barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Reading through threads here, you will frequently come across cheesy combat metaphors when the topic of the Gun Rights struggle comes up. "Winning the battle," "lines in the sand," "closing ranks," etc.
I usually dismiss these as mere platitude, but I got to thinking about how accurately that frames our mindset (I don't really think it does since most of us don't hate the enemy as inhuman the way opposing sides frequently do in combat), and more importantly, our tactics.
Many of the same issues confronting generals and strategists are present for all struggles or tasks requiring lots of people. Deploying and securing resources, identifying supporting and opposing sides' weaknesses and strengths, and forming a high-level goal or endgame for the effort. It seems like it should stand to reason some non-specific high level tactics should at least have some applicability for activism. Specifically, how do vastly outnumbered and undersupplied groups managed to establish widespread support in their area of operations, and resist much more powerful external forces? That scenario seems especially applicable to places on the East and West coast where utter defeat seems all but certain after continual uncontested losses.
It made me wonder if there is perhaps some way to use insurgent/guerilla style tactics in the promotion of our cause to better resist outside influence from large cities and out of state ex-mayors
. I'm not a tactician, I have only a vague understanding of these concepts, but things like demonstrating pro-actively in places where the anti's aren't expending their resources, and moving on when they do strike so our efforts aren't drowned when confronted head-on by theirs. For instance, putting out PSAs in neighborhoods that may not be the friendliest toward us, but are fairly neutral and have out-sized influence over neighboring hostile boroughs. Then moving onto the next when the better-funded and connected gun control groups begin their salvo, it's greater size rendered moot by the fact that it goes uncontested (at least until they get bored and chase the next rabbit). For instance, the CO recalls definitely had the full attention of the anti's for a while, but unfortunately, it seems like our side was fully invested as well, to the exclusion of thinking about where to strike heavily next. Even worse, the only reason the recall was occurring was because gun-owners were having to react after the fact to a major defeat in that state, so our victory was something of 1.5 steps back, 1 step forward.
It seems like we're too often putting out fires instead of setting them; seeing a NY times poll and jumping in to sway it instead of conducting it, donating money only after a restrictive bill is proposed (or worse, passed), and rising to meet outside influence in expensive highly-publicized political races that leave everyone involved spiritually and financially drained.
It'd be nice to compete strongly in all these areas, but the facts are that some regions are so hostile or under-representative of gun owners, that their efforts can easily be washed away like tears in the rain (). In those cases, it seems like it is by far more important to be efficient rather than lastingly effective (if that makes any sense). If the local MAIG chapter is kept busy addressing NRA/etc. protests, campaigns, and events popping up all around them, they would have a harder time directing their efforts externally to surrounding regions. Their ability to effectively strategize against us is impaired only so long as we keep them on the defensive, and that means making the first move, one after another.
"The pinnacle of activist strategy approaches the formless; so long as it is formless, I can concentrate my efforts while the establishment is fragmented. Lacking clear form, the most traitorous Fudd cannot discern it nor the Ambitious Mayor make plans against it" --Sun Tzu, The Art of Gun Control in America
Any thoughts?
TCB
I usually dismiss these as mere platitude, but I got to thinking about how accurately that frames our mindset (I don't really think it does since most of us don't hate the enemy as inhuman the way opposing sides frequently do in combat), and more importantly, our tactics.
Many of the same issues confronting generals and strategists are present for all struggles or tasks requiring lots of people. Deploying and securing resources, identifying supporting and opposing sides' weaknesses and strengths, and forming a high-level goal or endgame for the effort. It seems like it should stand to reason some non-specific high level tactics should at least have some applicability for activism. Specifically, how do vastly outnumbered and undersupplied groups managed to establish widespread support in their area of operations, and resist much more powerful external forces? That scenario seems especially applicable to places on the East and West coast where utter defeat seems all but certain after continual uncontested losses.
It made me wonder if there is perhaps some way to use insurgent/guerilla style tactics in the promotion of our cause to better resist outside influence from large cities and out of state ex-mayors
. I'm not a tactician, I have only a vague understanding of these concepts, but things like demonstrating pro-actively in places where the anti's aren't expending their resources, and moving on when they do strike so our efforts aren't drowned when confronted head-on by theirs. For instance, putting out PSAs in neighborhoods that may not be the friendliest toward us, but are fairly neutral and have out-sized influence over neighboring hostile boroughs. Then moving onto the next when the better-funded and connected gun control groups begin their salvo, it's greater size rendered moot by the fact that it goes uncontested (at least until they get bored and chase the next rabbit). For instance, the CO recalls definitely had the full attention of the anti's for a while, but unfortunately, it seems like our side was fully invested as well, to the exclusion of thinking about where to strike heavily next. Even worse, the only reason the recall was occurring was because gun-owners were having to react after the fact to a major defeat in that state, so our victory was something of 1.5 steps back, 1 step forward.It seems like we're too often putting out fires instead of setting them; seeing a NY times poll and jumping in to sway it instead of conducting it, donating money only after a restrictive bill is proposed (or worse, passed), and rising to meet outside influence in expensive highly-publicized political races that leave everyone involved spiritually and financially drained.
It'd be nice to compete strongly in all these areas, but the facts are that some regions are so hostile or under-representative of gun owners, that their efforts can easily be washed away like tears in the rain (
). In those cases, it seems like it is by far more important to be efficient rather than lastingly effective (if that makes any sense). If the local MAIG chapter is kept busy addressing NRA/etc. protests, campaigns, and events popping up all around them, they would have a harder time directing their efforts externally to surrounding regions. Their ability to effectively strategize against us is impaired only so long as we keep them on the defensive, and that means making the first move, one after another."The pinnacle of activist strategy approaches the formless; so long as it is formless, I can concentrate my efforts while the establishment is fragmented. Lacking clear form, the most traitorous Fudd cannot discern it nor the Ambitious Mayor make plans against it" --Sun Tzu, The Art of Gun Control in America
Any thoughts?
TCB
In any case, this is politics, and you can really only fight so dirty before you get busted for illegal activity (which is a bit easier for our side these days, remember?) I don't think we need to fight dirty; simply smarter than they do. Trick them into dumping huge sums of money and wasting their celebritys' time on strategically meaningless battles, while keeping the pressure on the real ones with the NRA (the Allied Invasion to the various Resistance movements)
