I checked out the March For Our LIves town hall meeting in Tacamo last Saturday.

Some links about them.
http://calendar.thenewstribune.com/venue.aspx?venue_id=149358&perf_id=2496706
https://www.facebook.com/marchforourlivestacoma/

It started out fine, even though it appeared to be an event put on by teenagers so that anti-gun politicians could get on their soap box and preach. Good to see that teenagers are taking an interest in politics before they can vote. Hopefully they learn enough to have an informed opinion later on.

There were about 70-80 people present, a dozen or so who were vocally not anti-gun. Two female students ran the event with Representatives Jinkins and Fey and Congressman Kilmer as their guests. The public was invited. Unlike other events I've seen advertised, they had the good sense to schedule it when ordinary working class people could attend without missing work.

It started out with the two students in front asking various questions of the legislators what they felt about universal bkgd checks, improving ATF/NICS, CDC research into gun violence and a magazine/AWB. The three guests were all in favor of these.

Kilmer went on to talk about how inappropriate military style weapons (whatever they are, he didn't say) were for the public. I don't think he was referring to pump action trench guns, bolt action sniper rifles and machine guns. He also gave his thoughts on how he felt those people on the no-fly list and terror watch lists should not be allowed to own a gun. He declined to answer questions relating to due process for putting names on the list or how a person like me would get their name removed if I was unlucky enough to find myself on it.

Representative Jinkins admitted that the WA bump stock ban was merely symbolic. Had I the chance to talk about it I would have said it was stupid to waste time on it. She also mentioned the AWB that the WA Senate tried to pass three times in eight years. It seems she forgot that one co-sponsor (Kohl-Welles) didn't read the bill, another (Murray) admitted the searches of gun owner homes might be illegal and the prime sponsor (Kline) kept the illegal search in the bill after he claimed to have removed it.

The smart gun tech was also brought up. But no one mentioned the mess New Jersey made of their law by allowing the police to be exempt and requiring that all handguns be equipped with the “smart tech” after a certain date determined by their AG; something that virtually ensured smart guns would not be adopted there.

The low point of the meeting was when people were allowed to ask questions. A little girl went around with a microphone to those who stood up. Instead of asking questions, three people got on their soapbox and preached for several minutes despite requests to simply ask a question.  They should have asked their question and sat down instead.  If people are going to accept an invitation to a meeting, they least they can do is be civil.

I was able to ask my question, but it went unanswered as some others did.

Later on when the questions were being answered in turned, two of the pro-gun people again stood up and lectured the group. When they were told their time was up, they left, not quietly. If there was anything else they could have done better to convince the public that gun owners are jerks, I don't know what it could have been. If a person is going to make an ass of themselves, they need to stick around so they can defend themselves later.

After the event ended I was able to get a minute to talk to the two girls that ran the meeting. I recommended that they learn more about guns and gun culture. That way when a person tries to tell them that certain guns are banned in WA or the USA (they're not), that a ten round mag is high capacity (it's rather low) or that “military weapons, whatever they are” are not suitable for sporting use, they will know if they're being snowed or not.

Randy

Honestly at this point the battle lines are already formed as far as the 2A is concerned.  My Guess is those "gun owners" were plants.

I'm not sure how many public meetings you've been to, but the behavior I witnessed was nothing unusual at all.  Had they been invited to speak their mind, I would not have had any adverse comments about them at all.  It was that they were invited to ask a question of the Representatives and made a speech instead.  They also gave their names (I did not write them down), so if they were "plants" then it was risky to do.

Randy

I say this time and time again. Most gun owners do more damage to the community than anything else.

People in general are pretty stupid. Most civilian gun owners do not know how to handle a firearm either. I don’t really care what anybody has to say about that, I have the resume, combat deployments, and time in with hundreds of thousands of rounds observed to say so.

Playing nice by the rules has gotten us nowhere.

Time to act like assholes, it works well for the left.

Not true.  Playing by the rules in 2001 got us silencer use (Dem sponsored) back from when it was  banned in 1934.  It got us two SBR bills (both Dem bills, 2014 and 2015) that allow us to register them after they were restricted in 1994.

Can you give me an example?  The left did not get I-594 on the ballot by acting like assholes nor did they get bump stocks banned or the extreme risk protection order bill passed by acting like assholes.  They got it by talking to people and convincing them that no one needs to bump fire (one of the pro-gun people I complained about did not oppose the ban) and that we need bkgd checks and protection orders.  While the left's arguments were emotional and flawed, they were not being actual assholes.

Where do you plan on being an asshole to support our cause?  I'd like to be there to ensure a more even handed approach is taken so that fence sitters don't walk away convinced that asshole gun owners need to be leashed.

x2. I think we need a calm, patient, yet stern approach. We want to gain favor and good PR, not ruin credibility.

I was there as well, (spoke about the contrast between rights vs an obvious infringing proposal and questioned the current tools not being used) and can attest that there was a palpable shift in the crowd when guys started to lecture, and a major one when there were outbursts.  The school-board rep even gained a symbolic and sympathetic victory when she was able to talk over and dismiss them out of hand.

I read an interesting analysis the other day about successful demonstrating and "selling" your cause via a comparison to the gay rights movement of the past 20 years.  For every dancing tranny in a g-string that demanded attention, there were dozens of "reasonable" people that were simply saying "we're just like you in every other way, and we don't deserve to be discriminated against."  Their arguments were compelling not only because they were "real" and "reasonable" but because they were so much so that to attack them was instantly shown to be an awful affront.  In this same analysis, a gay rights activist bluntly told a gun rights activist that "you guys suck at this".  And he's right.

The problem is not being an asshole, it's putting a "human face" on it.

The antis tug at heart strings with empassioned pleas and stories of loss.
We try to counter that with statistics.

We need to find people who have actively defended themselves and are willing to tell their story.
We need to resonate on the humanity side.