Would this help our 2A cause????

[beararms1776]

Good intentions through educating but a lot will likely remain unconvinced. We already have the NRA, SAF, GOA, and many more but because so many are convinced and set in their ways against firearms, they don't understand the book on ownership so they deem the writers crazy.

 

[wpmason]

Here is the answer to your post. The image "problem" that the NRA has is with the DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRAT MEDIA. In my view and all members i feel they are awesome. If they werent doing their job, then the democrats would love them, BUT they are very effective and thats why the media casts a bad light on them. Think about this, Rush Limbaugh gives the charities that are apolitical and does wonders for many many people, he is still trashed daily in the media and they cast a terrible light on them. Your mistake is this, you are trying to play their game. You will lose, they have the media on their side not yours, thats all they need to give you a bad image. The point is to NOT CARE what they think or so, as they certainly do not care what you think or say. Do what you want to do, regardless of how they or anyone else will view you. PR is controlled by the big whigs, you can find all types of articles and good things conservative groups have done but it has amounted to nothing because it will never be given national attention by the big dogs. Grass roots voting, the tea party, THAT is what is effective, just look at what a movement like that has done, and they do not care one bit how they are portrayed in the media, we all know better and so do they. word of mouth and education are more effective than PR.

You hit the nail on the head, the NRA is effective (for US) and that's why they're portrayed negatively. Rush Limbaugh is portrayed negatively because he has made a career out of being incendiary and controversial. That SELLS. What I'm talking about is an organization with no political agenda that cannot possibly be portrayed in a negative light. If groups of gun owners with .45s on their hips were having food drives, or making charitable contributions, and getting the positive press that accompanies those things, HOW COULD IT BE MISCONSTRUED? We're just gun owners being good citizens. We're not rallying or protesting anything, we're actively trying to make a positive difference in the community.

You're also wrong on a few things. Gun rights are not a partisan issue. They tend to be better served by Republicans, but according to the data I've seen, about a quarter of Reps DON'T own guns, a quarter of Dems do, and Inds/Libs are a pretty even split. So while Congress may make a complex gray area look black and white, it's far from reality. What in Washington is even remotely close to reality anyway?

And yes, this idea would be very much a "grass roots" sort of thing. Word of mouth and education can't be more effective than PR because they're types of PR. The media cannot present things in a negative light if there is no negative. To some, the NRA is bad because it hinders gun control attempts. That's a negative. Tell me what the negative would be if gun owners banded together and did charity work, without pursuing any agenda other than fostering a positive public image. There's not one. Perhaps if it was an offshoot of the NRA, that would be scandalous, or if it was funded by the manufacturers, but if it were truly a grass roots effort, there's nothing negative to say about it, and to try would to risk looking insane.

 

[wpmason]

Hit the nail on the head. The only image problem is with the people who will NEVER give anything but "more government is good" attitudes the light of day. Our media and in my opinion, Government, has been taken over by those that wish to see us back into the same, government dependent situation as the rest of the world. By simple logical argument, our "President" cannot possibly be eligible for his office. All efforts at verifying his eligibility have been disallowed. Members of both political parties have taken part in either the refusal to verify his credentials, or have promoted red herring issues, such as the birth certificate fiasco, as a way to divert attention.

The NRA does have the support of the majority of Americans. Don't let the propaganda convince you otherwise.

When is it time to call a spade a spade? If both parties have failed to disprove President Obama's eligibility, perhaps it's because he actually is eligible. You claim he cannot possibly be eligible, so what's your proof? Something you heard? Talk about listening to propaganda.

Back to the topic at hand though. Pew Research shows that 56% of Americans believe that gun crime has gone up over the past 20 years. In fact, it's down 49%. That's not surprising, given the state of the media. What is surprising is that ONLY 12% KNOW that it has gone down. 26% think it's at the same level. They also show that 41% of American homes contain a gun, but only 27% of respondents identify themselves personally as the owner. That's a striking figure, and hopefully it's erring on the low side, but still. If we're outnumbered 2-1, and only a fraction of us are members of the NRA, it doesn't matter if a majority supports them now. That number cannot and will not grow if gun ownership shrinks. I can only assume that you're quoting the Gallup poll from last year showing a 54% favorable view of the NRA. Yeah, that was 54% just after Newtown. Now, approaching a year later, we've had a few more incidents, lost some LEOs... and not much else has changed. Plus the media has been hammering away for 9 months. Why aren't we competing with the media for the unsure and impressionable people? We're just letting them be misinformed, without doing anything about it.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think your ideal way to deal with things will work in this case.

 

[wpmason]

the problem here is pretty simple and one that is inherent to conservatives. the idea of 'give people the information, and let them decide themselves' is very altruistic and i wish wish wish it was more effective.


unfortunately you don't win people over that way, not many at least. you grab some of the better and sharper individuals but the masses you have to threaten, bludgeon, and terrify to get them to come on board. you -CANNOT- expect people to just 'make the right decision'. they dont have the foresight for it. it happens in every aspect in life, from religion, politics, education, economy, business, EVERYTHING. its because of this that tyrants gain control so easily.

think of it as warfare - if you're constantly just defending your tower, and never attack, your corner will become smaller and smaller.

unless you become a tyrant there is no way to win against other tyrants. THAT is the unfortunate truth.

I wouldn't put it in such terms, but yes, you've got the basic idea. Sitting back, engaging in the politics is not doing anything for us in the media and public image. We need an offensive that would be divorced from the NRA, and "morally" beyond reproach. A campaign to win the hearts and minds of the unsure and uninterested. We just need to bolster the number of those who sympathize with us, even if they won't join our ranks. That sort of thing is done with organized efforts. It's one thing to be an individual ambassador, but many of those against us will see that individual as the exception, not the rule. But if we were organized and out in force doing good things, it would quickly become obvious that we're not "gun nuts" but concerned and active citizens, who are willing to give back to ensure the public trust. Something like that.

 

[DRob]

Here is the answer to your post. The image "problem" that the NRA has is with the DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRAT MEDIA. In my view and all members i feel they are awesome. If they werent doing their job, then the democrats would love them, BUT they are very effective and thats why the media casts a bad light on them. Think about this, Rush Limbaugh gives the charities that are apolitical and does wonders for many many people, he is still trashed daily in the media and they cast a terrible light on them. Your mistake is this, you are trying to play their game. You will lose, they have the media on their side not yours, thats all they need to give you a bad image. The point is to NOT CARE what they think or so, as they certainly do not care what you think or say. Do what you want to do, regardless of how they or anyone else will view you. PR is controlled by the big whigs, you can find all types of articles and good things conservative groups have done but it has amounted to nothing because it will never be given national attention by the big dogs. Grass roots voting, the tea party, THAT is what is effective, just look at what a movement like that has done, and they do not care one bit how they are portrayed in the media, we all know better and so do they. word of mouth and education are more effective than PR.

Well said! Even some of the pro-gun folks are absorbing the crap they hear in the media about the NRA. Then there are those who think we can just march into DC and dictate policy to the House & Senate. The NRA knows how to play the game. Whether you like it or not, if you can't play the game you will have no voice.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

The NRA does not have an image problem. 51% of Americans have a favorable impression of the NRA, versus 38% who have an unfavorable impression.

Personally, I would like to hear some heartfelt apologies for the NRA's blatant, open support of the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act.

Word-of-mouth and education is public relations.

 

[wpmason]

The NRA does not have an image problem. 51% of Americans have a favorable impression of the NRA, versus 38% who have an unfavorable impression.

Personally, I would like to hear some heartfelt apologies for the NRA's blatant, open support of the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act.

Word-of-mouth and education is public relations.

That 51% was 54% 9 months ago. It's dropping, and only a concerted effort will reverse it. Plus, we're losing the battle for the undecideds.

So the specter of gun control is still out there, and you want the NRA to double down and take a more radical position? I'm sorry, but that would end badly for all of us. It's not the time for that.

 

[danielson]

This thread is not about the NRA. can we get back on topic here? Re-read the OP, its a good idea. We need a non partisan, non POLITICAL avenue for gun owners to get together. If you dont like it, dont join. If you think the NRA is the be all end all, then give them all your money, and no one else. Thats your choice. But the idea thats been proposed would be a place where a self identified democrat, and a self identified republican, can meet up, bound by their similarities. If you cant get past politics, and life long feuds, then you dont need to be there anyway. You will end up being the retard who runs your mouth about something that will get you on the news (because they will be looking for anything to shed negative light on the group)

Think of this like what motorcycle guys do on their charity rides and such. Each of them are different, and have different beliefs, but they come together, bound by their common interest, in order to do some good for the neighborhood.

 

[wpmason]

This thread is not about the NRA. can we get back on topic here? Re-read the OP, its a good idea. We need a non partisan, non POLITICAL avenue for gun owners to get together. If you dont like it, dont join. If you think the NRA is the be all end all, then give them all your money, and no one else. Thats your choice. But the idea thats been proposed would be a place where a self identified democrat, and a self identified republican, can meet up, bound by their similarities. If you cant get past politics, and life long feuds, then you dont need to be there anyway. You will end up being the retard who runs your mouth about something that will get you on the news (because they will be looking for anything to shed negative light on the group)

Think of this like what motorcycle guys do on their charity rides and such. Each of them are different, and have different beliefs, but they come together, bound by their common interest, in order to do some good for the neighborhood.

The comparison to motorcycle charity events is spot on. Thanks for that, I hadn't noticed the similarity.

 

[sun]

Would this help our 2A cause????

....I was brainstorming, and thought of an idea for a new nonprofit organization for us, to show the world that we are not heartless monsters who feel nothing when children or police are gunned down. I'm talking about an APOLITICAL charity whose main goals would be safety, training, community involvement, and most of all, showing the human, warm and friendly side of all of us.

Most private gun clubs already have some degree of public outreach. And many gun clubs already donate money to worthy local causes including to other area gun clubs and shooting ranges that are being sued out of existence by nuisance lawsuits over noise, lead pollution and stray bullets.
I think that many who are members of gun clubs already know the difficulties involved with getting club members to just show up to do the work necessary to maintain their own gun clubs.
The first thing that gun club members do when it's time to raise dues is to complain about rising costs.
I personally believe that gun clubs are already strong local ambassadors by word of mouth and lead by example.
We invite the public and their families to come and join in our activities. Sometimes we even take dollar losses to invite the public to special events that we hold, and hand out trophies to kids just for showing up and participating.
We donate time and money to many different causes including holding shoots to raise money for St. Judes Hospital, Olympic shooting etc...
The local clubs are already organized.
If folks want to do more on the local level, then why start a new organization when the local organizational network already exists?
It seems that some folks must not belong to local clubs or they would already know about them and what they do for the community.
They don't try to win the hearts or minds of anti's, because that's a losing cause and can be confrontational.
But the local clubs are the main way that local shooters are already organized, and they do insure that anti's can't come in and take over their mission and message that shooters are the good, decent people in the community.
Responsible hunters and shooters already do represent the shooting sports on a daily basis.
As far as donating money to the victims of gun crimes and calling it apolitical, I think that's a mistake.
There's really no good publicity that would result, except to remind people about crimes that usually don't even make it on to the local TV news.
My state has a reimbursement fund for the victims of violent crimes.
There are ways to donate money, but how would such an organization keep anti's from using the organization to spew an anti-gun message?
An organization needs a constitution and goals. If any of the goals include promoting anything positive to do with guns then it's not apolitical.
So then why call it apolitical if it's not.
That's playing hide and seek, hiding the real political reason for seeking donations from gun owners.
Many club members that I know constantly joke about how gun owners are the penny pinchers of the world unless it involves buying a gun.
Just look at how folks don't like to pay the panic prices for some ammo. It's true, and now someone suggests collecting more donations to supposedly receive "no publicity and for apolitical reasons"?
I suggest for folks to simply join their local gun clubs and try to convince the members to do as much community outreach as they can or care to. Most already do as much as they care to, but it doesn't hurt to try to get them to do more.
For instance, sponsoring youths to be able to go shoot at Camp Perry is one of them, and this is done on the local level and can get printed up in the local newspaper.
In some cities, people are murdered almost every day which doesn't include those wounded or crippled by criminals.
I don't see how gun owners can or should try to somehow negate or offset that the fact exists by collecting donations.
How many ghetto gun crime victims will be reimbursed and by how much, and how to raise all of the endless donations? All from the gun owning penny pinchers?
I think that it's a mistake and just calls attention to gun crimes, while trying to make gun owners falsely believe that they can donate "apolitcal money" for "no publicity gain". It sounds like folly to me, especially if folks don't already belong to the NRA or a local gun club because they can't afford to or don't want to spend the money.
Everyone wants to until it's time to make a real commitment to doing it on an endless basis. Why not just become a big brother or sister, or help build houses for the homeless, or volunteer at the local soup kitchen, etc....simply as an individual?
Now that would really be "apolitical".

 

[Tlam13]

I think maybe someone should work more with PR on the NSSF. They're already established and have a great opportunity to be a positive image for 2nd Amend rights.

 

[wpmason]

Most private gun clubs already have some degree of public outreach. And many gun clubs already donate money to worthy local causes including to other area gun clubs and shooting ranges that are being sued out of existence by nuisance lawsuits over noise, lead pollution and stray bullets.
I think that many who are members of gun clubs already know the difficulties involved with getting club members to just show up to do the work necessary to maintain their own gun clubs.
The first thing that gun club members do when it's time to raise dues is to complain about rising costs.
I personally believe that gun clubs are already strong local ambassadors by word of mouth and lead by example.
We invite the public and their families to come and join in our activities. Sometimes we even take dollar losses to invite the public to special events that we hold, and hand out trophies to kids just for showing up and participating.
We donate time and money to many different causes including holding shoots to raise money for St. Judes Hospital, Olympic shooting etc...
The local clubs are already organized.
If folks want to do more on the local level, then why start a new organization when the local organizational network already exists?
It seems that some folks must not belong to local clubs or they would already know about them and what they do for the community.
They don't try to win the hearts or minds of anti's, because that's a losing cause and can be confrontational.
But the local clubs are the main way that local shooters are already organized, and they do insure that anti's can't come in and take over their mission and message that shooters are the good, decent people in the community.
Responsible hunters and shooters already do represent the shooting sports on a daily basis.
As far as donating money to the victims of gun crimes and calling it apolitical, I think that's a mistake.
There's really no good publicity that would result, except to remind people about crimes that usually don't even make it on to the local TV news.
My state has a reimbursement fund for the victims of violent crimes.
There are ways to donate money, but how would such an organization keep anti's from using the organization to spew an anti-gun message?
An organization needs a constitution and goals. If any of the goals include promoting anything positive to do with guns then it's not apolitical.
So then why call it apolitical if it's not.
That's playing hide and seek, hiding the real political reason for seeking donations from gun owners.
Many club members that I know constantly joke about how gun owners are the penny pinchers of the world unless it involves buying a gun.
Just look at how folks don't like to pay the panic prices for some ammo. It's true, and now someone suggests collecting more donations to supposedly receive "no publicity and for apolitical reasons"?
I suggest for folks to simply join their local gun clubs and try to convince the members to do as much community outreach as they can or care to. Most already do as much as they care to, but it doesn't hurt to try to get them to do more.
For instance, sponsoring youths to be able to go shoot at Camp Perry is one of them, and this is done on the local level and can get printed up in the local newspaper.
In some cities, people are murdered almost every day which doesn't include those wounded or crippled by criminals.
I don't see how gun owners can or should try to somehow negate or offset that the fact exists by collecting donations.
How many ghetto gun crime victims will be reimbursed and by how much, and how to raise all of the endless donations? All from the gun owning penny pinchers?
I think that it's a mistake and just calls attention to gun crimes, while trying to make gun owners falsely believe that they can donate "apolitcal money" for "no publicity gain". It sounds like folly to me, especially if folks don't already belong to the NRA or a local gun club because they can't afford to or don't want to spend the money.
Everyone wants to until it's time to make a real commitment to doing it on an endless basis. Why not just become a big brother or sister, or help build houses for the homeless, or volunteer at the local soup kitchen, etc....simply as an individual?
Now that would really be "apolitical".

I really appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned response. You make a lot of good points, but I'm afraid that you fundamentally misunderstood something too. The entire point of the thing would be 1) Do good things and 2) GET PUBLICITY FOR IT. I'm talking about newspaper articles, giant cardboard checks, logo t-shirts on display in the community, and so on. That's the point in organizing. If most of us already do good things in our daily lives, why aren't we doing them with our "gun owner" hats on? That can sway the public perception of us without getting into all the never ending political debates.

Also, I'm not talking about "reimbursing" the victims of violence, but rather memorializing them and making the best out of a horrible situation. You cannot reimburse someone for losing a loved one. That's just foolish.

It's good to know that many gun clubs already engage in such things, I was completely unaware having never been a member of one. I've looked into it, but honestly, for my hobby interest, income, and lifestyle my local clubs are WAY too expensive for me. Also, some of them don't have room for new members. There are gun owners out there that have no interest in joining a club. They have their own land to shoot on, or don't shoot often enough to justify the expense of membership. My organization would be an alternative for such people.

To put it in simple terms, the money would be apolitical because we would not be an advocacy group, all donations would go towards charity projects, and not political lobbying. All publicity garnered would simply be to show those against gun rights that we're the good guys, and aren't a danger to them or the community.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

That 51% was 54% 9 months ago. It's dropping, and only a concerted effort will reverse it. Plus, we're losing the battle for the undecideds.

So the specter of gun control is still out there, and you want the NRA to double down and take a more radical position? I'm sorry, but that would end badly for all of us. It's not the time for that.

You consider America's foremost gun rights organization and gun lobby - via its lobbying arm the NRA-ILA - apologizing for their prior support of two of the most severe gun control measures ever passed into law in this country as extreme?

I think there's very little you and I would agree upon, in the event that you do consider this to be any kind of extremism in the least degree.
But, you could always see if they're taking applications. Change comes from within!

 

[wpmason]

You consider America's foremost gun rights organization and gun lobby - via its lobbying arm the NRA-ILA - apologizing for their prior support of two of the most severe gun control measures ever passed into law in this country as extreme?

I think there's very little you and I would agree upon, in the event that you do consider this to be any kind of extremism in the least degree.
But, you could always see if they're taking applications. Change comes from within!

It's not that it's an extreme position, it's just more extreme than where the line is drawn now. I simply think that if they supported your view, at this point in time, it would be counterproductive, and in all likelihood a bridge too far for all of those who want to see our guns being smelted.

I'd love it if I could afford a few cans or something of the select-fire variety. Repealing those laws would allow me too, because the competition on the market would lower the prices, and erase the stamp costs.

Just from a strategic point of view... that's the same as Hitler thinking he could invade Russia while fighting the Allies on the Western front. Maybe someday though.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

It's not that it's an extreme position, it's just more extreme than where the line is drawn now. I simply think that if they supported your view, at this point in time, it would be counterproductive, and in all likelihood a bridge too far for all of those who want to see our guns being smelted.

I'd love it if I could afford a few cans or something of the select-fire variety. Repealing those laws would allow me too, because the competition on the market would lower the prices, and erase the stamp costs.

Just from a strategic point of view... that's the same as Hitler thinking he could invade Russia while fighting the Allies on the Western front. Maybe someday though.

Blitzkrieg!