TexasCHLforum.com

What can we do to educate the general public on CHLs, the 2nd Amendment, The Castle Doctrine and all the other topics that are important to every citizen but are only common knowledge to people like us that visit this site and others like it?

When am I going to be watching the TV and see a commercial put on by the NRA, TSRA, or TCHA informing the masses?

When will the news media start broadcasting the armed citizens stories that are out there in a positive light.

What can we do?

I'm learning that many people have been conditioned over time to be anti. I'm not really sure what to do, other than to "mind our manners" and live as responsible gun owners.

We are the ones that have to do it with smiling faces and kind words. It is up to us alone to change the hearts and minds of the "ignorant masses" that believe anything CNN and CBS tell them. The best way to that is to make our 2A voice part of our reputation. Everyone of us should be the guy or gal in town that people think of when they think of 2A rights and self-defense. We do that and the word will spread to spite all the propaganda NY Times and the rest of the Establishment Media can pump out.

The NRA and other 2A organizations need to do more for their image. They need to have spots running on Fox News and talk radio to start. Then move into off prime time TV. They need to do it to make all our jobs easer. That would allow some politicians and the silent majority of gun owners and pro-self defense Americans to speak up more. Make it an issue and let Americans know why their rights matter. It would also connect us together like we were a few years ago when we started actually progressing in regaining our rights and gained privileges like CHL. That is my opinion. Sorry for the length.

It wasn't that long ago that the Hearst newspapers sponsored a shooting contest, well, 60 years or so, but the sea change in "journalism" that occurred in the McCarthy era swung most of the media hard left and they seem to have stuck there. I have had several friends in major media outlets who agreed that our 2ndA rights were being trampled on by rough shod 1stA flag wavers, but none of them has been in a high enough position to affect any change.

Corporate inertia and the "good old boys network" happens in the networks too.

a former Anti chiming in:

to add to what "Shootthesheet" said, pro-2a groups I think need to concentrate on 2a issues, and stay out of other hot-button issues.

When I hear NRANews.com, for instance talk about how people that are not for the "Troop Surge" in Iraq are wrong, I can appreciate that, but I feel it's counterproductive. What does that have to do with RKBA? I think it only serves to isolate some gunowners that might disagree with the war in iraq, but be totally for RKBA.

When I read e-mails from NRA-ILA talking about how bad Al Gore's movie is, I feel it's also counterproductive.

I *GASP* LIKED Al Gore's movie!

When the NRA does things like this, it shoots itself in the foot. Believe it or not, there are plenty of liberal/democratic 2a supporters. Picking fights over things that have nothng to do with RKBA is counterproductive. I think the NRA should welcome people who like Al Gore's movie into the fold. I think it'd be better for the NRA's credibility.

It seems to me that the NRA assumes that all of it's members are republicans, and most of them tow the republican party line. I think that assumption hurts its credibility terribly.

Having said all that, I'm a member. I've been a member for about 10 years, and I will continue to be. They are still the best game in town.

They can be so much better, though.

nitrogen wrote: a former Anti chiming in:

When I hear NRANews.com, for instance talk about how people that are not for the "Troop Surge" in Iraq are wrong, I can appreciate that, but I feel it's counterproductive. What does that have to do with RKBA?

Even though I personally support the surge, I agree with you that the NRA talking about it might alienate people who would otherwise be on our side on RKBA issues.

nitrogen wrote: When I read e-mails from NRA-ILA talking about how bad Al Gore's movie is, I feel it's also counterproductive.

I *GASP* LIKED Al Gore's movie!

When the NRA does things like this, it shoots itself in the foot.

At the risk of carrying the thread off topic here, I think the reason the NRA tries to discredit Al Gore's movie is because the radical environmentalist factions that he and the movie represent would close down every shooting range in the country and ban all hunting if they could.

Global warming isn't the ONLY aspect of the environment that they "care" about.

The hard core of the so-called environmental movement sees environmentalism as a means of accomplishing what they REALLY want to do - control as many aspects of life as possible. What you eat, what you drive, where you live, and how you live, are all things THEY have "plans" for.

No wonder they don't want us to have guns.

I apologize if I am hijacking this thread.

nitrogen wrote: When the NRA does things like this, it shoots itself in the foot. Believe it or not, there are plenty of liberal/democratic 2a supporters. Picking fights over things that have nothng to do with RKBA is counterproductive. I think the NRA should welcome people who like Al Gore's movie into the fold. I think it'd be better for the NRA's credibility.

It seems to me that the NRA assumes that all of it's members are republicans, and most of them tow the republican party line. I think that assumption hurts its credibility terribly.

Agreed. I have made this point before in these and other forums in response to blanket statements bashing liberals, or even more broadly - against the entire city of Austin. I said it then and I will say it now. A lot of those "hippie liberals" or whatever slur many here and elsewhere label people with are just as much for the upholding of the Second Amendment as our members. If life has taught me anything, it's that political beliefs cannot be divided into easily categorized black and white divisions. Labeling people like that only hurts the cause.

The name calling that I've seen go on in these and other forums serves to show me the ignorance of particular individuals, but more critically - serves to push someone sitting on the fence to the other side. It's not nearly as much of an issue here as I've found on other forums, but it does seem to be the general attitude of the gun community that if you're not republican (or at least libertarian), you must be against guns, and you're a freedom-hating liberal.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: At the risk of carrying the thread off topic here, I think the reason the NRA tries to discredit Al Gore's movie is because the radical environmentalist factions that he and the movie represent would close down every shooting range in the country and ban all hunting if they could.

Unless the NRA is addressing these very specific issues, I don't believe they have any business making discrediting statements against Al Gore or his group. The purpose of the NRA is to promote safe and proper use of firearms and to support the 2nd amendment through political action. If the NRA is getting involved in side-tiffs with other organizations on topics not directly related to gun ownership and use, then it seems to me that it is misusing the donations and contributions of its members.

Actions like this are what keep people such as myself from joining up. I'm all for the above-stated purpose of the NRA. I don't want my money being frivolously spent pursuing arguments that have nothing to do with shooting or the 2nd amendment.

NcongruNt wrote: Unless the NRA is addressing these very specific issues, I don't believe they have any business making discrediting statements against Al Gore or his group. The purpose of the NRA is to promote safe and proper use of firearms and to support the 2nd amendment through political action. If the NRA is getting involved in side-tiffs with other organizations on topics not directly related to gun ownership and use, then it seems to me that it is misusing the donations and contributions of its members.

Actions like this are what keep people such as myself from joining up. I'm all for the above-stated purpose of the NRA. I don't want my money being frivolously spent pursuing arguments that have nothing to do with shooting or the 2nd amendment.

What do you think of the NRA's opposition to McCain-Feingold? The history is that at first they stayed out of it, stating that they were a single-issue group and wanted to stay that way.

Later, when it became apparent that McCain-Feingold would drastically shift the terms of political speech, favoring Big Media and the super rich, while marginalizing and limiting the ability of groups like the NRA (which "live" mostly on a huge number of small contributions) to run ads and get their message out, they started campaigning against it and even joined the Supreme Court challenge effort (which sadly, failed).

Do you think that was a legitimate thing for the NRA to do, or was that spurious dabbling in a "side issue"?

nitrogen wrote:When the NRA does things like this, it shoots itself in the foot. Believe it or not, there are plenty of liberal/democratic 2a supporters. Picking fights over things that have nothng to do with RKBA is counterproductive. I think the NRA should welcome people who like Al Gore's movie into the fold. I think it'd be better for the NRA's credibility.

It seems to me that the NRA assumes that all of it's members are republicans, and most of them tow the republican party line. I think that assumption hurts its credibility terribly.

Having said all that, I'm a member. I've been a member for about 10 years, and I will continue to be. They are still the best game in town.

They can be so much better, though.

I agree, it's counterproductive to split the troops, welcome them all, gun carrying tree hugger or card carrying pink pistol, we need every boot on the ground on our side.

jimlongley wrote:
I agree, it's counterproductive to split the troops, welcome them all, gun carrying tree hugger or card carrying pink pistol, we need every boot on the ground on our side.

AND, you're much more likely to be able to have civil debate about something if you have something major in common like RKBA ;)

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

NcongruNt wrote: Unless the NRA is addressing these very specific issues, I don't believe they have any business making discrediting statements against Al Gore or his group. The purpose of the NRA is to promote safe and proper use of firearms and to support the 2nd amendment through political action. If the NRA is getting involved in side-tiffs with other organizations on topics not directly related to gun ownership and use, then it seems to me that it is misusing the donations and contributions of its members.

Actions like this are what keep people such as myself from joining up. I'm all for the above-stated purpose of the NRA. I don't want my money being frivolously spent pursuing arguments that have nothing to do with shooting or the 2nd amendment.

What do you think of the NRA's opposition to McCain-Feingold? The history is that at first they stayed out of it, stating that they were a single-issue group and wanted to stay that way.

Later, when it became apparent that McCain-Feingold would drastically shift the terms of political speech, favoring Big Media and the super rich, while marginalizing and limiting the ability of groups like the NRA (which "live" mostly on a huge number of small contributions) to run ads and get their message out, they started campaigning against it and even joined the Supreme Court challenge effort (which sadly, failed).

Do you think that was a legitimate thing for the NRA to do, or was that spurious dabbling in a "side issue"?

I'm not familiar with the issue you're presenting here, but if it's as you described, then that would fall under the "support the 2nd amendment through political action" area I stated above. Sure, if there is legislation that will curtail the organization's effectiveness and ability to function using its members' contributions, then it has a place to challenge such legislation. It's not quite the same thing to spend time and money opposing the aims of a environmental organizations simply because it "falls in line" with the republican/conservative agenda of many (or probably most) of its members. If the NRA wants to remain effective, especially with a Democratic Congress, it should be doing all it can to attract membership and support from all over the political spectrum where the common issue is RKBA.

nitrogen wrote:

jimlongley wrote:
I agree, it's counterproductive to split the troops, welcome them all, gun carrying tree hugger or card carrying pink pistol, we need every boot on the ground on our side.

AND, you're much more likely to be able to have civil debate about something if you have something major in common like RKBA ;)

That is the best quote/line I have ever read.
I truly, adamantly, and fervently believe that diversity is key to showing that the 2nd Amendment is American, because diversity, by it's very nature, is American.

Now to attempt to bring this thing full circle, what I personally do to further my fellow man's knowledge of the tool we all take great interest in is to simply make it just one of many aspects of my personality, interests, and lifestyle. It's not all I talk about, it's not but just one of many things that I hold dear, and I show that in everyday life.
That is my method, and it has opened a few eyes, here and there.

Actually, I think so-called "liberals" make THE BEST spokesmen for the RKBA. This is because most conservatives already are on our side. So it's the anti-RKBA liberals that we need to bring over.

People fitting that description are not likely to be positively influenced by ANYTHING they hear coming from a conservative.

But they MIGHT listen to a fellow liberal.

IMO, it's all about how you represent yourself. I think most people have a preconcieved notion of what a gun owner should be like. Everything from physical experience to attitude. I'd rather educate by demonstrating my maturity and responsibility concerning firearms and breaking all the classic 'molds'. I won't try to change someones mind, but will at least try to provide accurate information and sources where they can do their own research.

Big Calhoun wrote:IMO, it's all about how you represent yourself. I think most people have a preconcieved notion of what a gun owner should be like. Everything from physical experience to attitude. I'd rather educate by demonstrating my maturity and responsibility concerning firearms and breaking all the classic 'molds'. I won't try to change someones mind, but will at least try to provide accurate information and sources where they can do their own research.

This is huge right here. It was someone like this, also, with patience to explain how the stereotypes were incorrect, and how safety was important, etc.

This was one of the primary things that changed my mind about gunowners, and then guns themselves.