than simply tell you to send the money, to save your rights. This is a pipe dream, to rely on the lobby at this point to save your rights. Only court cases if brought up, will a lobby make differences. So tell your lobby if they want money to be funded this year you expect to see them in court fighting for rights, as new firearm laws are passed in our states this next year. And it will happen, Kate Brown and others have already stated their agenda, if you think a lobby that has no power or influence will make a difference, you're sadly mistaken things have changed in 2018 making it foolish to even think, throwing money at the lobby will make a difference.
     
  2. Reno911

    Reno911
    Hillsboro
    Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer 2017 Volunteer 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    5,083
    Likes Received:
    10,178
    Thanks for the read, but I don’t think not giving to a lobbyist like the NRA even though I live in a state that the NRA has little overall power in, is a good idea.

    I think this rhetoric is dangerous. It gives folks a sense there is no hope. Loss of hope is very dangerous.

    Essentially this rhetoric is the slow winning scheme that the anti-gun wants.

    Get those within gun ownership to give up on lobbyists that may actually help, ending them over a long boiling of the frog.

    If you promoted hope instead, like liberals and their lobbyists do for their victim groups, perhaps it would promote more growth within the targeted community.
     

Share This Page