i do, but you may not like it.

first, a little background.  i grew up in montana, and in the midst of true gun culture.  as in many rural areas, firearm ownership was so common as to be completely unremarkable.  in this open atmosphere, gun education and responsibility were the norm, and accidents were almost nonexistent.  in fact, during my years in MT, i cannot remember a single serious firearm-related injury in or around my hometown.  then i moved to texas...

it was the austin newspaper which first introduced me to the anti-gun movement's twin demons:  accidents and violent crime.  and my god!  they happened every day.  i understood that crime was part of any cultural fabric, but the negligence was more than i could comprehend.  now, kids will be kids, but by age 5 i had known where every gun in our house was, and i was taught that they were not to be played with.  but in austin, it wasn't just kids playing.  adults were shooting themselves while goofing around, or showing off, or even just cleaning their guns.  it was at this time that i started to think that perhaps guns weren't for everyone.  well, not idiots, anyway.

one hears a lot about berkeley, but southwestern university is almost as bad.  talk about liberal.  they protested everything.  desert storm, somalia, capital punishment, corporal punishment...everything.  the students were well-intentioned, but the combination of sensitivity, gullibility, and access to tons of effective mis- and disinformation clouded their judgements.  i spent a year arguing with them:  my facts against their feelings, but to no avail.  so i just started listening, especially to their thoughts on gun control.

now, when i say listening, i mean that i really listened.  that is, i wanted to find out if they were right.  i talked to the most liberal anti-gun advocates i could find, and asked them for thier objections to private firearm ownership, and the evidence that corroborated these objections.  objections they had, but evidence was scanty and ambiguous.  and so i decided that they were wrong.  i did, however, learn some vital lessons.

lesson #1 -- this battle is politics in its most basic form.  both sides are trying to achieve the same end:  to prevent themselves and their loved ones from becoming being shot intentionally or negligently.  our methods are diametrically opposed, but the goal is the same.  if we are to keep our firearms, we must all become political animals, and act accordingly.

lesson #2 -- listen.  really listen.  how can we win this battle if we do not know our opponents.  not just what they say, but what they think, and how they think.  the mainstream anti-gun group truly feels that they are doing the right thing.  we forget this at our political peril.

lesson #3 -- to win, we absolutely must be solution-oriented.  we all poked fun at those DS protesters who had no idea what to do about iraq.  but as i look at our struggle, i see complaints, but no real solutions presented.  perhaps DPeacher is right.  perhaps we are our own worst enemy.  mea culpa, i'm forced to admit.

i know that's a ton of background, but i wanted to illustrate that i've been intimately acquianted with both sides of this issue, and can therefore be more objective than many others on both sides.  in the next post, i'll elucidate some of the problems with our movement, and my suggestions to overcome them.

You want a simple plan that's fun and easy?  

Take AT LEAST 10 new shooters shooting this year.  Co-workers, friends, neighboors, whoever.  You won't convert everyone, but if you demonstrate that guns are safe when used responsibly and can be a nice hobby with side benefits, you'd be suprised.  

Now imagine if only 20% of the members of this site did that over the next year.  

To borrow a quote from Red October, I dont take a dump without a plan.

problem:  the NRA is decaying as a viable political institution.  

while those of us who have dealt with the NRA from the inside know that it is a wonderful source of education and support, the view from outside is that it represents a right-wing fringe whose only issues are keeping their 'assault rifles', 'silencers', and 'arsenals'.  the fault for this lies entirely at the feet of the NRA's political wing.  they have allowed themselves to be politically marginalized by the anti-gun advocacy at the grass-roots level.  

the cause of this is systemic.  the political action taken by the NRA is usually at governmental levels.  of course, the NRA lobbies congresspeople.  it must.  but it appears to have totally ignored the perception of 'we the people'.  to the uninitiated, this comes across as paranoid and/or arrogant.  add to that the obtuse 'operating out of the oval office' comment, and is it any wonder why the NRA is thought to be elitist?

another perceptual problem is that, in the public arena, the NRA is always talking about rights.  as the general population sees it, the NRA insists on the right to buy 'assault weapons' and our 'right' to avoid background checks.  we in the community know better.  we know how responsibility-oriented the NRA is, but it doesn't matter.  perception is reality.

what follows is my proposition for how to go about keeping our rights.  i am presenting them here because i believe that i will get the most honest feedback here.  many of these suggestions are against pro-gun conventional wisdom, but please try to understand them before pulling them apart.  and don't worry, i do have a thick skin.  :)

solution:  completely overhaul the NRA political wing, decouple it from the rest of the NRA, or form another organization entirely.

i believe that this is our only option.  current lobby methods may work in the short-term, but the world is changing, and we must reach out to those who will be in authority in the years to come.  the most important concept is proactivity.

priority 1 -- perception management.  

the first, and most important step is to change what the public hears.  we must shift from 'our rights' to 'our responsibilities'.   remember, the anti-gun advocates have 2 arrows in their quiver.  1: firearm accidents, and 2: violent crime.  these, therefore, are our two responsibilities.  we must proclaim loudly that it is our absolute duty to address these two issues.  we must do more than the anti- group.  they have not fixed the problem with their ineffectual legislation, so we will fix it.  this must be stated at every press conference and in every interview.  but how will we fix it?

we will solve #1 with that favorite of all liberal initiatives:  education.  consider the sex education issue.  according to the liberal line, children will have sex one way or the other, so it is far more healthy for them to be educated about it.  in addition, the educational process will demystify the act, and actually lead to less underage sex in general.  this is very sound reasoning, as we all recognize that early training is the best way to avoid firearm accidents. this is especially handy in the political sphere, as the liberal group is trapped by their own reasoning.  how can they argue?  this is not a matter of co-opting their rhetoric and using it.  we are using their system and applying it to a real problem.

we will solve #2 by taking a zero-tolerance stand on firearm-related crime.  we won't just talk about project exile in the 'national rifleman'.  we will set about to improve the system and aggressively lobby for it at the state and metro level all across the nation.  we will make it our mission to help eliminate illegal transfers, gun-show violations, and ban violations.  we will make firearm laws far more easily accessable and understandable by all, (education again) and we will seek to uphold those laws.  the ones we disagree with, we will crusade against, but we will live by them.  and we will be seen to do so.

priority 2 -- present america with a simple, viable political platform which addresses our responsibilities  while protecting our rights.  

this is the heart of my proposal.  some of the planks are political expedients, but all of them are, in my opinion, necessary in america today.

plank 1:  we seek a new constitutional amendment which states unambiguously that neither federal nor state governments shall seek to disarm law-abiding private citizens.

this is a must.  the 2nd amendment can be disputed, and the new amendment can and must prevent the 'wedge' from entering.  obviously, the critical issue is the wording.  'disarm' implies removing that which was once legal, but again, wording and context can be disputed.  a single-shot rifle is an arm.  what about 2102 when directed energy weapons are small arms?  where do we draw the line?  we, the responsible gun owners, must decide.

plank 2:  in order to purchase or operate a firearm, a citizen must demonstrate that he/she is capable of responsible operation.

i know, i know.  but think about it before you flame.  if every gun owner was required to take both the NRA hunter safety course and the texas concealed carry course, there would be FAR fewer accidents.  you and yours would be far less likely to be shot by some negligent bonehead.  and with exile-like mandatory sentencing, the gang-bangers would be forced to resort to drive-by cussings, which are somewhat less dangerous.

implementation would be similar to the driver's licensing process, with rimfire/long gun/handgun incrementation.  applicants would be required prove their identity and pass a written and practical (range) test to qualify.  the photo-locense would have a magnetic strip which would allow instant verification.  no more background checks.  the license fee would be reasonable, and based on the actual cost to the state.

the danger of this plank is that it makes possible the 'wedge', which is why it can ONLY be effected in conjunction of plank 1.  this is where politics comes in.  by presenting plank 2, we are taking the initiative.  we are telling the anti- group (and the nation) that we are giving something:  actually doing something to fix the problem.  what we ask in return is for them to give us something:  the promise that they will not use this against us.  

this is why the term 'disarm' would be used.  if they refuse to concede plank 1, they are telling the nation that they do intend to disarm the population.  for them, this would be political suicide, as the political center will recognize this statement for what it is.  robert deniro may be complacent now, but i'm sure that a senator who claims 'we want to take your pistol' will get his attention.

one final note--when i was living in austin, a guy wanted to show me his new pistol.  while trying to release the magazine, he swept me twice with the muzzle of his chambered colt commander.  he laughed at me for hitting the deck, and said 'why?  it can't go off.  the safe is on'.  do you want this guy standing next to you at the range?

plank 3:  we seek zero-tolerance mandatory sentencing for violations of firearm laws.

this is our responsibility.  this is our duty as citizens.  this will protect our rights, and protect everyone's safety.  

plank 4:  we seek a full review of all state and federal firearm laws, and a streamlining of these laws in order to reduce confusion and aid in compliance.

plank 5:  any firearm sold must come with a removeable trigger lock to prevent accidental discharge.

a simple political tool.  we will make this OUR initiative.  they will be forced to publicly approve.  if you don't want it, it is a $5 part that can be discarded.


there's more to it than this, but i'd like to hear your responses to these ideas.

I like that idea

First off sirensong, welcome to the site.....
NRA has always, and always will be, (just like the republican party), all about compromise. NRA has helped draft most of the anti-gun laws extant today. One of the solutions is already out there. It's called Gun Owners Of America.

[url]http://www.gunowners.org/index.html#bodlet[/url]

the world of politics has become perfect. perfect in that if you are not 'in' politics, you never will be heard. perfect in that if you are 'in' politics, you must conform, or be cast out (thank you Neal Peart {sp?}). politics will NEVER, EVER be the way to get problems solved. if you truly analize politics in America, you will realize that it is a system created (allbeit recently) to pit everyone against everyone else. the two party system is an illigal joke.

read my economic plans in the other thread. by using economics against our enemies, and employing the exact same tactics on them, that they use against us, we can get a voice. we need to get the politicians so hopelessly bogged down in dis-agreement, that progress of any kind will be void, impossible. then we'll see who believes in the system designed to make us think that one side is against the other...they are all in the same boat for the same reasons, and when the truth comes to light, and people begin believing again, only then can we put in place a structure that applies to anyone, with any beliefs, and the difficult task of rebuilding can begin.

...NRA has always, and always will be, (just like the republican party), all about compromise. NRA has helped draft most of the anti-gun laws extant today. One of the solutions is already out there. It's called Gun Owners Of America.

[url]http://www.gunowners.org/index.html#bodlet[/url][/quote]

regarding the NRA, i agree compleyely, but remember, compromise is how a republic works.  think about hobbes' concept of 'the tyranny of the majority'.  in an uncompromising political system, if a plurality of voters decides that ARs are dangerous, we lose them immediately. whether we like it or not, compromise is part of any social system.  we can use it, or have it used on us.

i'm checking out you link now, and will get back to you if i have questions.  and thanks for the welcome  :)

fatty,

though i agree with some of your post, i do not understand your statement that politics is not the way to get things done.  politics defined is simply the exercise of power.  any legislation is political.  voting is political.  your economic suggestions in the other thread are the very essence of politics.  you have proposed to use spending power to address this issue.  this is politics in its most basic form.  as for the status quo "DC politics as usual", yes, that is not the way to get things done.  but the word 'politics' is like the word 'republic'.  it is is good or bad as we make it.

Welcome [b]sirensong[/b].

You've said a lot of well thought-out things here. You are right in many things. I'll comment on a few.

The NRA:

You're right. It is behind the curve on protecting RKBA. It's playing defense. No one ever advanced anywhere playing defense.

The keys are, as you said, IMAGE, EDUCATION and RESPONSIBILITY.


Where are the NRA TV ads, billboard ads, magazine ads and radio ads promoting proper safety and responsibility that goes with gun ownership?

Mothers Against Drunk Driving isn't considered an "anti-alcohol" organization, it's focus is on responsibility. Likewise the NRA shouldn't be a "pro-firearms" organization, it should be a "firearms-responsibility" organization.

The ace-in-the-hole for the NRA is the "Eddie Eagle Program". THAT should be preached far and wide at ALL levels of contact with the GENERAL public.

Again, I've NEVER heard a radio ad or seen a TV add for the Eddie Eagle Program. I've NEVER seen that program advertised in anything other than a 'Guns&Ammo' magazine. Who reads Guns&Ammo who doesn't already know about the NRA?

Where's the ads in USA TODAY or People Magazine or in prime time TV for these gun safety programs by the NRA??

They don't exist. And THAT'S the impression the general population gets - the NRA doesn't care about gun safety or responsibility.

Your analogy to "safe-sex" education is perfect.  The 'safe-sex' education push began during the 80s when AIDS became a lethal reality to 'unprotected' sex among teens.

The NRA (and the GOA, those little f@ckers) have been so hyperdefensive that they come across as being UNCARING about the image they portray or their responsibility in promoting responsible firearm useage, not just protecting RKBA at all costs.

Again, perception is reality.



As far as your political planks go,

The Constitutional amendment is impossible in the next 20 years. Not with 30-40% of the current population thinking the original 2nd Amendment applies to the 'militia' only.

The requirement of gun-safety training prior to owning a firearm is, on the surface, reasonable. Even possibly Constitutional since the 2nd Amendment calls for a "well-regulated" militia (which is all the people) and the Federalist papers and the Militia Act of 1792 described in detail the training and supply requirements of militia members.

Zero-tolerance is also, on the surface, reasonable. The problem, like "zero tolerance" policies in schools is that it leaves no room for REASONABLE judgements. But that is another battle. I'd go for this plank too.

Streamlining all state and federal gun laws? Why not ask the Gov't to simplify the income tax code too? You get the idea.

The trigger guard that comes with every gun - no problem. Feel-good laws that some people can't live without.


All-in-all a fairly reasonable approach. But ripe for incremental encroachment and infringement upon our rights.

Remember, there is a very vigorous and powerful minority in this country that will stop at nothing to fully disarm us and will use EVERY instance of firearm misuse as another example of how your 'planks' are failing to protect kids from getting shot at school.

Sorry siren, I disagree. Compromise is for democracies, not for republics where you compromise away G*d given constitutionally guaranteed rights.... Only individuals may give up rights, no one else, (read politicians), may give them up for us..... G*d gave 'em to ME personally. No one may take them without my personal consent.

But our whole Constitution is written because of compromise - 'big states/small states', the very NATURE of a bicameral legislature, the decision to drop discussing abolishing slavery just to get the South to ratify the Constitution, the heated debates and compromises between the Federalists and Anti-federalists, all were compromises of some of the FF's principles to ensure that MOST (not all) of the FF's principles were included in a Constitution that could be unanimously ratified. I think that's what he was getting at.

Mac,

thank you for clarifying.  that was exactly what i was trying to get across. and thanks for your constructive criticisms as well.  i am trying to develop this concept into something really workable, and the opinions of real shooters are what i really need.  :)

I got a bad feeling about this sirensong person. Hope he/she is never in charge of my rights.

that's a fair statement, and don't worry, i won't be.  but...



11 of the 20 threads on page 1 deal with us possibly losing our guns.  i'm trying to find a way of preventing that eventuality.  i have my SHTF bag packed, but i have no desire to use it.  i want to shoot my AR, not cache it.  now, i can stick my head in the sand, cry "wah, wah, wah, no compromise!", and just hope that dianne doesn't get her way.  or i can be constructive and try to find a workable way to ensure our rights.

so, rainman, i'm challenging you to do the same.  be constructive.  educate me.  why is this proposal unworkable?  is the constitutional amendment that you object to?  or maybe the education part?  trust me, if i find that this system can be exploited by the antis, i'll change it or dump it.  my gut feeling is that you object to the licensing plank, but i have never yet heard a definitive refutation of the concept, if the system is properly implemented.  if you have a refutation, i'd be more than happy to listen.

because until you step up to the plate, you're no better than those clueless berkeley war protesters.

regards,

E

Licensing??  Hmm, What kind of licensing??



 They already have this, it is called a Hunter Safety course. You are tought many things besides Firearm safety, Basic tracking, and ends with a range qualification. It is required before you get your Hunting License in many states, and you had to be born prior to what is it Dec of 1971 or something to not have had to take it.

SirenSong the current system is working and those who aren't following it wouldn't follow it no matter what you would do.. For instance, criminals and gangsters can go and get their guns (uptown gangsters) from illegal arms shipments into the US.

Hoods and thugs, just steal their guns from law abiding people.

FBI crime stats show that most inner city crime is committed with a 38 special, or 9mm automatic or revolver of the cheapest price say pistols of less the $300.  Long Guns used most often are shotguns of cheap quality usually stolen themselves.  Do you see what is going on here??
Theft gives the supply of guns to hoodlums and thugs, those gang-banging and robbers. You aren't going to stop them from getting guns one way or another.

Every single person having an ADT home security system goes further to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals then does the Background check system. Why?? Because thugs and gangbangers don't get their guns through that manner; they steal them. Internal elements such as terrorist probably get all their guns through the black market shipped into this country from Mexico and South America, and probably to a lesser extent from Canada (speculation).

Criminals get guns from two sources, Steal them, and by the black market. Or by Osama Bin Laden sending a message to cells in America saying, something along the lines of your shipment of goods (read as Ak-47's and other stuff) to some tiny town on the border of Mexico in this old abandoned building on such and such street. And the terrorists go and pick up their arms shipment carried across the border by some mexican for a payment of so much money...

benjamin0001,

i took the HSC in 1984.  it was a wonderful course, but did not end with range quals.  perhaps that varies from state-to-state.  my point is that a course like this should be mandatory for every shooter.  not just hunters.

[edited to reply to your edit]

man, i agree with you 100%.  the problem is, you're talking about the real world, and we all know that politicians don't live there.  they can't poll reality.  they can only poll perceptions.  perceptions are what get them elected and re-elected.  and like it or not, the perception among non-shooters is that there IS a problem.  they are listening to the anti-gunners because we are not speaking loudly enough.  the anti-gunners are claiming to have a solution, while we are not.  sure, we discuss things in the community, but the message IS NOT getting to the public.  we must fix this.

E

I guess my problem is this, the laws are already there.  The laws aren't the problem, but new laws just make the law abiding have to jump through more hoops and everyone smiles and says how wonderful it all is. And the thugs are still there , still getting guns, and worse stuff the same way they always have.

I think they are starting to realize that slowly.  There is a criminal element in the US that has a whole hidden economy supporting it. They have their supply routes , which sometimes are through the front door of law abiding citizens when they are asleep or not at home, and then their is the worse case scenario, Terrorists with their own systems of shiping, recieving, transporting and distributing that never shows up on the American Law Enforcements radar screen. Sometimes our Guys come across them and they break them up on the spot. I for one feel like they are doing a good job, at least the best job that they can. And I don't expect them to find and solve every crime because sometimes you can't. But I do expect them to not legislate against the otherwise law-abiding simply because they can't get all the bad guys..

Hmmm-anyone know what a [b]"Siren's Song" [/b]is?????

Either a VERY poor choice of a screen name,oryou're full of [b]shit[/b].

I really hate to bring "sirensong" back in the spotlight but theres something fishy about this person. First of all let me say that I think this is a woman. Some liberal soccer mom type.
Everything you've said has to do with compromise. Read the 2nd amendment again. It ends with the words "shall not be infringed".
I don't think any other amendment ends with those words.
The only educating we should be doing is to make the antis understand that there will be no compromise. We've compromised enough. You shouldn't have to pay a fee, shouldn't need a permit, shouldn't need to pass a class to carry a concealed weapon. Or open carry for that matter.
I think your a troll. I don't believe you own any guns. I don't believe you are a BRO [black rifle owner].
I'm surprised so many of you guys are falling for this bullshit.
 

benjamin0001,

yeah, i have to admit that the jumping through hoops frustrates me as well.  most of the time, i'd rather jump than lose my guns, but occasionally i get in the 'why bother?' mood.  take this thread, for instance.  of all the views, only a few people (yourself included) have offered real feedback.  

only_hits_count,

i use the handle 'sirensong' for virtually all of my internet dealings, and have done so for the last 3 years.  it relates to a film project i'm working on, and i don't care to change it from board to board.  however, i am undeniably full of shit.

i take it this means you couldn't formulate an intelligent reply to my question.  very well, on to your 'points'...

yes, the 2nd amendment ends with '...shall not be infringed.'  well, pal--

your right to keep and bear full-auto weapons has been infringed.

your right to bear a concealed handgun has been infringed.

your right to protect your vision by using a flash suppressor has been infringed.

i could go on, but you get the point.  your 'approach' has left us with a legacy of progressive restriction.  you have been forced to compromise again and again.  and if you don't find a way to turn the tide, you'll be conceding all your guns.  i'd like to keep mine, so i'm trying to figure out a way to make the progression and the concessions stop.  


"you shouldn't have to pay a fee..."

you shouldn't have to pay taxes either.  but you do.  


"The only educating we should be doing is to make the antis understand that there will be no compromise."

and your proposal for this is?

as for my identity, your assessment is amusingly incorrect, but that hardly matters.  i came here asking for advice and feedback, as i had heard that the signal-to-noise ratio was pretty good around here.  most of the posters gave thoughtful replies and intelligent objections, which i appreciate.  i did, however, expect some noise, and you have been more than generous with it.  

Its all very simple sirensong. You don't have to make it difficult. We should not be looking for more ways to compromise. We should be looking for ways to reverse and repeal many gun laws.
I'm not here to amuse you. But I think your here to place more restrictions on honest gun owners.
You probably think that the Constitution is a "living document".
Sorry for the personal attacks but this kind of crap really pisses me off.

rainman,

yeah, after rereading my post, i was a little out of line.  bad mood+too much rum tonight.  crap, i almost pulled out the digicam to verify the BRO status.  anyway, my apologies, man.

at any rate, i'm completely with you on the reduction of overall legislation.  my intention was to use most of the above as a bargaining tool to get to plank 4--streamline everything.  my take is that a few simple laws will be far more effective than all the crap on the books now.  

though we disagree on a lot, i don't want there to be any hard feelings.  if it makes you feel any better, i will only get a couple of 5min meetings to present the final version of this, so it is unlikely to go anywhere.  but i see the end coming, and i can't just sit here and do nothing while the way is paved for popular disarmament.

regards,

E

Present to who?

right now they are winning the propaganda war, .223 high caliber assault round, effective range 6,000m

It would be laughable if it wasn't on the news, now millions of idiots who know nothing about firearms think this information is correct.