Uncle points out something that Conservative Scalawag said about gun groups needing to work together. I agree with this fully, but I thought what Joe Huffman said was worth highlighting.
I’m not convinced that “the same sheet of music†is the best way to accomplish things. For example, the JPFO can say things that the NRA can’t–guns as a defense against tyranny for example. And the NRA can address hunters issues better than the JPFO. That doesn’t mean that the NRA can’t support the same issues at the JPFO. It just means that one or the other is in a better position to “take point†on an issue. As long as the groups don’t stab each other in the back or get into public quarrels there shouldn’t be a problem. They need to have “back channels†of communication and coordinate some. Even if they don’t agree on the best way to address something they can say, “Okay, you try it your way and we’ll be quiet and see what happens, but if it starts to go sour we are stepping in to do it our.†That sort of thing…
Yep. I’ll use the example of the Oregon Teacher lawsuit to illustrate this. To be honest, the best group to do this kind of thing is probably the group that’s backing her, the Oregon Firearms Federation. The only organization that could have produced The Gang, and gotten away with it, is JPFO. If NRA was doing either, they’d be tarred and feathered by the media, and would be held out as an extremist group representing dangerous people. That doesn’t do the movement any good.
I have been harsh on other gun rights groups lately, but not because I have any problems with their goals, but because they are actively engaged in undermining other gun rights groups out there, particularly the NRA. I say OFF is doing a great job with the Shirley Katz issue. Hats off to them. Now, is the sensationalist and untrue anti-NRA cartoon up on their site really accomplishing anything?
If these groups could understand where they can really move the ball forward, and lay off attacking other gun rights group, I could support more of them. Joe is right that we don’t want a single voice, but we don’t want a circular firing squad either. Let’s remember who the real enemy is.
[quote]If NRA was doing either, they’d be tarred and feathered by the media, and would be held out as an extremist group representing dangerous people.[/quote]
As opposed to now, where they’re tarred and feathered by the media, and held out as an extremist group representing dangerous people?
Not to the degree they once were. Remember the jack booted thugs fiasco? That not only turned the media rabid, but it turned a lot of politicians against them too, including the President. The media is still full of shit, but today is a walk in the park compared to the early 90s.
George Bush Senior, that stalwart upholder of the rights of the average citizen (ignoring for now the Assault Weapon import ban and Ruby Ridge), three years after he had already left office? Politicians and media that had been drooling over the AWB and lunging for other gun control mechanics?
And I still don’t see much different from today, other than the part where some folk noticed that the NRA might be right after the next jack-booted thug incident.
What I’m saying is that it does matter what other people think of us. Gun owners who actually care about the RKBA are a minority, which means we win or lose based on the public’s perception of our issue, and we’re doing a lot better about that these days than we were in the 1990s. If the public’s perception of the NRA and gun owners sours, it gives the politicians the political cover they need to ignore us, and plow ahead with their agenda.
What keeps the Democrats in line right now is fear. I have no doubt if that fear were removed, the Democrats who head the committees and run the Congress would get measures onto the floor aimed at screwing gun owners.