PDA

View Full Version : another possible argument against CA's level of gun control...


Sinixstar
05-08-2009, 10:21 PM
Perhaps someone has already mentioned this - but I think another line of attack that could win some people over - is bringing up the horrendous budget problems California faces.
At a time when there's multi-billion dollar shortfalls, police departments are understaffed, schools are closing left and right - the government REFUSES to back off of some of the gun control initiatives at a cost of how many millions upon millions of dollars a year?
Are there budget numbers available for the firearms division of the DOJ?

If you can show that backing off of things like the Rostering and some of the insane documentation and paperwork that goes into CA regulations would save just 1 school from being closed, you're going to win over some soccer moms who otherwise would spit in our faces. Seriously. Especailly if we can show that the heavy handed regulation has not made significant quality of life or safety improvements in the first place.

TheBundo
05-08-2009, 10:35 PM
Been discussd. Of no effect on the legislature. Keep thinking though, all it takes is one idea that works. But this one is not it. Let's halt this thread here, it doesn't work against even against the weakest of the "anti's", the dollar amounts are too small, and the self-righteousness too great.

yellowfin
05-08-2009, 10:36 PM
Foregone tax revenues from firearms sales and gun store profits (income tax), business taxes, CCW's, hunting licenses, range fees, taxes on shipping charges, etc. all stack up. They don't care. AGPC thinks any cost is worth it.

Sinixstar
05-08-2009, 10:51 PM
Perhaps in the past, I would have simply dropped it and said "yea - good point". Things seem to be getting a bit more dire then they were even 2-3 months ago though. Maybe the time isn't right, but it seems lately i've been hearing a lot more comments from every day folk along the lines of "I knew it was bad, but I didn't know it was this bad - they're closing ANOTHER school?" etc etc.
I'm also not talking about using this as a means to put pressure on the legislature directly - i'm talking about using it at a means to garner support from the general public. Not the hard-core antis, but the ones who are normally apathetic in terms of gun control as they don't own guns so it doesn't apply to them. Even if that's only 10% of the population, if we could win over even half of that - that's 5% of the total population that supports us. If they start speaking up and they start putting pressure on the legislature, that could be a bit of a boost.

Any pressure we put on the state directly is going to have very little effect, unless it's pressure that comes directly from the court system. Reason being, is we're viewed as being a minority - and we're not going to vote for these people regardless. We can write a million letters, and in that context, they don't mean squat. If you can start getting ordinary NON GUN OWNERS to speak up, that's going to get their attention, as that shows that people they count on are starting to question them...

I'm thinking very much in terms of a subversive approach. Like I said, very little we do directly I think is going to have much of an effect. They got where they are by manipulating the masses. Who says we can't do the same thing?

DDT
05-08-2009, 11:57 PM
I like the idea of asymetrical warfare-- hit em hard in the courts and hit the PR hard and smart.

I agree. And remember, the press and the antis read this forum. Every post you make is part of that PR. I know that some of your posts are intended to be funny "exile them to North Korea" but it is all part of the public record and reflects on each and every one of us.

CalGunners ARE the face of California's Firearms Activists.

7x57
05-09-2009, 9:28 AM
Sacramento is willing to fight to your last penny.

7x57

DocSkinner
05-09-2009, 9:44 AM
Sacramento is willing to fight to your last penny.

7x57

True, but if more people, not the legislature, got told the $ numbers compared to how many felons were arrested attempting to illegally buy a firearm (a felony?), they could start seeing the fallacy.

AND before anyone says it - I am fully aware this won't matter to the hard core anti's. changing their minds is not an option, and I don't try.

HOWEVER there are tons of fence setters on this issue, and those type of figures could swing them our way in voting, and attempting to get rid of wasteful spending.

I personally like the NIBC, but having the state maintain a registry is (well should be) a clear infringement. Muslim terrorists (not all Muslims) are our major threat right now - would they dare make all Muslims registers and maintain a list?

cassius
05-09-2009, 3:39 PM
The OP's line of argument requires that 'gun control' legislation be rational in the first place, or that the average voter be so. 'gun control' is about the ideology of autocratic control. It isn't about public safety. Nor will revenue arguments hold sway to folks wedded to that sick ideology.

Aegis
05-09-2009, 6:47 PM
The fools in Sacramento have run the state into the ground. What ever makes sense and is the logical move the politicians do the complete opposite. If you think AIG was poorly run, management at AIG has done a great job compared to the incompetent California legislature.

HowardW56
05-09-2009, 7:18 PM
The fools in Sacramento have run the state into the ground. What ever makes sense and is the logical move the politicians do the complete opposite. If you think AIG was poorly run, management at AIG has done a great job compared to the incompetent California legislature.

Thats an odd comparison, but I might agree...

AIG invested foolishly

Sacramento legislates foolishly...

Glock22Fan
05-09-2009, 7:23 PM
I keep hearing "Ahnold has cut back school spending . . . Ahnold is why our roads are terrible . . . Ahnold . . ."

I keep saying "No, it's because the Dems won't agree to cut unnecessary pork fat and balance the budget as it should be balanced."

"No, it's Ahnold doing it!"

Some people don't think beyond the first impressions.

Sinixstar
05-09-2009, 10:48 PM
The OP's line of argument requires that 'gun control' legislation be rational in the first place, or that the average voter be so. 'gun control' is about the ideology of autocratic control. It isn't about public safety. Nor will revenue arguments hold sway to folks wedded to that sick ideology.

It doesn't matter what it's about or why it's there. The ideology behind it is more or less irrelevant.

What's important - is that it is able to exist in the first place because too many people are either apathetic on the issue, or just go with whoever makes the more attractive argument (which often means the more emotional "feel good" argument). The "independent" crowd if you will who really doesn't have a horse in the race personally, so they'll go with whoever can sway them. The hardcore pro/cons are firmly in their own column. Whoever can sway the opinions of those middle-ground people is who carries the majority. Focus on that group, and you win. Focus on challenging the hardcore antis, while the hardcore antis are busy focusing on the middle-ground, and you will lose every time.

Rationality, logic, etc means virtually nothing in politics. Strategy, message, and tactics are how the war is won or lost.

Sinixstar
05-09-2009, 10:52 PM
I keep hearing "Ahnold has cut back school spending . . . Ahnold is why our roads are terrible . . . Ahnold . . ."

I keep saying "No, it's because the Dems won't agree to cut unnecessary pork fat and balance the budget as it should be balanced."

"No, it's Ahnold doing it!"

Some people don't think beyond the first impressions.

And before that it was Davis' fault, just like right now it's all supposedly Obama's fault?

It's the executive's job to set the tone and the agenda for government. "The buck stops here" so to speak. If he did a better job of setting the tone and the agenda for the state, he wouldn't have to go back and clean up as much of a mess after the fact.

Take GWB for example. I don't agree with the vast majority of what the man did, but I will give him credit for being an extremely effective president. He did exactly what the executive is supposed to do. He went out and said "this is how it's going to be, this is what I think is important, this is where I think the country should go - now make it happen - I won't take no for an answer." What happened? He got damn near everything he wanted.
Now granted, his sense of direction might be flawed, but no one can say he was not an effective president, or he didn't get done what he thought needed to get done.
Arnold on the other hand? Not so much. That's why the blame largely lays at his feet, regardless of what people further down the food chain do. His job is to set the agenda and direct the government, and he's not doing it.

DocSkinner
05-10-2009, 1:41 PM
It doesn't matter what it's about or why it's there. The ideology behind it is more or less irrelevant.

What's important - is that it is able to exist in the first place because too many people are either apathetic on the issue, or just go with whoever makes the more attractive argument (which often means the more emotional "feel good" argument). The "independent" crowd if you will who really doesn't have a horse in the race personally, so they'll go with whoever can sway them. The hardcore pro/cons are firmly in their own column. Whoever can sway the opinions of those middle-ground people is who carries the majority. Focus on that group, and you win. Focus on challenging the hardcore antis, while the hardcore antis are busy focusing on the middle-ground, and you will lose every time.

Rationality, logic, etc means virtually nothing in politics. Strategy, message, and tactics are how the war is won or lost.

you left out best 15 second sound byte...

DocSkinner
05-10-2009, 1:42 PM
The OP's line of argument requires that 'gun control' legislation be rational in the first place, or that the average voter be so. 'gun control' is about the ideology of autocratic control. It isn't about public safety. Nor will revenue arguments hold sway to folks wedded to that sick ideology.

agreed - but even the apathetic care when its money - which is I think the OPs intent - not to imply that the laws are logical.