You bet I own guns. I just don't agree with the shrill approaches of the two organizations I have mentioned. They both create as much harm to the image of their adherents as they do good.
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
You bet I own guns. I just don't agree with the shrill approaches of the two organizations I have mentioned. They both create as much harm to the image of their adherents as they do good.
Last edited by zeus3925; 01-06-2009 at 09:38 AM.
Zeus,
I am with you on that account. Same thing happened with Clinton. Alot of fear for a bunch of fluff. I work for a company that is well known for their outdoor heritage. You should see the guns running out the door. Everyone that comes in says they need them before Obama takes them. The company just sits back and smiles because they know as long as this retoric keeps going they will continue to make money had over fist. The guys that were around during the Clinton years thank him for the bills that were passed because it made their jobs easier. Nothing like keeping guns out of peoples hands that shouldn't have them! Now don't forget to burn me on the internet instead to my face.
Never take things for granted.
The attacks on the Second Amendment during the Clinton years were very real . And if don't like the NRA's approach to getting things accomplished , do you agree with the NRA's goals ?
If so , please volunteer to spread the NRA message in a manner you are agreeable with .
United we stand , divided we lose the Second Amendment .
I have served in a leadership role on several successful public issue campaigns. None of them had high initial public support. I have also done some non-paid lobbying as well.
We prevailed in all our pursuits by having good data and by cultivating good public relations. We endeavored to maintain respectful relations with the opposition whenever that was possible. You can learn a lot from your opponent if you remain civil. We avoided partisan alignments.
We worked to keep our rhetoric cool and reasoned, even when if the opposition got wild.
Politics is a game that trades on image. If you appear to be the calm, reasoned and the informed one, then you are more likely to prevail-- especially when the opposition is incendiary, and emotional.
Originally Posted by zeus3925
Zeus,
What state are you in? I would venture a guess that it is not one that has some draconian laws. As someone form Massachuestts, I can tell you that the threat you your gun rights from the government is VERY real. Pretending that is not true doesn't make it so.
I live in MN. We have our share of politicians who are sources of rectal discomfort. There was some press about lead shards in venison around deer season. Wouldn't you know we now have a state rep that has proposed banning all lead ammo. Never mind if the problem could be cured by a little bit of hunter education before they butcher their deer.
Is that why you called NRA supporters "suckers"? Zeus,it's OK if you have a different opinion,even a wrong one,but you really should practice what you preach.
I suggest that your tune may change once you live with the laws that folks in other states live with.
How about getting a "license" to possess any gun?
That license is at the discretion of the Chief of Police?
And once approved, you can only purchase guns that the state "approves"?
I could go on, but until you have actually experienced "common sense gun control" don't preach:
"They create a big overblown fear."
The fear is very real whether you choose to believe it or not.
Again I was speaking about similar approaches by two very high powered groups that are beyond the beyonds. I think a list of donors in any organization that can be regularly counted on for an appeal for cash is commonly referred to as a "sucker list".
Donate to a political campaign, soon everyone down to a dogcatcher candidate will be calling about the bogey man on the other side and then they ask for the cash. That's what it's like on the "sucker list"
Last edited by zeus3925; 01-07-2009 at 11:24 PM.
I grew up in a hunting family. I am not in support of preventing any sane person from having a firearm.
All I'm saying (which some of you read that I am pro-control) is that the NRA approach gives rise to more resistance. I see a lot of pro-control reaction out there that is based on fear. There is nothing that in the way the NRA approach that allays that fear. Coupled with a dwindling hunter base unfamiliar with firearms, this is going to continue to bite us.
I know our fears--the loss of our guns, our ability to hunt, loss of protection. But how well do you understand the opposition? What drives their fear and how do you mitigate it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote