Need for CG self-censorship and vetting process
There is a strong tendency for us law abiding firearm owners to engage in direct and detailed responses to the irrational lies and ridicule published by the progressive-statists regarding our 2nd Amendment rights. I strongly encourage CG Leadership to consider moderating and redacting posts in direct response to our enemies writings and bill texts, and suggest CG Leadership consider a vetting program for CG forum access.
- Never allow the enemy to set the agenda for discussion. It is a trap. The enemy will always create a highly complex logical fallacy equivalent to the statement/question: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” If they can get the public discussion to conform to their logical fallacies, they have already won. Do not use the enemy’s definitions, their words, their assumptions of facts, nor directly argue against their outrageous statements, conclusions nor proposed actions. Argue our own well-crafted and vetted positions, utilizing our own words and definitions, and our own verifiable facts. Promote our own conclusions from the facts and put forward our own calls to public and political action which supports our goals.
E.g.: There is only one type of gun: a “modern firearm”. There is only one type of firearm magazine: a “modern capacity magazine”. The second amendment clearing does not exclude modernization of firearm technology. A law should be made at both the state and federal levels that insures politicians are forced to recognize modern firearms and accessories as being protected by the 2nd Amendment. See, not a single response to the enemy’s crazy ideas; just a clear and easy to understand position for the average citizen to consume in a 5 second sound bite.
- Do not provide the enemy with technical or tactical support by getting in the weeds discussing technical details or future work-around in a public forum. The enemy is the social and political equivalent to the Borg of Star Trek. “You will all be assimilated!” All expressed ideas, thoughts and knowledge will be used against us in future battles with the ever-evolving Borg. Do not provide the enemy with the knowledge and skills to evolve their tactics to become a greater threat. Modern internet technologies are a grave threat to tactical political operations. Work to compartmentalize your communications involving potential sources of intelligence to the enemy to insure it only goes to vetted individuals.
- To further the ideas I mention here, I propose that we utilize a vetting process for general access to Calguns (probably refer to them as Membership Requirements). In order to join, or to maintain a membership, individuals must provide a combination of identification and references. NRA ID number, IDPA number, etc., plus at least two detailed references from a current vetted member, a gunshop owner, a range owner, an NRA Instructor/RSO, etc. Once a member, access to more confidential forums should be further vetted by regional CG Coordinators, based upon in-person relationships. Sure, I know this could cut down on both the advertising income and membership numbers, but it would be in the best interest of all gun owners, even the ones who might not want to bother to be vetted to participate in the forum (I couldn’t imagine anyone not willing to go through a fairly simple vetting to get access to the greatest gun owner resource in the World and reduce eavesdropping by the enemy!). A positive benift of this vetting process, especially a secondary vetting process, would be to increase the local participation in CG activities, perhaps even growing into monthly regional meetings. I offer to CG leadership to be the first to go through a vetting process, as well as to participate in a Beta control group in the creation of a good vetting process.
“we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.” -JFK