TexasCHLforum.com

I agree the term porn is unfortunate, but it isn't going to go away.

Firearms have been the object of a high level of craftsmanship and proud ownership for at least 300 years. You don't see many filigreed, gold-inlaid hammers with mahogany stocks. It's part of the message that we have to present. It can be done.

- Jim

austinrealtor wrote:There should be an NRA spokeperson ready to be quoted by the LOCAL MEDIA in EVERY county in this country any time a citizen uses a firearm to defend themselves from crime.

This is a good idea. Every time I hear Paul Helmke on a radio program (after I dispose of the barf bag) I regret that no one from the NRA was there to refute his lies.

But who is going to do it? And to the extent that it has to be paid for, where is the money going to come from?

Not everyone can put in a good TV appearance. Most people who have no training or experience look clueless. It's difficult in an adversarial situation to remain articulate and avoid losing one's temper.

BTW, Alan Gottlieb is very good in this regard.

- Jim

pbwalker wrote:How the NRA is looking to disband the BATFE...etc.

This is a pipe dream, like abolishing the federal income tax or Social Security. It is never going to happen.

The majority of BATFE's activities involve smugglers, moonshiners, tax evaders, arsonists, and would-be terrorists.

I think their nitpicking on honest FFLs needs to stop. The NRA has tried and is still trying to achieve that goal. A BATFE reform bill is currently in the works with bipartisan support:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=5210" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What has any other group done to "abolish BATFE" other than write screeds?

- Jim

I just want to add, there's a clear choice if you don't like the NRA:

• Don't join, like the 80 million or so people who own firearms and don't join.
• Give your money and resources to a group that you think does a better job.
• Get involved in the NRA and change it, like the thousands of people who have given a significant part of their lives and fortunes to the NRA's work.

I'm not the only one in this discussion who already has his mind made up, and I don't want to get into another dead-horse beating.

- Jim

pbwalker wrote:But that's my point...do we just give up or tone it down? No! We draw attention to the fact that it has worked in VT and AK. We (the NRA) need to be more vocal about these things. Like it was mentioned by another forum member, the NRA seems to be preaching to the choir most of the time.

I'll make a prediction: If you buttonhole any casual acquaintance who is not already interested in this issue and tell him that it is legal in Vermont and Alaska to carry just about any weapon anywhere without a license, first, he won't believe you. Then he will say that those states have different circumstance, like being more rural and having animal predators (bears, etc.).

If you continue the conversation, it will lead to Texas having more criminals and crime, and often race and ethnic prejudice enter the discussion.

That is how we got to where we are today.

I'm not saying not to try. I asking how to achieve it. The tactics used by JPFO and GOA haven't worked. I don't see people giving them more than the price of a box of ammo once a year, either.

- Jim
[Edited to correct typo]

chabouk wrote:

seamusTX wrote:P.S.: For the record, I think the U.S. should never have started down the road of "gun control."

Nobody in the current NRA hierarchy can be blamed for NFA '34 or GCA '68, but the proper roll of the NRA at that time would have been to throw a huge fit in opposition to either.

I agree that what happened in 1934 or 1968 cannot be laid at the door of the current NRA leadership.

The people who were running things then were products of their time and subject to the prejudices of their time. Nearly everyone thought "gun control" was a good idea to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and lunatics. No one was thoughtful enough to see the consequences.

If the NRA had thrown a huge fit in either case, the NRA might have been marginalized and had less influence.

BTW, the bill that became NFA34 originally put handguns on the same terms as machine guns. Where would we be today if some brave soul hadn't dug in heels to keep that from happening?

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

pbwalker wrote:I'll pick the CCW Laws for grins...

I think we'd all agree that the NRA stands for the 2A. If they do, why are they not vocal about the CCW laws. It does not say that we have the rights, but with a license. It says we have the right regardless.

You have seen how hard it is to get even small changes in licensed concealed carry laws. Several state legislatures recently have tried and failed to get carry in restaurants that serve alcohol or in churches (both which we already have in Texas). It literally took an act of Congress to get legal carry in national parks.

The fact that 48 states have some kind of legal concealed carry is often repeated, but not the fact that in many of them, it is expensive and difficult to impossible to get a license.

I don't know how Arizona achieved what they did. I congratulate them, but let's see how it works out. Public opinion is fickle, and political offices change hands.

There is recent thread in this forum where people who supposedly have a CHL and carry were talking about calling down the law on someone who "printed." If someone who is supposedly 100% behind the RKBA suggests that, how are we going to change the minds of the 98% of the adult population that is not interested in carrying or thinks it is paranoid or dangerous?

- Jim

karl wrote:I agree that if the NRA promoted the "duty of police is not to protect" issue that a lot of people would change their minds. A common defense to gun control I've heard is that you can always call the police. What do you gentlemen in disagreement think about this?

I agree that it is a fact that the police have no explicit duty to protect. The Supreme Court decided that in several cases, starting in the 1970s.

We could also add that police response times are often shockingly long. I saw a case recently where the police showed up hours after a 911 call about an emergency.

However, it is very difficult to present people with a fact that is contrary to what they want to believe. They blank it out; and if they can't do that, they argue that it cannot be true.

Most people think they will never be the victim of a home invasion or burglary. They don't take any of the precautions that police departments publish as a public service, including locking their doors at night. They go through life in condition white.

I ask you, sincerely, how do you get the message out that you are not safe in your home, vehicle, or workplace unless you take precautions (including but not limited to owning appropriate weapons)? Mass advertising is expensive and difficult to do effectively. Companies and political candidates waste billions on ads that don't work.

As an example that has been tried, everywhere you look public health officials, health insurance companies, and companies like Weight Watchers and gyms have been telling us to eat right and get moderate exercise. It hasn't happened. Obesity is worse than ever and threatens to pass smoking as a threat to health.

- Jim

I think the burden of proof is on you, since you brought up the topic, to explain how any of his points would effectively promote the right to keep and bear arms. By effectively, I mean have more than a snowball's chance in a pizza oven of passing legislation or changing public opinion.

- Jim

P.S.: For the record, I think the U.S. should never have started down the road of "gun control." I think it has done no good. Criminals who cannot possibly obtain or possess a firearm legally get firearms all the time. The few who are too stupid to figure out how to flout firearms laws use other weapons. This lesson has been illustrated by history time and again, everywhere the experiment was tried.

But the U.S. made that mistake before my grandfather was born. We are not going to reverse a century and a half of history in a few years, and we are not going to do it with overheated rhetoric that alienates people who might otherwise be persuaded to our point of view.

- Jim

In other words, he will join the NRA after the NRA adopts his personal agenda.

Please explain why every anti-RKBA group and politician condemns the NRA for killing "sensible gun control" legislation. Please explain why politicians who have A ratings from the NRA broadcast that information -- and so do their opponents. Please explain why Bill Clinton gave the NRA credit for the Republican landslide in 1994. Please explain why members of Congress rated the NRA the most effective lobbying group in Washington.

There are other pro-RKBA groups that take more ideologically pure positions. Good luck to them. They have had years to achieve five-digit membership numbers.

I would not be a member of any group if I required it to do everything that I want. But I like to think I'm a mature adult who wants to do his part to achieve reasonable goals.

- Jim