I probably shouldn't...
1. The election of 2006 was a defeat for us. You can paint it any way you want, but the most liberal anti-gunners now hold the committee chairmanships in Congress. They may bide their time a bit, but be sure they haven't put aside their anti-gun policies.
As I said in another posting, in a thread far, far away...
William Jefferson Clinton:
The best thing that ever happened to the Republican party.
We specifically did not lose ( that's lose, not loose btw ), we were collateral damage suffered by various advocacy constituencies affected by the unpopular war in Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Bill of Rights is affected this way, but it is the nature of our republic. Think of it kind of like white water rafting, you can be going along fine, next thing you know you're being pummelled by rocks and your boat is bottom up. Once you're in the water, you don't give up, you fight that much harder.
2. We -- conservatives in general and gun-owners in particular -- don't work to further our policies. How many here are members of their local Democratic or Republican Committees? How many work to raise money for pro-gun candidates? How many are willing to run for office themselves, or serve on the campaigns of those who will?
With all due respect, based on some of the responses to OP's somewhat controversial post, we wouldn't be well served by some of the respondents in that thread running for office; me included. Your points are just a few ways that people can contribute but the list is not exclusive. We can easily work within the existing framework by emailing, calling and faxing Congress directly. Those of us local can engage them in person and many of us have. Not as many as I'd like, but more than just me for sure.
3. We wrangle too much amongst ourselves -- we want to fight or kick out politicians who are our allies, but not "perfect." We don't pull together to seek and support the best candidates we can get -- even if they aren't "perfect."
Let's fully discuss 'perfect' as opposed to 'best candidates we can get'. If the best 'pro gun' candidate is Giuliani, I'm writing in Ted Nugent. Absolutely no way I vote for "America's Thug". Nobody can even intelligently argue that Giuliani has done anything but <deleted by Smurfslayer due to questionable content> on the Constitution and the 2A in particular. The other "annointed" front runners haven't shown tremendous respect for us either. The question becomes do we support a candidate in the primary with a lesser chance of prevailing who is best aligned with our position or the one who is not aligned with our position but "polls higher" ? Maybe it's my upbringing but I think it's unethical to vote for someone whom I have a fundamental disagreement with over something as important as 2A. Of course, that is my value which I am entitled to. I am not entitled to enforce it upon anyone else.
4. We need a new strategy at the top level -- and like it or not, that's the NRA. It's a different world politically since last November, and we need to adapt to that world so we don't go down in total defeat.
I disagree wholeheartedly, and rebut this presumption as follows.
NRA-ILA is not, nor can it ever be the end all, be all of 2A support. There is a fundamental disconnect between constitutional rights, and the ILA campaign of "permitted carry". The latter is a state granted privilege for which there are many requirements and it can be revoked on a whim. ILA, while effective, has cast it's broad appeal to the sportsmen crowd, which demographically is the largest contingent of active gun owners. More than a few things get left by the wayside - Open Carry - which ironically is more accurately described as "right to carry" is totally unsupported by ILA. NFA ownership, assistance and legislation just to name 2. ILA has repeatedly been asked to help out with getting the Parks ban repeal and the list goes on. However, their resources are not limitless so we cannot reasonably expect them to be everything to everyone. That is where grassroots and more focused advocacy groups come in to the picture. But for these more focused groups a great deal of legislation would look a lot worse than it came out in law. Say what you will, but ILA is successful in getting candidates elected, getting legislation through - even if it is to the benefit of the industry, and not the members, and getting membership. There is an ebb and flow in politics. NRA-ILA has simply been caught up in that ebb and flow. I am not saying that ILA is not in need of new direction, fresh blood, etc. just that it is not so important that everyone must drop what they are doing to correct it. Once a few other 2A/RKBA advocacy groups gain more recognition and success, it will help correct any issues left with ILA.
As for adapting, many of us have been doing that since before 11/06. If we all focused on the Congressional reciprocity bills for example, do you really think that we would be ignored entirely? But we all do not support the current bills for a variety of reasons. The thing to do is to get idea, support and someone to introduce a bill. Then we need to follow through and put pressure on to pass it. NRA-ILA isn't the only group capable of getting a bill submitted. With enough pressure a Rep or Senator will introduce a bill for you, but it's up to the constituency to keep the heat on.
our possessions.
