Stand like a rock against the storm

[barnbwt]

Nothing we can do matters, our only option is to let the wave of emotion break upon us, without flexing. We are currently flexing, which is where the problems come from.

The reason this event seems ‘different’ is because of the venue. This was a well to do, liberal, anti gun place already, with lots of students and families already connected to both media and gun control groups. So, like with Newtown, the instant it occurred, phone trees lit up, mailing lists were activated, and favors were called in to get several of the experienced political operatives who attended that school in front of cameras, reading talking points, and screaming at politicians like seasoned-protestors.

We, as gun owners, cannot change any of this, we as gun owners are responsible for none of this. Nothing we do, say, or give up will derail the machinery already set in motion, all we can do is hold fast and see if we can resist it again, as after Newtown. It would help if our own machinery (the NRA) would try to be similarly robust.

 

[AlexanderA]

We, as gun owners, cannot change any of this, we as gun owners are responsible for none of this. Nothing we do, say, or give up will derail the machinery already set in motion, all we can do is hold fast and see if we can resist it again, as after Newtown. It would help if our own machinery (the NRA) would try to be similarly robust.

A big part of the problem is that the NRA (like it or not, the voice of gun owners) has painted itself into a corner by becoming an arm of the Republican party. This has increasingly alienated pro-gun independents and Democrats (and there are still a lot of them). A perfect example is Wayne LaPierre's screed against "socialism" (liberalism) in this month's American Rifleman. This had very little to do with guns, and was a gratuitous insult to millions of liberal gun owners. Successful politics is a game of addition, not subtraction.

The ironic thing is that the NRA is tying itself to a Republican party that, when push comes to shove, may not be all that pro-gun. They talk a good game but their actions belie their words.

 

[barnbwt]

Going. Off. Message. The death-knell of all advocacy groups, and a sure sign their leadership believes they've already accomplished their goals.

Sunset of the AWB was all the NRA thought they needed to accomplish. They clearly didn't learn the lesson of '75 the first time, and the old guard need to be booted once more.

 

[AlexanderA]

Going. Off. Message. The death-knell of all advocacy groups, and a sure sign their leadership believes they've already accomplished their goals.

The internal dynamics of the NRA are complicated, and probably outside the scope of this forum.

Suffice it to say that LaPierre, et. al., are treating the organization as a money machine for themselves. (Ever look at the astronomical salaries paid to NRA executives?) Everything they do is designed to maximize contributions from their dedicated base, even if it means that outreach to independents and fence-sitters will suffer. That explains the organization's tilt to the right politically -- that's where the money is.

Accomplishing their stated pro-gun goals would be the kiss of death for these executives. They thrive on unresolved controversy. That's what keeps the money flowing in.

 

[CapnMac]

Ever look at the astronomical salaries paid to NRA executives?

To be fair, they are actually in the bottom middle for DC types. Compare them to some of the union leaders in DC, or similar lobbyists. $500k is entry-level pay, and is not going to let you afford an nice Ann Arundel address where you can socialize. The adjusted DC "poverty level" is $62,000/year; or pretty decent wages out in fly-over country.

 

[RPZ]

A big part of the problem is that the NRA (like it or not, the voice of gun owners) has painted itself into a corner by becoming an arm of the Republican party. This has increasingly alienated pro-gun independents and Democrats (and there are still a lot of them). A perfect example is Wayne LaPierre's screed against "socialism" (liberalism) in this month's American Rifleman. This had very little to do with guns, and was a gratuitous insult to millions of liberal gun owners. Successful politics is a game of addition, not subtraction.

The ironic thing is that the NRA is tying itself to a Republican party that, when push comes to shove, may not be all that pro-gun. They talk a good game but their actions belie their words.

I would add that the NRA has also painted itself into a corner by capitulation and acceptance of a series of "common sense" gun legislation going back to the 1968 GCA.

Additionally, the FBI and local police, the specific named persons involved in reports and complaints about the shooter, should be the subject of hearings in which they are placed under oath, and held accountable for their actions and inactions.

 

[abajaj11]

Don't assume that. A major strategic mistake was tying the RKBA to the GOP years ago. Yep, it was a money maker for some by milking a small political slice of the pie but lost any chance of wider support. In fact, studies show that urban Republicans vote like Urban Democrats on gun issues. Rural folks vote like rural folks.

Simplistic strategies loose.

So, not sure...are you saying we should not push for the removal of the artificial designation of schools as gun-free zones?

 

[barnbwt]

Since we're now in the sleepy strategery forum, permit me to make some (unemotional, unempathetic, heartless) strategic comments on what seems to be happening;

That school was, for all intents and purposes, churning out political operatives, many of whom by high school age were already in tight with national media organizations and outspoken members of gun control advocacy and protest groups. I sure hope everyone took note of how that buzz-cut gal maintained her composure and professional demeanor during that NRA 'town hall' while the room was roaring with hatred at her words, as she questioned the NRA spokeswoman's parenting, and single-handedly took control of the crowd when they got a little too rambunctious. Staging a positive/coherent media appearance is one thing, but at least a few of these kids we keep seeing are basically professional talking heads, more like Shannon Watts of Everytown USA (a Monsanto lobbyist masquerading as a 'simple mom') than an average someone on the street. This is not conspiracy fluff, I'm not accusing anyone of lying or what-have-you, I am simply trying to identify the various players accurately for a strategic assessment.

So, we have a school strongly pushing students toward advocacy, toward protest against our particular cause in many cases, which we are now learning had also pursued policies at the school, district, police, and apparently even city level which all served to keep a troubled student's behavior unreported, and unaddressed. This represents a potentially enormous existential and ongoing threat to gun rights if extrapolated nationally. I have no reason to believe similar 'non-intervention' policies do not exist at similarly like-minded schools in other highly progressive locales; how long until they are hit by a statistical anomaly and are able to throw it back on us as well? How many more schools are out there, their students completely exposed to the unfettered actions of dangerous individuals, chock full of well-trained political operatives ready to spring-board an inevitable tragedy into a lucrative career, or simply to combat the boogeyman they've been raised to fear?

Initially, I thought the major significance of this particular tragedy lay in the fact that it occurred where so much anti-gun machinery was already in place. Now, I worry that at the same time, well-intentioned virtue-signaling policies (for the non-tin-foiled or impossibly jaded among us) may actually be dramatically increasing the chances of these catastrophic attacks, in precisely the places poised to hurt gun owners the most via media/political exploitation. The shear number of defense layers intentionally bypassed so this young man's life was not 'ruined' by incarceration/institutionalization defies all logic or explanation; even a conspiracy would not be so thorough and obvious in ensuring he was able to act out violently. Even the police non-response during the shooting suggests an entrenched culture of resigned passivity in the face of threats up and down the chain of command.

Clearly the entire local police and school system there needs to be held accountable and reformed as far as threat policy. Clearly they have a highly insular culture there that will adamantly resist demonstrably workable solutions (Huffpo has already done a piece about how increasing police presence and zero-tolerance crime policy in schools will disproportionately impact minorities, and should therefore be avoided; just a few days after those exact policies left this latest shooter unattended after years of trouble). I honestly have no idea how our side could go about disarming these ticking time bombs, but hoping another one does not happen is simply not going to be an option if they are all as negligent as this Florida community. And how many more can we possibly withstand, before enough fair-weather politicians decide to 'bend' instead of holding firm?

 

[barnbwt]

There is another strategic side to this fight, and why each subsequent 'conversation' from here on out will continue to be so savage; this is quite possibly the last one the anti's will actually need to expend energy on to pursue disarmament. Quite possibly the culmination of a very long-term legal strategy to paint us into a corner where we are left with badly-neutered firearms yet are forced to defend them as actual machine guns (you know, that completely, utterly indefensible aspect of guns, that almost every gun owner with a clue openly admits we have no chance of winning in courts, who have historically dismissed every argument to the contrary as 'silly' with little thought or explanation).

1) The Supreme Court has almost completely ignored the existence of the RKBA going on a decade now. Heller is for all practical purposes a dead letter, flaunted with impunity, and at best openly mocked in badly out-of-context citations. District court schisms are few due to selection bias effects (there are no anti-gun laws to contest & create precedent in the few pro-gun-ish district courts that pay some kind of lip service to the RKBA, meanwhile caselaw stacks up like cord-wood in the usual places).
2) Semi-automatic firearms have been almost completely conflated with fully automatic ones. The attempt to ban bump fire, is a direct assault on every semi-auto weapon system. Any auto-loader can be bump-fired, and no auto-loader can be designed to fire slow enough for anyone who thinks they currently shoot too fast. The current practice is to pursue bans on weapons with any kind of commonality in function or resemblance to fully automatics, which is to say nearly all of them. The recent Kolbe court case demonstrated the anti-gun argument where semi-automatics were presented as more dangerous than even long-banned machine-guns, more suitable for military use, and therefore ban-able under Heller's famous escape clause.
3) Freely held machine-guns are nothing but a memory, and military service is rare in the general population (especially population centers). Hardly anyone remembers when machineguns were 'only' grossly regulated, as opposed to effectively or outrightly banned. Fewer are wealthy or lucky enough to possess one and become familiar with exactly how miniscule their differences from semi-autos are, both mechanical and practical
4) Once all autoloading or repeating firearms are restricted under licensing schemes or even banned, we really and truly are through the looking glass into the land where guns only have 'sporting' justifications. If your gun must be kept locked away, it can't be argued to be a necessary practical defensive means. If your gun must be hopelessly outdated technologically, it can't be argued as a convincing deterrent to any kind of tyranny, or an asset to any kind of martial need. That's the point where things become like the last part of The Old Man and the Sea, where the giant marlin is dead and lashed to the boat, the fisherman watching helplessly as it is ripped apart by sharks in a feeding frenzy on the way back to port leaving nothing but bones. Only with cake.

Reclassifying bump stocks is basically how they stealth-ban all semi-automatic weapons over the next decade or so, just like they did with open-bolt guns decades ago.

 

[AlexanderA]

To be fair, they are actually in the bottom middle for DC types.

The standard of comparison for NRA executives' salaries should not be the salaries of corporate K Street lobbyists, but rather the average salaries of NRA members. After all this is supposed to be a grass-roots organization.

 

[AlexanderA]

Heller is for all practical purposes a dead letter, flaunted with impunity, and at best openly mocked in badly out-of-context citations.

The Heller case is no comfort to anyone trying to defend AR-15's. Justice Scalia seeded it with plenty of dicta that could be used to justify bans on those types of weapons (the upholding of the New York SAFE Act is an example).

The main culprit is Scalia's denigration of the Militia Clause. With the Militia Clause being given proper weight (with the important proviso that the "militia" is synonymous with the "people"), ordinary citizens would have the constitutional right to be as well armed as the standing army. (Which I believe to have been the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.) Such is clearly not the case under the Heller jurisprudence. I've been saying for years that we would have been better off under the rationale of the Miller case (1939) than under Heller.

 

[barnbwt]

MIller isn't much comfort either, when some 1% or so of your population has anything to do with military service, and no veteran has been elected to the highest political offices in decades (let alone the court system). They are both necessary precedents that represent two responsibilities that the RKBA affords us, the people; self defense, and civil defense. The courts will eventually square the circle and compromise instead of playing peek-a-boo and citing one case while ignoring the other to uphold every kind of restriction. They have to, since there are too many swaths of America that frankly will not tolerate any other outcome. You'll have 'gun sanctuary counties' and similar rebellion pop up all over the place if our civil rights are suddenly denied after two and a half centuries by some ignorant black-robes thousands of miles away (undeniably ignorant of guns, if not 'gun law').

As far as the NRA budget, lobbyists do kind of have appearances to uphold. There's a reason lawyers drive Mercedes and it isn't just because they like the car. People take you seriously when they know you have power (money) and are willing to share some measure of it (fancy dinners, 'convenience fees,' etc). It stinks, but it's the rules of the game, and the NRA is in no way notably bad about this. Now, the guys constantly screaming they have bought off congress with the massive largess of the gun industry, while they themselves are wholly-owned AstroTurf subsidiaries of Bloomberg on the other hand... I'm also pretty sure K street lobbyists make a whole lot more money than most stock brokers, largely for the same reason that they are a lot more important as far as securing their prize from law makers, than the little guys far away paying their wages.

You don't want your 'best' spokesman showing up in an old suit & a bad haircut, and who has to split the tip for a meal with the client since his per diem wasn't high enough

 

[armoredman]

I wonder how much the county sheriff lack of effort can throw their scripted message off stride, with the deliberate inaction of the SRO and 3 other deputies, waiting for the PD officers to come in and actually handle the situation? While I agree this could go badly, but would it not be something to throw back at them - "you said no civilian guns, the police are here to protect us, but the unarmed coach died protecting kids with his body, and 4 armed deputies cowered outside doing nothing, so how does that work? You tell us the reason we don't need defensive firearms is the police are here - they showed up and did nothing? Is that how you want to spend your last minutes on Earth being slaughtered like an unarmed sheep while the ones you entrusted your sacred duty of self defense to...wait outside until it's safe for them to enter?"
The point would be to not make it an attack on police officers, who by and large are excellent people who go over and above on a regular basis. This should be aimed at defeating the "you can't defend yourself and we're going to take your guns away so you can't defend yourself because you don't NEED guns to defend yourself!"
Perhaps I am looking at this incorrectly, but it's a thought.

 

[CapnMac]

The standard of comparison for NRA executives' salaries should not be the salaries of corporate K Street lobbyists, but rather the average salaries of NRA members. After all this is supposed to be a grass-roots organization.

I agree with you whole-heartedly.

However, to defend our gun rights, they have to play on a field not of the grassroots' choosing, but one wholly given over to competitive status, avarice, gluttony, and covetousness. They have to get into congressional offices, past flunkies and moat dragons. In a fair and just world, they could do so in off-the-rack Haynes and flannel shirts. It's not a fair or just world; so, they need staff who wear $2-3000 suits the way the rest of us might wear or comfort clothes.

 

[CapnMac]

Something has been nagging at me this week, and it's only just started to gel.

This problem of bent/broken/unhinged students is not universal.

If we presume all of society and all of education is creating similar numbers potential bad actors--where are the shootings in, oh, Minnesota, in Wyoming, in Kansas?

Are those locations unique? Or, perhaps the people there are different? Perhaps the way education is executed is different? Perhaps all of these? I do not know, I am merely speculating, "aloud" as it were. For that matter, where are the shootings in what should be the likely suspects: Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc.? Are the "troubled" youth merely co-opted into the criminal trade too early (13-14 on average) to never have to have high-school existential angst?

I'm not sure. I pose these questions because there are far smarter people with more experience in education on THR than I, their opining ought add to our knowledge base.

 

[AlexanderA]

You don't want your 'best' spokesman showing up in an old suit & a bad haircut, and who has to split the tip for a meal with the client since his per diem wasn't high enough

On the other hand, Wayne LaPierre is not the best spokesman the NRA could have.

 

[barnbwt]

CapnMac, the difference, that is becoming starkly apparent, is that this area was intentionally letting criminal behavior run rampant for political reasons (they've been ramping up a 'non-intervention' thing where kids aren't reporting to the cops, at an increasing rate, for the past five years)

In all honestly, it's starting to sound more and more like an unintentional Fast and Furious type thing, only instead of letting guns 'walk' to track them (or promote gun control), they let criminal students walk to keep their crime metrics declining year over year (I doubt anyone expected or desired this outcome, but it was inevitable, and very, very bad for our side of the issue while only moderately embarrassing for theirs)

 

[barnbwt]

On the other hand, Wayne LaPierre is not the best spokesman the NRA could have.

Hence the 'best' in scare quotes. At this point I think LaPierre sees the door, and is burnishing his image to run for public office or something. Sounding off on completely off-topic political issues at CPAC a day or two after looking 'moderate' on gun control? From the face-man of the NRA?

 

[AlexanderA]

Hence the 'best' in scare quotes. At this point I think LaPierre sees the door, and is burnishing his image to run for public office or something. Sounding off on completely off-topic political issues at CPAC a day or two after looking 'moderate' on gun control? From the face-man of the NRA?

I doubt that he could be elected dog-catcher in Podunk City, and he probably couldn't be elected to his current position in a free and open election by NRA members. The NRA leadership maintains its stranglehold by manipulating the Bylaws and running roughshod at the Conventions. Outsiders and upstarts don't have a chance. It would be impossible for something like the NRA's 1977 "Revolt at Cincinnati" to take place today.

I was really upset with LaPierre's editorial in this month's American Rifleman, which was a rant against "socialists" (read: liberals) and had hardly anything to do with guns. It seemed to me that he was just enhancing his credibility with the far Right. This is no way for the NRA to reach out to gun-owning political independents and, yes, liberals. To be effective as a broad-based gun rights organization, the NRA must not be seen as a mere arm of the Republican party. LaPierre is "all in" not merely with Republicans, but specifically with the Trump wing of the Republican party. This bodes ill for the future, when the political winds shift.

 

[barnbwt]

In his defense the Democrats & liberals are long since 'all out' on anything RKBA. And that's all I'll say since the mods are so touchy here about us making obvious observations.

 

[barnbwt]

Something has been nagging at me this week, and it's only just started to gel.

This problem of bent/broken/unhinged students is not universal.

If we presume all of society and all of education is creating similar numbers potential bad actors--where are the shootings in, oh, Minnesota, in Wyoming, in Kansas?

Are those locations unique? Or, perhaps the people there are different? Perhaps the way education is executed is different? Perhaps all of these? I do not know, I am merely speculating, "aloud" as it were. For that matter, where are the shootings in what should be the likely suspects: Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc.? Are the "troubled" youth merely co-opted into the criminal trade too early (13-14 on average) to never have to have high-school existential angst?

I'm not sure. I pose these questions because there are far smarter people with more experience in education on THR than I, their opining ought add to our knowledge base.

It's likely outside what we're allowed to discuss, but apparently this school district was allowing criminal behavior to run rampant to the point the juvie school was shut down. Same issue popped up when Trayvon was killed since had prior crimes that were ignored, but luckily the focus was steered to Zimmerman and we didn't have talk about it (same as guns are being demonized now). Now, normally criminals are just selling drugs, picking fights, and robbing people, but that same enforcement system catches psychopaths, too. Dismantling it for the sake of the former left these schools (the whole region was in on it, apparently) defenseless against the latter.

Like I said, I'm still horrified by the potential scale of vulnerability across the US this event represents.

 

[CapnMac]

Like I said, I'm still horrified by the potential scale of vulnerability across the US this event represents.

As are we all, I should think.

Not merely for the potential loss of "our" rights; but for the loss to our posterity.

My nagging suspicion, the one I do not have the tools to perform the meta-analysis of the data to confirm or deny, is that there are links to these things. My overlook on this, is that it seems to occur in affluent school districts, is somewhat liberally-inclined areas, to complicated families not new to those surroundings.

I know that there are flaws in my generalization (this meta-analysis is way out of my skillset). But, it does seem to explain why these shootings are not happening in Mississippi, or Utah, Wyoming, etc. It is not merely one thing--wealth. politics, family status, etc.--but a confluence of things. Which may be beyond measure--how would one scale societal fortitude.

But, if this is a thing, and it can be identified, we could then apply the risk factors as a template, one to sugesst, and only suggest additional scrutiny to see about preventing these event before they even begin. Which would also not mean curtailing the rights of those not affected. Applying our energies to fixing the actual problem will yield far better results than broad-brush punishmnet of the innocent.

 

[barnbwt]

No, they happen; see Texas for example. But what happens less often, is the killer having free reign to slaughter as many as possible before the cops bother to arrive. I *suspect* at this point there is less willingness to overlook warning signs should they occur, and less tolerance of worrisome behavior all around. Even when bad events happen, there is no infrastructure locally to tap into the national orgs.

Not a conspiracy so much as an explanation

 

[Phaedrus/69]

A big part of the problem is that the NRA (like it or not, the voice of gun owners) has painted itself into a corner by becoming an arm of the Republican party. This has increasingly alienated pro-gun independents and Democrats (and there are still a lot of them). A perfect example is Wayne LaPierre's screed against "socialism" (liberalism) in this month's American Rifleman. This had very little to do with guns, and was a gratuitous insult to millions of liberal gun owners. Successful politics is a game of addition, not subtraction.

The ironic thing is that the NRA is tying itself to a Republican party that, when push comes to shove, may not be all that pro-gun. They talk a good game but their actions belie their words.

Going. Off. Message. The death-knell of all advocacy groups, and a sure sign their leadership believes they've already accomplished their goals.

I couldn't agree more! Many times I've brought up the same points you're making but it generally falls on deaf ears. I for one don't care what Wayne thinks of socialism and it has nothing to do with their core mission of advancing gun rights. The NRA has become a propaganda wing of the Republican party and it's hurting their cause overall.

 

[barnbwt]

On one hand you're right, on the other, no body but the Elephants is even giving them lip service, so I get it.