PDA

View Full Version : Best 2nd amend organization


sac550
12-15-2008, 7:02 PM
I am currently a member of several gun rights organizations (NRA, GOA, CRPA). If you had to pick one to support which one would it be? I want to send my money to the organization that best supports our 2nd amend rights. I have been a member of the NRA since I was for 18 years and I send them money several times a year. I am wondering if I would be better sending that extra money somewhere else.

Hopi
12-15-2008, 7:08 PM
NRA, GOA, Calguns Foundation.

Crazed_SS
12-15-2008, 7:11 PM
I'd say the NRA.. I was a NRA member.. They actually do stuff and get tangible results. I have no clue what the GOA does.

CHS
12-15-2008, 7:48 PM
The NRA.
The Calguns Foundation.
The CRPA (only to get a neat newsletter and become CMP eligible).

yellowfin
12-15-2008, 9:27 PM
NRA and CGF here, nationally SCCC is the #2 org. Once shall issue or close to it is in place in CA they will make a monumental impact. Campus carry takes the anti gun movement by the throat- they know this so it's why they fight it everywhere tooth and nail. It is something we must win.

bulgron
12-16-2008, 12:25 AM
NRA and CGF here, nationally SCCC is the #2 org. Once shall issue or close to it is in place in CA they will make a monumental impact. Campus carry takes the anti gun movement by the throat- they know this so it's why they fight it everywhere tooth and nail. It is something we must win.

It's hard to get excited about SCCC when you can't even get a CCW in the first place. But it does seem like the next logical step past shall-issue CCW.

I guess my question is, why do you think that "campus carry takes the anti gun movement by the throat"? I mean, isn't that what shall-issue CCW does?

Do you see campus carry as fundamentally scarier to the antis than shall-issue CCW? If so, why?

rod
12-16-2008, 6:48 AM
I tend to spend my money at these pro 2A places:

J&G
Woodbrook Sports
Dean's Sporting Goods
Gary's Guns & Reloading
Nuckols Gun Works
Ira's Guns

and a few others. I can write letters just like they can at the NRA and other organizations (I am a member BTW). I just choose to exercise my 2A right instead of hollering about it.

yellowfin
12-17-2008, 12:06 PM
It's hard to get excited about SCCC when you can't even get a CCW in the first place. But it does seem like the next logical step past shall-issue CCW.

I guess my question is, why do you think that "campus carry takes the anti gun movement by the throat"? I mean, isn't that what shall-issue CCW does?

Do you see campus carry as fundamentally scarier to the antis than shall-issue CCW? If so, why?
Absolutely I do, and the reason is long but I can summarize by saying that it attacks the anti 2A/CCW problem at its source and offers a permanent solution. I have said over and over again here that the anti gun movement needs not just to be fought, but eradicated. We can't keep mowing the lawn like we are now, merely playing whack a mole with this bill and that, this politician than that...they keep growing back. We need to spray the roots with Roundup.

Campuses are a breeding ground for the antis and a nexus of their power because of influence over people's thinking by opinion and association forming. They've taken root there because they can hold onto power almost unilaterally-- leftism prefers concentrated and guaranteed power rather than a fair vote, as you know. Our opponents have sought out academia as a field for them to rule and spread their influence, and they have succeeded in claiming it as their territory. We need to reclaim it.

Currently its mechanism consists of this, which is repeated in the anti gun held cities:

1. Concentrated and absolute power. If the president and a couple board members want something, that's what matters. Professors may share that view but they do so because they agree with the powers that be--or they're silenced. The hoplophobe indoctrination only cultivates successfully in a sterile environment, and few environments have as tight control over what gets promoted as universities, and nearly none have such capacity to hold a slant. With no accountability they can make it whatever they want, and since they hold all the cards for PR, it's a one way street.

2. Segregation. Currently the opposition can say whatever they want to about CCW'ers and gun owners in general because there are no examples present to the contrary. As we know, a huge percentage of the problem we face is the general public's lack of first hand exposure to law abiding gun owners and CCW'ers. So when you have someone's views and social circles forming and none of us our present, we and our ideas and reality as we see it gets left out of the equation and all the misinformation is filled in all too easily. It's all too easy to demonize a hypothetical and you and I know they know that. Multiply this times hundreds of thousands of minds influenced and you see the magnitude of the problem.

3. Denial by obstacles. Sure you can be a gun owner and a college student, and even have a CCW, but why bother? If you can't carry for the majority of your day, can't keep it in your car in a close parking spot (either illegal, against policy, or simply unwise), and would have to make a round trip to home before doing anything else, chances are you're just going to not bother. And since 21 is when you'd get the first option to take the choice to carry and at the time you can't, you're deterred from picking it up later because by then you've had too long the habit of not.

4. The slippery slope of "reasonable" encroachment, getting people used to "You can, but not here, not that, not now...only what and when I say so." Give up this here because it's not "appropriate." Well no kidding Charlie Brown, to them nothing is! So you're forced to agree with them on that, so the other possibilities opening up down the road are all too easily. They get a free head start.


You see, it's all in the mechanism. They essentially have a machine for churning out sheep and it's been a devastatingly effective device. Break the machine and you get:

1. Better informed populous coming out of college who have seen the gun control dogma disproven right before their faces.

2. Breaking of the cycle of no contact. Universities are THE place people meet people coming from different places, backgrounds, and circumstances where they can learn about how those different people live, think, and act. It's no accident that campuses are extremely heavily targeted for advertising campaigns. Look what credit card companies do. We need that kind of outreach and impact. The anti 2A movement absolutely cannot survive us having that kind of access to the masses on a level playing field.

3. Closing the gender gap. Who's the biggest group that can benefit from CCW but doesn't currently because they're the least inclined to try it? 20 something women. Our marketing and outreach to them SUCKS. I mean SUCKS BAD. And we get clubbed over the head by them at the ballot box and, just as bad or worse, at home. "Honey I don't think I like that" is as much of a death sentence for gun ownership in the household as needed for a disturbingly large number of folks. Worse is the idea spreading. Who talks to your kids? Who talks to their teachers? The neighbors? Your church? Friends voting? Your family? Who does the spending? Now turn that around. Make it something she has in the parking lot at night, at the ATM, etc., not an expensive loud obnoxious hobby for the boys and/or the "conservatives" she's taught to rebel against. Now we have the best friend we could possibly have.

4. Out of towners and non traditional demographics. Again, the universities get folks out of town and into a broader environment. In the case of here, at very least in the short term they'd have the shot to get out into the free states and there they'd see Shall Issue and campus carry in effect and get exposure they wouldn't have here. They'll come home and demand it, or at very least see the real side. Think of it as an immersion course in a foreign language. They're getting the opposite now, so you can imagine what the good side could do.

5. Destruction of the monopoly of ideas from the educated. How often are professors consulted for opinion on legal, political, and sociological matters? All the time! They just put on in the Oval Office, in fact. They have a HUGE impact and enjoy a monopolization of leftism. With campus carry right in their face, they can't exist in a vacuum anymore and be forced to abandon their rabid hoplophobia or get the discrediting they deserve.

All this and more, more as I can think of it.

I should correct myself a bit. Campus carry won't just grab gun control by the throat: it will chop its head off.

Liberty1
12-17-2008, 12:09 PM
Calguns Foundation! Best bang for AND personal return on your investiment.

then NRA, etc....

M. Sage
12-17-2008, 12:12 PM
Size? NRA.
Effectiveness? NRA.

Local issues? CGF and NRA.

yellowfin
12-18-2008, 12:44 PM
Calguns Foundation! Best bang for AND personal return on your investment.
It would be interesting and entertaining to keep a tally of cost in dollars inflicted upon the opposition versus dollars spent. For instance, cost of fees spent in a lawsuit versus the other sides plus administrative costs, etc. It would be interesting to know what a good ratio is. If a lot of the question of how much we can push what issues is how much it costs monetarily, it'd be good to have some figures or at least know what kind of return it is. Bring out the accounting nerds!

7x57
12-18-2008, 11:48 PM
Campuses are a breeding ground for the antis and a nexus of their power because of influence over people's thinking by opinion and association forming. They've taken root there because they can hold onto power almost unilaterally-- leftism prefers concentrated and guaranteed power rather than a fair vote, as you know. Our opponents have sought out academia as a field for them to rule and spread their influence, and they have succeeded in claiming it as their territory. We need to reclaim it.


We seem to have been working our way towards the same conclusions from very different directions, which makes your post very interesting to read.

You make it sound as if the academy was just a happenstance. It wasn't. The Left believes that all truth is consensual, and thus ever changing and evolving. They believe it evolves ever upward, thanks to Hegel, and therefore they don't have to think about the awful results of consensual truth when the consensus happens to be very bad. But how do you keep social norms evolving upward? Propaganda, which is best administered under the name of education. They *have* to care about education, because they have to work on the next generation so the new synthesis can happen. They have to impose uniformity of thought (under names like political correctness) because they don't believe moral values are objectively true. Moral values are to be defended not by arguing that they are true but rather by ensuring that they are widely believed.

The reason it was *easy* to control academia is implied by the name we give to all Western institutions of higher learning. "The academy" was Plato's school, and recall that Plato told intellectuals that only they were suited to rule. Work on a man's pride and you have him, and academics are over-endowed in the pride department. They have never forgotten that Plato promised them the throne, and they have never (as a group) ceased believing that the unwashed masses should simply obey them. The Russian revolution was armpit-deep in intellectuals intent on finally getting a firm grasp of the throne so they could get to work.

Sadly for them, history shows that thugs are even better at that game than the eggheads. The Eggheads may create the revolution and the machinery of the new society, but eventually the Stalins manage to machine-gun the Lenins and Trotskys.


few environments have as tight control over what gets promoted as universities,


Because truth is consensual, so truth is defended not by reason but by controlling the consensus. It is inherent in their epistemological commitments.


2. Segregation. Currently the opposition can say whatever they want to about CCW'ers and gun owners in general because there are no examples present to the contrary.


It's not quite segregation, because in order to make converts you have to get the children of the backwards serfs into the university in order to preach the gospel to them. But they don't get to speak effectively. In any case, they can't. Their parents probably taught them authentic right and wrong, but couldn't articulate a philosophical basis for it--few people can, after all. Their children go to the university and not only are taught an alternative ethics, but given a philosophical system and worldview that backs it up. You can be certain, however, that the philosophical basis of traditional ethics will not be taught.

Then, finally, you have what I call "the offer." As only one philosophical system was taught, it is easy to tell the student that no other exists: their parents, it is whispered, believed what they did because they were uneducated and stupid. "But you want to be one of the smart ones, don't you?" That is to say, the children of the slaves can join the philosopher-kings, if only they believe the right philosophy. If they learn *real* well and are extra-orthodox, they can even be adopted into the Gold caste.

We just elected an adopted Gold caste philosopher king, I think, but that's another discussion.

Notice the incessant meme that "X are all just stupid," where X is Republicans (George Bush is stupid, so the media thinks as they were taught in school, but Biden's non-stop gaffes are ignored because it doesn't fit the presupposition), gun owners, any traditional religious community, whatever. It isn't an accident; it is because everyone in the media and entertainment accepted the offer.


So when you have someone's views and social circles forming and none of us our present, we and our ideas and reality as we see it gets left out of the equation and all the misinformation is filled in all too easily.


Don't forget that students are immersed in the monoculture of the university at the same age that they would be drafted into the army. That's not an accident. A soldier must be acculturated into the brotherhood, and early adulthood is about the last time this works really well. Ideas adopted at that time are probably part of the soldier's permanent identity.

Students have their identity re-made in the same way, and we send them to school in...early adulthood. It is the maximally effective time to give them new social ties that all have the same ideology, just as you say.


You see, it's all in the mechanism. They essentially have a machine for churning out sheep and it's been a devastatingly effective device.


There is no doubt about that. I believe there is a natural right to control the education of your own children. Sadly, the framers never protected it in law because they never imagined that it could be otherwise.


e. "Honey I don't think I like that" is as much of a death sentence for gun ownership in the household as needed for a disturbingly large number of folks.


Interestingly enough, my wife was never interested in the ability to defend herself until we had children. Some of those 20-something women have a lot of mama bear in them somewhere, if you can find it. It turns out what she instinctively believes in first and foremost is not that she has the right to defend herself, but that she has the right to defend her babies.


I should correct myself a bit. Campus carry won't just grab gun control by the throat: it will chop its head off.


I am not so sure. You are talking about one specific issue. The problem is that you are opposing a complete worldview. Unless you can take back higher education sufficiently to teach a complete worldview yourself, I'm not sure it is enough.

The ideas that people should not defend themselves, that we should jail a victim who uses force to defend himself instead of congratulating him on stopping the perp before he went on to his next victim, that the state should have a monopoly on force, and so on, do not exist in isolation. To win, yours can't either. You can't just say "self defense." You have to be ready to explain why justifiable homicide is not murder, say, and do so with the same completeness and detail that an ivy-league professor can explain why no homicide is justifiable. Otherwise, you are vulnerable to the "oh, they don't know anything, they're just stupid" accusation that works so well on college students who most want to be thought of as smart.

7x57

artherd
12-19-2008, 1:11 AM
MINE! ;)

just kidding. a little.


NRA is fantastic - the more I learn about what they do, the more I admire the people behind it. NRA spends more money in CA than in all other states combined I'm a life member.

I also dedicate a significant portion of both my money and time to The Calguns Foundation, of which I'm Treasurer and a board member. Check out the 2A forum, it's littered with what CGF has been up to lately.

yellowfin
12-19-2008, 1:31 AM
We seem to have been working our way towards the same conclusions from very different directions, which makes your post very interesting to read.Ah, so glad you found it good to read and generally valid in its essence. It's a long bit to articulate, and you covered a lot of the complexities I missed. It's a bit laborious fleshing it out, but I hope others have gotten something out of it. I hope more see that it's not only part of the big picture with the RKBA, but the overall big picture.
You are talking about one specific issue. The problem is that you are opposing a complete worldview. Unless you can take back higher education sufficiently to teach a complete worldview yourself, I'm not sure it is enough.

The ideas that people should not defend themselves, that we should jail a victim who uses force to defend himself instead of congratulating him on stopping the perp before he went on to his next victim, that the state should have a monopoly on force, and so on, do not exist in isolation. To win, yours can't either. You can't just say "self defense." You have to be ready to explain why justifiable homicide is not murder, say, and do so with the same completeness and detail that an ivy-league professor can explain why no homicide is justifiable. Otherwise, you are vulnerable to the "oh, they don't know anything, they're just stupid" accusation that works so well on college students who most want to be thought of as smart.

7x57Agreed, but it's a basis from which to start and a worthy enough goal in and of itself both in the short run and the long run, as you say towards driving out the larger problem of the big ugly overmind of the Fabians. It isn't the entire end but it's the biggest step. It will pierce it to the core and open it up to unravel it. From the reaction I see to it from the opposition, it seems to shake them up hard so it's gotta be right in there at the root--so there is precisely where we should attack it.

HunterJim
12-19-2008, 5:58 AM
I am currently a member of several gun rights organizations (NRA, GOA, CRPA). If you had to pick one to support which one would it be? I want to send my money to the organization that best supports our 2nd amend rights. I have been a member of the NRA since I was for 18 years and I send them money several times a year. I am wondering if I would be better sending that extra money somewhere else.

NRA is the best that I have found, even with its irritating attributes. I give extra money to the NRA-ILA and ask them to spend it in California.

You can also answer your question by checking who the main stream press and the Democrats demonize every chance they get: that would be the NRA.

jim
NRA Life Member