View Single Post
  #160  
Old 09-16-2010, 11:44 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,959
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merle View Post
CGF wants to focus their efforts right now on CCW issues whereas UOC'rs want LOC.

Since there is no means by which to influence UOC'rs (only individuals who may participate in the UOC movement)

1. CGF can ignore UOC'rs and their actions.
2. CGF can try convince those who are convinceable.
3. CGF can modify their tactics to accomodate (or focus on) what UOC'rs want.

1 is not working, and 2 has a limited impact as you will not convince 100% of the people and it only takes one bad gun owner to ruin the game.

So what about 3?
It's a bit presumptuous to assume that CGF only has those three options.

How about 4?

4. CGF can exert its influence to completely ostracize organized UOCers as detrimental to the cause of gun rights due to their politically naiive and incessant narcissistic tactics.

CGF has a game plan. In the end it gets LOC as well as shall issue CCW. Unfortunately, it's going to require patience. the_quark described the plan eloquently with his football metaphor of a short and accurate passing game. It's not sexy, it's not exciting - but it brings about real and tangible results.

The best thing is that CGF's game plan is proven. It's worked before.

Actions percieved as militant protest might make the papers, but they're not effective agents of change. Instead, it encourages folks to fortify, dig in their heels, object for the sake of objecting (see Saldana). Sometimes, you simply have to be gentle about change.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote