Activism as a part of gun ownership

[CharlesV]

Though my post is in reference to SB249 it applies to everything.

Its time to consider that activism to protect rights is part and parcel to buying a gun. Maybe together with the gun lock you also get a Activism Kit.

Im 58. As a kid there was no system, just a receipt from a sporting goods store and that was the end of it. Activism to stop illegal laws (or underground legislation as i have now head) wasnt needed because attacks on rights didnt exist. Thats changed and gun owners are not as fast to change with it and therein lies the problem because we are still thinking the old way.

A person connected to SB249 made an astonishing statement which i will paraphrase for concrete meaning: Nobody can convince me owning a gun is necessary, or multiple guns or magazines or bulk ammo either.

Huh?

Who are these creatures WE ELECTED who use a personal opinion or personal point of view to re-legislate gun owners into that view? What right does such a person have to ignore existing laws and rights and priviledges?

Its not gun ownership itself thats under attack, for this type of creature is unhappy with everything. This type moves into a new neighborhood and instead of first getting to know his neighbors and the lay of the land he immediately begins authoring petitions to get neighbors to change their house color, get rid of dogs, ban that boat, ban that tree, ban that fence. He has a prescription for all living arrangements and you know what, he often wins the fights.

Younger gun owners dont understand whats happening and older gun owners still think its 1955 and they dont need to fight about anything because political activism was never part of training or even in the vocabulary of ownership.

In all this we dont nip the problem in the bud, we run from Bill to Bill trying to put out fires. When you see these non-descript people running for Assembly or other minor-appearing seats, you tick the ballots because you feel the need to elect SOMEONE and without a care to who they really are and what rocks these creatures crawled out of. We never get to know them in the pre-election cycle, they are nowhere to be found. Next thing you know, you are broadsided with scores of new bills few of which wouldnt sicken the average person.

We are now in a time in which activism is a requirement AND to take a far greater interest in who we elect and why. Senator Yee is such a person. We elected him without ever asking a simple question like, Did you ever move to a new neighborhood and start telling neighbors how to live? This TYPE is filling up Sacramento and we better start taking a high interest in stopping them from becoming elected in the future, before such bills as SB249 or AB809 come up for consideration. Likewise, we must find and support even-tempered, broadminded, educated folks to fill these seats that govern us.

Activism wasnt needed only recently. Now its become nearly a requirement to owning a gun and owning the rest of our lives too. SB249 should be seen as a total wakeup call to this notion, the idea that activism becomes a permament and life-breathing word in our vocabularies. Lets make it so.

[SanPedroShooter]

Yup. Join the NRA is step one in my mind. If every gun came with a NRA membership form (and a lot of them do) and the buyers actually joined we could turn gun grabbers out of office like flipping a light switch and the BATFE would become the 'Bureau of Alcohol, Tobbaco, Door to Door Gun Safe Polishing, and Explosives...

Of course thats Federal, and we can already hold back the tide in DC for the moment. In California, I think getting new shooters involved and letting our local advocacy groups file (and win) their lawsuits is our best bet.

I also belive that owning a gun is an absolute politcal statement in urban California, one you may well suffer for.

[Agent Orange]

Most gun owners don't really care. They have better things to do with their lives. Only the hardcore types, which generally speaking are the same ones who're on gun boards, get wound up about this stuff. You're talking about a minority within a minority and a small one at that.

[JoefromPA]

I never really paid any attention to gun rights till I came to California. Me not being a legal resident can't do anything about the folks in your legislature, but I can help with support.
It got me interested in PA laws though, fortunantly they seem to be headed in the right direction and theres really not a lot to worry about over there.

[adrenaline]

I think its more than just guns. I used to be a registered Democrat. I started getting into guns and realized I was in the wrong party. What I believed was the "freedom" party was actually trying to take away individual right. I used to be in the mindset that I needed to be part of a party that was trying to fix things. A greener environment....more civil rights. I then realized that the party was trying to control people and mold them into their own agenda (socially...economically).

I then did some political soul-searching. I look towards the Republican party and being a recent gun owner thought that this would be it. I saw similarities to the Democrat party. It was trying to control people and mold them into THEIR own agenda.

I rooted myself into the Libertarian party. People think negatively of the party and say you are for abortion, you are for drugs, etc.

Those are the control freaks talking. I am for your individual right to choose whatever you want in life. As long it it meets one criteria.... If it doesn't harm or affect me or others, why not?

So I've been more active in my FB posts, politics, you name it. I realize then....most people don't care (even gun owners). It isn't just about guns. What you mentioned above applies to many things this nanny state attacks. You have to hit it all of them. You see not everyone feels for gun freedoms, but they will for gay rights, abortion, drug freedoms (marijuana), etc.

The more people realize the government shouldn't be controlling them and respecting the constitutional fundamentals the better chance that us gun owners will have at being left alone....because it is the 2nd Amendment.

BTW: I don't advocate drugs, believe in traditional marriage, and am pro-life.

[SanPedroShooter]

I never thought two seconds about gun rights either until we can back here to California, I wasnt even registered to vote. Even growing up in California, my dad had shotguns and stuff from his dad, and I spent summers and weekends breaking every law of God and man shooting a pellet gun in my backyard, in urban LA (oh the horror!) I can even remember going into gun shops in LA (when they existed) before the run up to the 94 crime bill and seeing the rush and the crush at the counter. I remember watching billy bob flanked by police talking about 'assault weapons' and the grumblings and cursings of one guys dad I was friends with. I was with this same guy incidently when the riots kicked off a few years earlier and he grabbed the biggest, shiniest, Dirty Harry revolver I'd ever seen out of his desk and he drove us all the way home with it on his lap...

Anyway, coming back here after my discharge, I thought it was about time I better buy a gun that didnt belong to my dad or the government.

Thats when it all hit me. I didnt need any convincing or persuasion, something had gone horribly wrong in paradise....

[rolo]

The problem is that most gun owners aren't single-issue voters. It's as simple as that. They're torn between this hot-button issue and that hot-button issue and can't get their head out long enough to realize that none of it even matters if you can't even defend yourself or your family.

People keep trying to solve social issues with legislation. If you're doing your part, why should you worry about what other people are doing so long as no one is infringing on your rights? Our rights, as gun owners, ARE being infringed on and we must not stand idly by until it is corrected.

[A-J]

The problem is that it's not "activism" when it comes to gun rights. At least that's the popular perception. Because the sheeple have become so brain washed, anyone who defends the RTKBA is a "gun nut" not an activist. The 2nd is the ONLY amendment that gets crapped upon on a regular basis, but when we try to defend it, we're labeled as gun toting wing nuts who want to be able to carry around rocket launchers at Starbucks. This is in spite of the fact that the facts completely support our position, while the anti argument relies on fear and appears to be winning in the long run.

[Wherryj]

I think its more than just guns. I used to be a registered Democrat. I started getting into guns and realized I was in the wrong party. What I believed was the "freedom" party was actually trying to take away individual right. I used to be in the mindset that I needed to be part of a party that was trying to fix things. A greener environment....more civil rights. I then realized that the party was trying to control people and mold them into their own agenda (socially...economically).

I then did some political soul-searching. I look towards the Republican party and being a recent gun owner thought that this would be it. I saw similarities to the Democrat party. It was trying to control people and mold them into THEIR own agenda.

I rooted myself into the Libertarian party. People think negatively of the party and say you are for abortion, you are for drugs, etc.

Those are the control freaks talking. I am for your individual right to choose whatever you want in life. As long it it meets one criteria.... If it doesn't harm or affect me or others, why not?

So I've been more active in my FB posts, politics, you name it. I realize then....most people don't care (even gun owners). It isn't just about guns. What you mentioned above applies to many things this nanny state attacks. You have to hit it all of them. You see not everyone feels for gun freedoms, but they will for gay rights, abortion, drug freedoms (marijuana), etc.

The more people realize the government shouldn't be controlling them and respecting the constitutional fundamentals the better chance that us gun owners will have at being left alone....because it is the 2nd Amendment.

BTW: I don't advocate drugs, believe in traditional marriage, and am pro-life.

The Democratic party seems to have the lead in PR and control of the media. It is amazing just how many people equate that party with "freedom" and "green" and "the party that fixes things".

Both major parties have their issues, but as you say the Democrats are far more interested in removing nearly all civil rights to make things easier and "safer".

[safewaysecurity]

I'm a young gun owner. I'm only 20 and I know exactly what's going on.

[leadstorm]

Activism to stop illegal laws (or underground legislation as i have now head) wasnt needed because attacks on rights didnt exist.
...
Activism wasnt needed [until?] only recently.

You are incorrect.

A few examples:
-National Firearms Act (1934)
-Mulford Act (1967)
-Gun Control Act (1968)
-Discretionary carry permit provision in California (not sure of date, but it's old)
-Firearms Owners Protection Act [Hughes Amendment] (1986)
-Crime Control Act (1990)
-Brady Act (1994)
-Robert-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (1989)
-Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004)

Gun control is nothing new.

There wasn't activism in the old days when it was needed most - that's how we ended up in some of the deep holes we currently reside in.

[rolo]

Gun control is nothing new.

There wasn't activism in the old days when it was needed most - that's how we ended up in some of the deep holes we currently reside in.

It's a generational thing. There was no internet around back then to mobilize the grassroots while these bills were passed around. They always found out about these things after the fact. The NRA wasn't always the great lobbyist organization it is today. Everyone trusted in the representative government system to do its part in representing their interests and hadn't realized how co-opted it had become.

Now we know, we have the means to communicate and we're pushing back. They did the best they could with what they had, as are we. We can never become complacent again.

[the86d]

The Democratic party seems to have the lead in PR and control of the media. It is amazing just how many people equate that party with "freedom" and "green" and "the party that fixes things".

Both major parties have their issues, but as you say the Democrats are far more interested in removing nearly all civil rights to make things easier and "safer".

The problem is most of them are ignorant to the truth, and have been inebriated for so long that they are reliant on others for information, logic & reason, and the like, that they just believe that politicians only do good things for them.

Hell, most are members of the Democratic party because their parents were, and lack the logic and reason to think for themselves, not to mention that most Democrats are unaware that the KKK was made up of the Democratic Party, and Republicans were formed by the anti-slavery movement!

The MAN (democratic party) has them right where "HE" wants them, voting for whatever the "Party" wants... Dr. Martin Luther King, JR. was a Republican, but they even argue THAT!

They need to watch an African-American state the truth:

http://mrctv.org/videos/hey-larry-democrats-were-defenders-hateful-policies-not-republicans

I DIG THIS GUY!

[leadstorm]

It's a generational thing. There was no internet around back then to mobilize the grassroots while these bills were passed around. They always found out about these things after the fact. The NRA wasn't always the great lobbyist organization it is today. Everyone trusted in the representative government system to do its part in representing their interests and hadn't realized how co-opted it had become.

Now we know, we have the means to communicate and we're pushing back. They did the best they could with what they had, as are we. We can never become complacent again.

To some degree you're right, and I wasn't laying blame.

It is much easier to be aware, track this stuff, donate, and participate with current technology.

[rolo]

To some degree you're right, and I wasn't laying blame.

It is much easier to be aware, track this stuff, donate, and participate with current technology.

My apologies if it came across as accusatory, I was responding more to my previously held feelings of disbelief and disdain for those that came before us and "allowed" these things to happen. Just as they were operating in the dark, so too was I (and many others) about their involvement or perceived lack. It is this lack of a coherent 2nd Amendment history that causes trouble for newly "activated" 2nd Amendment proponents.