Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Why Must it be Gun Owners that "Compromise"?

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by etrain16, Jun 30, 2016.

  1. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    19,588
    In the wake of another thread where a question was posed about what 'we' can do to help curb 'gun violence', I find myself continuing to wonder why it is that the gun owners/gun community are the only ones expected to give something up in the spirit of "common sense gun laws" and "compromise"?

    As I look back on the history of gun rights in this country, there appears to be a long history, going back to the 1930's, of "compromise" by gun owners in this country. Seems the standard solution presented when a high-profile event occurs where guns are involved, is to look to us to compromise yet again. Give up some more of your rights, and we'll finally be safe. Give away some more of your liberty and we'll finally be safe. Lay down your arms and we'll finally be safe. You don't need guns to protect you, your government will protect you.

    And, it seems, they are piercing the hearts of gun owners across the country. A recent comment in the other thread stated that gun owners simply "don't care" about guns getting into the hands of bad people. I stated in the other thread that that statement pissed me off - and it still does. I know a lot of gun owners, and not a single damn one of them is okay with bad people getting guns. In fact, most would happily do something to prevent it - with one big exception - stripping us of yet more of our rights. Does that make us 'uncaring'? Does that mean we won't or can't do something about it? Or does that mean that there is a line many of us are unwilling to cross with respect to our constitutional rights? To imply that people who care about their rights don't care about crimes such as murder, terrorism, etc. just because they want to protect their rights, is just a very poor assumption. It seems at least some in our gun community are giving in to the anti-gun rhetoric and are willing to sell their rights, along with ours for the false promises of the anti's. It is sad to see.

    I don't know if it's out of a sense of guilt that some gun owners are starting to sound just like the anti-gun crowd. I don't know if they seem to feel as if it is, in some way, their fault that these events happen. I guess I can see why they might feel that way when the news and anti-gun politicians keep telling them they ARE part of the problem. Well, I call B.S. on that whole idea. It is NOT my fault. I did NOTHING to allow these events to happen, and I refuse to feel guilty over the decisions and actions of a terrorist, psychopath, criminal or gang banger. Unless I do something personally to put a gun into the hands of one of these types of people, I own no guilt. I can't understand why some take that guilt onto themselves, and then proceed to use their guilt to attack others - particularly by trying to guilt them into the same notions they have. Those are the tactics of the anti-gun crowd, and I don't think they belong among gun owners.

    In that thread, myself and many others offered real solutions, real opportunities to help reduce the kinds of crimes that lead to our rights being under attack. The anti-gun crowd, and unfortunately, some within the gun community, prefer to turn a blind eye to those ideas. They want more laws because they believe, even though time and time again they are proven wrong, that laws will make us safer. They will not. We see that day after day. Gun free zones do not work, they will never work, and people are dying because people believe in this fantasy of personal safety.

    Why are people on this site so concerned about their gun rights? Well, remember, this is a forum of gun owners. The gun community watches their rights remain under constant attack. It's only reasonable to see people here, in a place they should feel safe to share their concerns over that loss of rights, react negatively to anyone that suggest giving up even more rights is the answer.

    I am passionate about my rights. Gun rights reflect only one area of my concern with respect to the government constantly finding more and more laws to restrict our freedom. That passion sometimes may come out as anger, sometimes it truly is anger. Some people may take those statements personally, but since I am very careful to avoid 'attacking' others on this forum, if my statements offend, it is likely because you simply disagree with me and perhaps how I state my feelings/beliefs on the matter. It's too bad that so many folks get offended so easily over a simple discussion. But it's even more disappointing that so many allow being offended to lead to more repression and restriction on their rights. No doubt some here would hit the 'dislike' button on some of my comments if that button existed. I don't expect to appease people here, I only wish to speak my mind as freely as I am allowed.

    I believe in personal responsibility, in this case with particular emphasis on personal safety - for myself and my family. I respect the police and the military and I certainly look to them to protect me as well. But when I'm trapped in my home or somewhere in public and some lunatic is stabbing, shooting, or attempting to blow up a place, I shouldn't have to have someone's permission to fight back if that's my best option. I shouldn't have my hands tied by more laws and regulations. I shouldn't have to sacrifice my life on the alter of government control so that others can 'feel' safer, even when they've made themselves into victims, just waiting for the next attack.

    I wrote out this thread just to get some thoughts off my chest and maybe to see what you folks think. I know many people here feel the same way, and I know some disagree, even vehemently with my position on these things. So, feel free to weigh in. Share your ideas for how we could make things better - even though we can never eliminate the issue of evil/bad people - or the fact that they will get weapons - many different types - regardless of what our laws are. But are there some options that are being ignored by the anti-gun crowd that might work? Share them here, again, if you like. To recap from other posts I've made, here are some ideas that I think could really help, but so far, are left on the table, passed over by the anti-gun crowd:

    * Mandatory jail sentences for anyone convicted of a gun crime - no parole, no early release
    * Mandatory jail sentences for anyone convicted of assisting with a straw purchase
    * Mandatory deportation of any immigrant (illegal or legal) convicted of any violent crime
    * Funding and expansion of mental health care for those unable to get it for themselves, up to and including institutionalization if necessary
    * Conviction and mandatory jail sentence of any person who knowingly harbors or otherwise hides information on known criminals, with particular emphasis on those that commit crimes with firearms
    * Re-introduce gun safety training as mandatory in all public schools beginning in grade school and continuing through high school.

    Those are just a few off the top of my head. I know we can come up with more.

    We need to turn the focus on criminals, not on the law-abiding public. We have committed no crimes, yet increasingly, we are treated as if we are the criminals. No more compromising. No more giving up even more than we already have. Compromise means only one thing to the anti-gun crowd - we give something up and they don't. It's all B.S. and it needs to stop. I hope more of my fellow gun owners will stand up, get involved and become more vocal on this issue. Our rights are not secure under the current administration and they will not be secure under any administration unless we act - vote, speak up, get involved where you can, donate to pro-gun groups. And dammit people, find a frickin' pro-gun billionaire or two that can help us get some big pro-gun movements solidly funded!!! Why is it only the anti-gun billionaires put their money out on such things??

    If you disagree with me, I don't mind hearing from you too. I'm open to discussion. I won't attack anyone personally, but I may counter your comments or arguments. I may even say your arguments stink - and you can say the same about mine. If you can deal with that, then please, do share what you think. Let's keep it civil, but I'm happy to see people present their ideas and thoughts with some passion.

    Ultimately, I think the time for gun owners to compromise has long past - we've compromised enough. It's time to restore the rights that have been stolen from us under the false promise of safety and security. It's time to give us back what we should never have allowed to be taken in the first place. The only compromise I'm interested in, is the compromise that leads to the anti-gun crowd giving us our rights back. It's time THEY learned to compromise rather than demanding it from us.

    Sorry for such a long post - just needed to get that off my chest.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2016
  2. PaulB47

    PaulB47 Hillsboro Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,839
    Likes Received:
    2,558
    Not true. Many liberties are under attack.

    This is a form of gun control. Anyway, what is a gun crime? Not filling out some paperwork?

    More gun control. More mala prohibita.

    More gun control. Anyway requiring positive action of citizens is tyranny.

    Unrealistic. The schools belong to the rulers and bureaucrats, not us. They are not likely to allow training of anything against their interests. The rational thing to do is to remove your kids from these schools - and it doesn't take an act of Congress either.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2016
    NightmareSig, notazombie and thorborg like this.
  3. JTech

    JTech SW Washington Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    69
    Until you can convince the bleeding hearts that their "rights" to be crazy and walk the streets are less important than our right to bear arms it will be a losing fight. Last time I checked they were not opening any mental hospitals and they need to do that and force people with mental issues to reside in those facilities until they can prove that they do not pose a danger to society. Somewhere in the past 30-40 years the powers that be thought it would be a great idea to stop this practice and just let society figure it out. Crazy people need to be locked up, even if it's again their own will for the safety of the general public.
     
  4. Fordcragar

    Fordcragar Renton, Washington Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    165
    If the crazy people, criminals and anyone else that aren't obeying the laws were to comply with the rules, there wouldn't be a problem. If the left were to take all of the guns, the criminals would still have them and the crazy people plus the criminals would still harm others. Whenever something bad happens, the left will take it back to guns or climate control, no matter what happened. I think that the important thing is to vote for whoever will honor your rights, even if you don't like the person.
     
    Caveman Jim, jim97701, Ura-Ki and 2 others like this.
  5. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    19,588
    I understand that, but this is a gun forum, and the topics here are guns and gun laws.

    Without sounding snarky, I think it can be understood by most that the intent is that any crime committed WITH A GUN is what was meant. And no, that is not gun control.

    How so? Assisting a criminal, via straw purchase, to get a gun is not only illegal by definition because of the law, but it is, in and of itself, inherently wrong. Anyone assisting a criminal in getting a gun is violating a moral code of conduct, not just a written law.

    Is it tyranny? Maybe, maybe not. Is it tyranny that doctors and daycare providers are 'mandatory reporters'? Perhaps, but it's well established that it can be required. Anyway, it's an idea, something for discussion, nothing more.

    Agreed, but I present it in part to show the anti-gun believers that there are other options available to consider - and to show, by their refusal to consider such an idea, that they, in fact, are unwilling to actually compromise.

    My daughter is home schooled for that very reason. The fact is most people will continue to use the public schools, so if we want to reach them, then public schools would be a good venue. Of course it won't happen, but again, it's just an idea - and something far different than what the anti's have to offer.
     
    ZigZagZeke likes this.
  6. PaulB47

    PaulB47 Hillsboro Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,839
    Likes Received:
    2,558
    Sure it is. Why is a murder committed with a gun worse than a murder committed with a knife? The thing is the fact of the murder, not what tool is used. Any law that calls out guns IS gun control.

    Who is the victim?

    You don't understand the difference between mala in se and mala prohibita. Straw purchases may not involve any criminal at all; but even if they do, what is the harm in selling such a person a gun, any more than selling him a car? His owning a gun means nothing. If he commits a murder, then prosecute him for murder. The tool is irrelevant.

    Lots of things can be required, like requiring you to turn in all your guns. That does not make it anything other than tyranny. Mandatory reporting certainly is tyranny; it sure ain't liberty!
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2016
    NightmareSig and Ura-Ki like this.
  7. mrblond

    mrblond Salem OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,946
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    "The tool is irrelevant " Now take a 2x4 and beat that into the brain of every anti gun person in the US.
     
  8. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    19,588
    Again, let me stress the topic here is about guns. Because they make it about guns, so I'm focusing on guns - not murder in general. Splitting hairs really. THEY want to do something about 'gun crime', so I posed my idea - commit a crime with a gun, get mandatory sentencing.

    I don't claim to understand the differences, but I can use Google. I think though that you misunderstand what I'm saying. A straw purchase isn't about the seller/FFL, it's about the person that knowingly commits a crime by standing in the place of an otherwise known prohibited person to allow them to get a gun they would otherwise be unable to purchase at said FFL. This is about someone working around the system to knowingly arm a dangerous person. Surely you can see the difference there. In that case, I would say the person intentionally bypassing the BGC in order to arm a known prohibited person is in fact mala in se. It is, in my opinion then, an act that is in and of itself evil or morally wrong. I don't see how someone helping to arm a known criminal could be anything else.

    It's an idea. Got any to actually suggest yourself? Well, other than ignoring all laws, of course. I'm running some ideas up the flag pole, you're welcome to offer some alternative suggestions. And since complete anarchy will not happen, and since most Americans are not willing to just ignore laws they disagree with, what would you suggest to help the problem while working withing the system we're currently burdened with?
     
    ZigZagZeke, Doc In UPlace and Ura-Ki like this.
  9. mrblond

    mrblond Salem OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,946
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    I think what alot do not understand is that gun owners could do EVERYTHING short of " turning them in " and guess what? the next shooting the left will be clamoring for a total confiscation.

    There is no win against them.
     
  10. OutlawHoss

    OutlawHoss Klamath-Siskyou Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    I think very fact the MSM and people who buy into it, are framing the issue in the most basest of ways, which is 'which side are you on' and there leaves no room for actual honest debate. I just don't think there is a compromise possible, both in light of how limited the 2A has already become, but also that the anti-gun agenda keeps moving the goal posts through emotional hysteria so the only apparent compromise is to take away the 2A.
    Thinking, caring, people such as ourselves can't help but respond to all the emotional pleas, but we have to cut through it and see the issue dispassionately, and with a very informed mind: it's the ultimate bait and switch, that a nutter that the government refuses to take action on commits a barbarous act (which would happen irregardless of modality, as attacks in strict no-gun countries) and instead of talking about the terrorism issue, it becomes another gun issue. Where is the rationality in that, and how come we have to keep answering demands from people who make this argument? I don't think the socialist movement wants us to have a rational answer left to debate with, so the issue and how it is put forth becomes more and more irrational. It's being framed so there is no win-win, only lose-win on top of having already lost so much; it's called being over a barrel.

    I posted this quote in another thread, but it bears repeating as it is a real gem of an articulate and revealing observation:

    "We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics." -Anonymous Patriot
     
    Caveman Jim, Slobray, albin25 and 3 others like this.
  11. PaulB47

    PaulB47 Hillsboro Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,839
    Likes Received:
    2,558
    But that is precisely the point. You are battling on the enemy's chosen ground - a poor way to avoid defeat.

    The proper response to any talk about "gun crime" is the question, "Why does it matter what tool bad people kill others with? Why is a murder with a knife is more acceptable than a murder with a gun?"

    Sorry to break the news to you, but the definition of "straw purchase" does not include any requirement that the straw purchaser is a criminal. Why do you keep acting as if it does?

    No, I really can't. If I can sell a car or a knife or a baseball bat or a piece of rebar to such a person with no bureaucratic interference or risk of jail time, why not a gun? Even criminals have a right to life, and therefore to a gun to protect that life. Look at the 2nd Amendment; see any exceptions for criminals in there? They certainly were familiar with criminals back in those days.

    If a criminal takes that gun home and keeps it in the home for self defense, what is wrong with that? Who is the victim in that scenario? A clue that you are talking mala prohibita is that you can't identify a victim. There is always a victim of a murder, but there can never be a victim of a sale of any object, including guns. That is why the War on Some Drugs was so objectionable.

    Not that I believe in rights or Constitutions, but I'm guessing you do.

    It's a bad idea. You'd understand that if you were a victim of mandatory reporting requirements.

    While I have little use for laws petty dictates of lowlifes, I don't actually advocate breaking every one of them. Just the most infuriating and evil (and yes, even unconstitutional) ones. Why would you set that aside? It's actually the best way to deal with bad laws. As to working within the system, I did that my whole life and the return was poor. I really was a believer in the system, kept beating my head against the wall. Well now I'm over that. Working within the system is a way to guarantee things will never change.

    OK, that may be overstating things. People can carry guns now (after getting a bureaucrat's permission to protect his family, and after paying the bureaucrat for the privilege). That's better than what we had previously. But now people are starting to understand how asinine it is to ask permission for that. Thus the proliferation of "constitutional carry". But how long were people supposed to wait to protect their families? How many decades? Why not just go ahead and protect them?
     
  12. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    19,588
    Point taken, and I do get that. But when they refuse to see it that way, perhaps we need to learn to fight them on the same grounds and push them back, showing they refuse to accept any offers for alternate solutions.

    You sure about that?

    Federal law prohibits straw purchases by criminalizing the making of false statements to an FFL about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, or presenting false identification in connection with the firearm purchase. Two federal statutes – 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) – are the primary laws under which straw purchases are prosecuted.

    First, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) prohibits any person:

    n connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition.

    Subject to limited exceptions, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) imposes criminal penalties, such as fines and imprisonment, upon any person who:

    [K]nowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by [federal firearms law] to be kept in the records of a person licensed under [federal firearms law] or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of [federal firearms law].

    These false statements or representations are punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison.14

    In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer is never specifically linked to the gun, but both the prohibited purchaser and the straw purchaser have committed a federal felony. The straw purchaser violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)15 or 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)16 by falsely stating or falsely providing evidence that he or she is the actual gun buyer, while the prohibited purchaser – usually the actual buyer – is criminally liable for aiding and abetting the straw purchaser in such violations or in causing the making of the false statements.17 Source: Straw Purchases Policy Summary | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/)


    By definition, participating in a straw purchase, is a criminal act. Simply choosing to participate in a straw purchase of a firearm makes both people guilty of a crime. So yes, they are a criminal, no matter how you want to state it. Are they necessarily a violent criminal? That is a different discussion.

    I
    also understand this, but I'm working under what our current laws are - no matter that I may disagree with them. At the moment, it is what it is, until we, or someone else, changes it.

    As for the 2nd amendment, of course there are no restrictions there - the 2nd amendment is to protect us from the government, not dictate how the rights play out to an individual. But even the framers understood that certain restrictions would be applied to certain persons and actions. That much can be understood from their writings. That they didn't enumerate every possible iteration of allowance or restriction hardly means they didn't believe there were times when certain restrictions may need to exist.

    As unfortunate as it is, I do think some laws are necessary, call it a necessary evil if you must, but necessary nonetheless. It could be argued, and I would guess you would fall on this side of things, that any law will be used to oppress some and would be abused by those in power. But I believe the same would happen without law - those with power would still lord it over those with less. The difference is that, at least with a system of law and government, there is a chance for the 'less' to stand up to the powerful.

    No system of government, under man, is perfect. All governments fail at some level. If I had some belief that there were a real chance that many would rise up and demand change, then perhaps I would have more hope for things like civil disobedience. I just don't know if the people in this country have it in them.

    And yes, I do believe in rights and constitutions, I think that's been made very clear in many posts I've made on this forum.


    Perhaps. I suppose if people can live with the fact that they are helping to protect a criminal, then I suppose you'd feel it's best they be allowed to continue to live that way. I imagine the only options is to ignore them, and allow criminal activity to continue, or impose 'tyranny'.


    Not everyone has arrived where you are today. In fact, by your own admission, it has only come to you late in life. No doubt in your earlier years, you were as concerned as many are today that should they decide to ignore certain laws, that the government may make life very difficult for them. Perhaps costing them the ability to earn a decent living. Perhaps restricting their ability to move freely. The fact remains that any choice to disobey the authority, whatever that authority may be, comes at a potential cost. There is risk. I am unwilling at this time in my life to risk that much. Maybe that will change some day. Until then, I am left with the option of working within the system we have.
     
    Ura-Ki likes this.
  13. Medic!

    Medic! What just happened? Has eagle eyes. But cant remember what he saw. Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,034
    Likes Received:
    6,588
    Why must the gun owners ''Compromise''?

    The real answer?

    It's not all gun owners.
    It's not the Military. Or the police.

    You know. The people in charge!

    The Left likes how things are progressing.
    Do you?
     
    Ura-Ki likes this.
  14. Ura-Ki

    Ura-Ki Sub Light Speed Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    See, this is the discussion we need to be having, firming up questions, and answers to arrive at a point where we have something solid we can then use for benefit to all. We have 22k plus gun laws on the books, and less then 1% of them are/can be enforced! Why is it that we have been made to endure these? I submit that over time, laws were passed with out a vote of the people, and others ere forced through under the guise of "Emergency" actions again avoiding the public scrutiny! As to the discussions of felon, the argument should be the definition of said felon! We all know some one can be charged with a felony that may not prevent them from owning a firearm! I am not advocating to arm felons of serious crimes, but many should't be bared form owning a firearm! Arguments over semantics isn't getting any where, I think we should agree to disagree on certain points, and move forward. What can we do? Instead of the hard headed approach and "No Quarter" discussions, lets work towards ideas we can use to regain an advantage and build a platform we can fight from! An interesting observation is the "battle ground" that the anti's have built up for us, and the use of Billionears fund the fight from there side, WE need to change the rules, shake it up and force them to fight this fight on a "battle field" of our choosing! TO do that, we need to unite out voices, we need to force the MSM to hear and report accurately and to take the fight to the State Capitals and force our issues to be heard by our Elected leaders! Those that resist need to be removed from said office and replaced by those who will hear the voice of the people! I am glad to see things remaining civil amoung our selves, and I look forward to moving forward with this thread in hopes of finding answers!
     
    etrain16 and OutlawHoss like this.
  15. Koda

    Koda Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,193
    Likes Received:
    2,992
    why must it be the gun owners that must compromise? Because the antis dont have anything that we want to take away.

    etrain13, I agree with you on ways we can stop "gun violence". One of the resons I so strongly oppose gun control is because the antis are not working on solutions that preserve our right. Recent attempts to pass "no fly no buy" legislation proves the malacious intent by the antis to strip us of our right. Republicans proposed a solution that includes due process, the Democrats refused to include it and had a 24hr pity party over it. Clearly, this isnt about truely finding "common sense" solutions.


    here is a quick read thats pertinant to the subject:
    The LawDog Files: A repost (http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html?m=1)
     
    etrain16, Diamondback and Ura-Ki like this.
  16. Diamondback

    Diamondback A cold, wet green Hell Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    2,673
    compromise_v21.png
     
  17. OutlawHoss

    OutlawHoss Klamath-Siskyou Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Yes, I agree that the anti gunners have defined the battle parameters, and have a strategic high ground/advantage by defining the arguments/the battleground. There needs to be somebody who is in the position to do so for gun rights. That's a big task, and people and organizations have claimed they do that, but it's not breaking the irrational strangle grip on politicizing emotions and negating legitimate arguments. So, to continue in the same metaphor, 'we' need to fight this battle on multiple fronts, while avoiding friendly fire because the anti's are good at keeping the argument in terms where we quibble among ourselves, so we need to be highly coordinated in order to avoid their feints. As I write this, it seems more and more improbable and difficult to deploy the needed counter tactics.
    So, I'm stuck at this juncture, wondering how in world would these textbook counter-strategies could be used when there is no 'general' in our leaders to formulate, disseminate, and coordinate any such maneuvers.
    So do we 'make' our own general, or somehow make an ally with appropriate resources, or will we be relegated to a slow burn insurgency where the most we can hope to do is maintain support among the locals and retain our already small territory. In that modality, we can only fight battles we are confident we can win, and will constantly on the defensive.
    I just don't know.
     
    Doc In UPlace, etrain16 and Ura-Ki like this.
  18. Ura-Ki

    Ura-Ki Sub Light Speed Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Hoss, You just hit it! We do need a General to take charge, but until we get one, we do what the ARMY does, and fight with gorilla tactics ( as it were) I think what we need to do to start is to figure out how we can get the voice of the people heard! For that we need some one like etrain16, or any number of fine, well spoken folks here! take that mission and make it our own. We have a unique position here on the forum, we have many who are well spoken, well read, and could take our collective voice and spread the message to the masses! Start locally in Orygun at the State capital with Gov'ness Hateful Kate and get them to listen. Take it to the reps, the senators, the congressmen IN MASS, and make them hear! Take these events and get the media to broadcast them to the masses so that the messages will be heard! The NRA has not taken any of these challenges up and I suspect they are waiting for some one to stand up and be the voice of reason, then they will sweep in and use the power they have to further the message! That is another problem I have, You see commercials on utube all the time from the NRA, but you never see them in regular T.V. or on signs and billboards! I think a strong e mail flood to them to get the message out that way would go further! In the end, we need to do something positive to effect changes at the local and State level, make OryGun an example to follow and let that run up the flag poll! Lets put our heads together and come up with some sort of plan, otherwise, the left will just keep pushing untill the changes they want get through, and we get screwed!
     
    OutlawHoss likes this.
  19. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    19,588
    You're absolutely right, this is a tough discussion. Unfortunately, we do have a tendency to tear ourselves apart in the process. Obviously not all of us agree on the best ways to approach these issues. But at some point, we do need to find a way to come together, at least on a level that we can stand up, united, against the anti-gun crowd - a group that is coming together, despite their own differences, to fight as one - and in so doing, they are winning battle after battle, while we bubblegum with each other over other issues.

    I wish I knew the solution, I can't seem to figure it out on my own. Maybe if we continue the tough discussions, we can find a way to make this happen.
     
    Joe Link, Slobray and Ura-Ki like this.
  20. OutlawHoss

    OutlawHoss Klamath-Siskyou Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    I agree, but as in most guerilla/grassroot tactics, we are resource limited. There is a lot that can be done with a little, but funding is needed. The extant groups that are Oregon based (OFF, et al) already vie for whatever discretionary money there is available in what is mostly working class folk, I assume. I think two points to start with that would provide a real base is a committed, highly visible politician (or politicians; I'm not fond of this idea really) and someone with a lot of money. Thing is, these two positions cannot be allowed to make major decisions or co-opt/sell out the mission. They would have a limited role, and by that operational necessity alone, there are few who would willingly keep such a limited role. In contrast, Bloomberg is both of those things as well as the 'general' so he has no problem directing his resources effectively.
     
    Slobray and Ura-Ki like this.