Columbia University Libertarians would like to put on a Machine gun Shoot/BBQ

[AJAX22]

The way this is shaping up I think the majority of firearms present will be semi auto's... Realistically the most pragmatic FA item would be some form of pintle mounted belt fed with a limited ability to traverse... give participants the fun of firing a machine gun without really having to be , while still adding a bit of a hook to the event.

Suppressors would be good too, everything is more fun with a suppressor on it.

[Suwannee Tim]

How many Libertarians are there at Columbia?

[holden23]

Hi, I signed up to weigh in on this. We've actually been having a lively discussion about this over at pafoa:
http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/7...shoot-bbq.html

Basically, it's not clear that the outcome will be beneficial to gun owners. Ajax22 has stated that he wants national negative media attention, which is what the machine guns are for:

Originally Posted by Ajax22 in 1st thread post

It is very likely that this will attract a huge amount of backlash from both the university and politicians (Bloomberg et all) but that just means national media attention and more to offer sponsors.

Then he thinks he can spin that negative attention into something positive. He's also hoping his school prohibits the group from organizing a machine gun shoot so they can make it into a 1st Amendment issue. And to use his own words, he wants to "bait" the media into following along:

Originally Posted by Ajax22 on pafoa

we have the opportunity to bait them into following a (rather bland) story about students advocating for 2nd amendment rights by dangling fully automatic cheese in front of them...

link

The problem is that if he can't pull it off perfectly, he'll turn lawmakers - and the public - against gun owners in a very gun-hostile political climate, just as election season is starting up. He hasn't said, but it seems he wants to spin it by focusing on the 1st Amendment issue - hoping his school tries to stop him first - and hoping that folks who support the 1st Amendment will also support the 2nd.

Another thing. Here's a news story about the recent alleged terror plot where the suspects wanted to use "automatic weapons" to shoot up a mall.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...y_man_imp.html

Luckily they had a hard time getting access to automatic weapons. But here we are, talking about a publicity stunt to show a bunch of college students going out and getting machine guns to parade around on national TV. To me this all seems like a really bad idea, especially in this political climate.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for activism and I try to get people interested in shooting too. But this isn't activism - it's a publicity stunt to try and shock the public into supporting the 2nd amendment by throwing machine guns in their faces.

Earlier this year, US Attorney General Eric Holder said that he wanted to make permanent the expired Assault Weapons Ban. This administration and this Congress are very hostile towards gun owners and conservatives. Do we really want to start kicking that hornet's nest right now?

The cost of not creating this machine gun publicity stunt (again, his words) is that we keep winning in the courts with the law on our side.
The cost of screwing up is renewed cries for another Assault Weapons Ban - using this stunt to bolster support.

[geniusiknowit]

As long as no one gets accidentally shot, I don't think this would turn into a screw-up.

I think using a machine gun is an okay way to grab the attention of those whom you want to attend the event, but the event should devote most of discussion of guns to more practical firearms such as pistols, shotguns, and SA rifles. Focusing on less practical weapon isn't going to do much to express the necessity of the RKBA.

I second the notion that any speakers stick to the topics of RKBA for defense of life and liberty. Few things would be as detrimental to your goals as having a speaker go on an off-topic right-wing rant. Get speakers who are credentialed, respected, and ideally who don't easily fit into mass-media stereotypes. Discuss statistics of gun ownership and DGUs, the philosophy of having an armed citizenry, and real-life stories of women and men who have used firearms for defense. Point out how GC laws are ineffective and counterproductive. Point out how dangerous an assailant can be armed with only his bare hands or melee weapon. Demonstrate the 21-foot rule.

Offer some real substance at the event. If people leave remembering only the gimmick of shooting a machine gun, then nothing good will have been accomplished.

[hnk45acp]

I think if you organize this shoot whether it's FA or SA it's important that it is shown to be open to all students and not necessarily a Libertarian or Republican event. Having it open will shift the focus from politics to the actual shooting, after all you want to change minds not preach to the choir.

You will prob. not get much media attention unless Columbia attempts to block this event so make sure you are within school rules in organizing this so if they object you can state that it is on political grounds and not against school rules.

[AJAX22]

The 'gimick' is just a hook to draw attention the the real event, and to bait bloomberg et all into a heavy handed response.

It absolutely will be open to all Columbia university students (and possibly a few other universities depending on what scale we can make this happen at) regardless of political affiliation or beliefs (although we will be establishing a strict code of conduct, as well as vetting all participants and getting various releases such as liability, etc). The goal is to provide real substantive content (instruction on firearms safety, and educational lectures which are strictly limited to the 2A and RKBA) as it does no good whatsoever to have attention drawn to a hollow construct... every aspect of this has to be on point and meaningful to the 2A.

It will not be a free-for all on all traditional libertarian issue subjects (no Abortion, Anti War, Fed reserve, etc), it is being planned with a strict adherence to focusing on the 2nd amendment (and 1st amendment if it becomes an issue) any deviation from the RKBA message would absolutely destroy what we are setting out to do.

I had some very promising conversations today with some of the movers and shakers in the 2A community and it looks like this has both a tremendous amount of support, and the potential to do some serious good for the wider firearms rights community... Some of the other projects we have in the works have had to be rescheduled to better concede with the pending court litigation (for maximum impact), but the general sentiment on the machine gun shoot was "Go For It!!!!"

With regard to the event being structured so as to adhere to Columbia university rules and regulations.... our initial review of the guidelines seems to indicate that we should be well within the bounds of protected free speech on campus with regard to organizing/advertising the event, and we will be seriously delving into the matter before taking action.

As far as how many CU libertarians there are on campus, active club participation tends to hover around a few dozen, but there are a number of part timers and others who help out with some of the conferences that get put on.

[holden23]

Originally Posted by AJAX22

The 'gimick' is just a hook to draw attention the the real event, and to bait bloomberg et all into a heavy handed response.

And here's the problem. You want to bait the mayor of NY into a "heavy handed" response, and how do you intend to do that? By organizing a trip into PA for a machine gun publicity stunt (your words).

Bloomberg is already meddling in PA politics with his Mayors Against Illegal Guns and suggesting that PA's gun laws are too relaxed. Don't you think that organizing a machine gun shoot - that you've already said is a publicity stunt to generate national media "backlash" - would just help to reinforce the idea that PA needs more gun regulation? It seems like you're taking a huge gamble with PA's gun laws.

You said you want "to bait bloomberg et all into a heavy handed response." What exactly is the response you're looking for? The guy is loaded, and he's using NYC's money to further his anti-gun agenda nationwide. And you're here begging for free ammo. If you get that "heavy handed response" you want, how do you intend to fight it? It seems like you're hoping that his response will piss off enough people in the 2A community that they'll jump in and join the fight.

I haven't seen anything concrete laid out, aside from you wanting to get nationwide attention using machine guns, and you want to piss off the anti-gun crowd, your mayor, and your school. How, exactly, does that benefit anyone outside the Brady Bunch?

And again, what is the "heavy handed response" you're trying to get from Bloomberg and other anti-gun politicians?

[AJAX22]

Holden23, Its readily apparent that you disprove of this course of action.

thank you for your concern, and input, as well as all the time you have put into this, following it from forum to forum.

I am still awaiting your alternative plan so that I can bring it to the membership.

This is at its heart a very simple concept,

Any attention that bloomberg (and his ilk) choose to draw to this, through posturing, speeches, attempted regulation, suppression of free speech or meddling in affairs outside of their jurisdiction can be framed within the context of the large and powerful attempting to squelch a small group of college students who are simply attempting to exercise a fundamental constitutionally protected right.

As you have pointed out, bloomberg and his gang are already trying to meddle in affairs outside of thier state... and as long as the debate is "Mayors for law and order vs. Scumbag who illegally brought a gun into NYC and the people who sold it to him" He has an advantage, and will continue to press the issue... silently acquiescing to his actions and hoping that he will stop is not a solution, its simply a form of apathy.

When the debate is The large powerful bureaucracies vs. students who have to flee their jurisdiction to exercise rights it changes the paradigm.

If you can't see how carefully controlling and developing a story within the media could have positive repercussions, well... I don't know what to tell you...

there is no significant risk whatsoever to PA's gun laws whatsoever posed by getting the anti's to reveal their true colors... if anything it will consolidate support within the legislature and the fence sitting community. PA legislators will not allow themselves to be pushed around by overbearing new york politicians, it would be political suicide.

If you have another idea, tweaks, suggestions for overlapping/coinciding events, I'm more than willing to take a serious look at them and bring them to the table...

If you are simply going to troll the internet trying to get this event shut down, you are wasting energy which could be put to better use elsewhere.

I have repeatedly offered to take seriously any suggestions you have with regard to alternative/coinciding events... but you simply engage in personal attacks, and construct straw man arguments using fragments of my statements that you clearly have not understood (willfully or ignorantly) in an attempt to de-rail this project.

You don't like what we are going to do... ok... I get that... thank you for your opinion, but others feel differently.

If you have a serious proposition of your own to put forward, by all means do so.

[holden23]

Originally Posted by Ajax22

If you are simply going to troll the internet trying to get this event shut down, you are wasting energy which could be put to better use elsewhere.

I have repeatedly offered to take seriously any suggestions you have with regard to alternative/coinciding events... but you simply engage in personal attacks, and construct straw man arguments using fragments of my statements that you clearly have not understood (willfully or ignorantly) in an attempt to de-rail this project.

You don't like what we are going to do... ok... I get that... thank you for your opinion, but others feel differently.

If you have a serious proposition of your own to put forward, by all means do so.

You're right. I don't like what you're trying to do only because your plan hinges upon using machine guns to generate negative nationwide attention. I'd support your efforts more if it weren't for that. I still think gun-related publicity stunts are a bad idea, but bringing machine guns into the mix is a mistake. Most Americans don't think civilians should own machine guns. Even the NRA doesn't support us having machine guns (see: FOPA). Heck, lots of (most?) gun owners don't think people should have machine guns either. Check out the videos here to get an idea of what you're up against:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009...inion-on-guns/
Even the folks who considered themselves pro-2A want machine guns banned.

Your plan, as you've described it:
Step 1: use machine guns to get lots of negative media attention
Step 2: ???
Step 3: everyone loves guns

That just doesn't work. My only issue is with the machine guns. Most people in this country don't think we should be allowed to own them, so I think it's a really bad idea to use them for a publicity stunt.

For another example of well-intentioned people doing lots of damage to the 2A movement, see:
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=...777e0208&from=

To be very clear:
I do applaud your efforts to put this together. But I think it's a huge mistake to have machine guns involved. If you want people on your side, you'll need them to be able to support your views - and machine guns will just turn people off.

[geniusiknowit]

Your plan, as you've described it:
Step 1: use machine guns to get lots of negative media attention
Step 2: ???
Step 3: everyone loves guns

That's a horrible strawman.

Step 1: Generate publicity through harmless, but controversial action
Step 2: Motivate liberty-minded people in NYC, create public debate, educate others.
Step 3. More people respect RKBA

[holden23]

Here, I fixed it for you:

Originally Posted by geniusiknowit

Step 1: Generate publicity through harmless, but controversial action
Step 2: Create public debate about the civilian ownership of machine guns when most Americans, politicians, and a huge % of gun owners think they should be banned outright.
Step 3. Calls for more restrictions on machine guns (and guns that resemble machine guns)

If this were just a RKBA event with some shooting, some speaking, and some instruction, then I don't think it would matter what kind of guns are there. But he said he wants to use the machine guns to bring the event into the national spotlight and to specifically get a "heavy handed response" from Bloomberg. To that, I say be careful what you wish for.

[geniusiknowit]

Holden, some gun owners agree with all sorts of gun control legislation. So what? Should we let them do all the talking?

And there are already calls for further restrictions. Is it better for us to remain silent against such arguments and hope those antis will simply drop the matter or change their minds? Should we let the antis do all the talking? Or is it better to demonstrate and prove our side of the issue?

[highorder]

Step 1: Generate publicity through harmless, but controversial action
Step 2: Create public debate about the civilian ownership of machine guns when most Americans, politicians, and a huge % of gun owners think they should be banned outright.
Step 3. Calls for more restrictions on machine guns (and guns that resemble machine guns)

I dont have a dog in the fight per se, but I see that as the most likely outcome.

Doesn't sound like a good idea.

[holden23]

In the most recent issue of Small Arms Review, there's an article detailing the NFATCA's efforts to have ATF declare another machine gun amnesty. I imagine a machine gun publicity stunt seeking national attention wouldn't help them very much.