From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:12:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.183540.6980@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
> |>    (JM writes)
> |> 	All good organizations ... so why don't we hear from them ? 
> |> 	I've never heard a TV spot I could attribute to them, never
> |> 	a radio ad, never even a little square blurb in a large-
> 
> If the NRA with all it's clout finds it nearly impossible to get the
> media barrons to run their adds I suspect that the smaller organizations
> have found it completely impossible not to mention expensive.
> 

	As I said to someone else, if Op-Rescue can get their ads
	run on CNN/TBS - a network owned by the guy who squeezes
	Jane Fondas goodies every night - then the NRA could get
	some time as well. Someone isn't trying very hard.

> |> 
> |> 	While there is some value to organizations that work behind
> |> 	the scenes, enlightening politicians and such, the NRA is
> |> 	serving as the focus of the anti-gunners ire and its poor
> |> 	image hurts the cause. Other prominent images are necessary
> 
> I agree that more exposure for other organizations is desirable but
> I am not sure how it can be achieved.
> 

	Newspapers and local TV stations. It is not all that expensive
	to take out paid ads in medium-circulation newspapers. Target
	papers that cover the major population areas. The ads need
	not be full-page, indeed that may seem like overkill. The
	same goes for locally-owned TV stations that are carried via
	cable through high population areas. Certian radio stations
	could also be used. In each of these cases, these companies
	are usually hurting for money and will accept almost anything
	regardless of its political implications. Also, citizens
	should be encouraged to post to 'Letters to the Editor'
	sections of their local papers - stating reasonable cases
	for the RKBA. 


> |> 	The NRA has commonly used hunting as the main reason to own
> 
> I have only been a member since the New NRA came into being so I can not
> comment on the Cassidy years and before but this does not seem to be
> the case now.
> 
> |> 	firearms. The result has been the ban on 'non-sporting' 
> |> 	weapons ("assault" rifles) from many foreign suppliers and
> |> 	soon probably on domestic suppliers as well. Even worse,
> 
> Seems to me the NRA has been fighting those bans. True they don't
> emphasize the milita aspect as much as the sporting arms but I
> suspect this is done to incite complacent hunters to action.
> 

	Every time the NRA raises its voice against those weapons
	bans it now just provides fuel for HCI and similar interests.
	The NRA has allowed itself to become so tarnished, that
	even reasonable objections to prohibitions are now seen
	with the same cynicism reserved for when the IRA condemns
	violence. 

> |> 	there is not a single excuse, reasonable or otherwise, to
> |> 	support sport hunting that will stand-up to even 10 seconds
> |> 	of 'Bambi'. The public sees hunting season as the government
> |> 	encouraging violent, sick loonies to do carnage to cute
> |> 	furry animals. Over-population ... who shot the predator
> |> 	species ? Hunters ! Let the game wardens thin the herds as
> |> 	required, but don't sanction Bambi-cide ! (they may say)
> 
> The same could be said about militia weapons. There is not one single
> excuse that will stand up to even 10 seconds of statist arguments.
> The public sees those of use who take our rights to defend ourselves
> from a possible government abuse as paranoid, mercinary nut cases.
> What do you propose. Make hunters the sacrificial lamb in hopes that
> the gun grabbers will stop there. We must all stand together or we
> will surely fall separately.

	No, I do not propose to sacrifice hunters in an attempt
	to support self-defense. What I am saying is that the
	value of the "glorious hunting heritage" argument in
	favor of private firearms ownership is rapidly diminishing.
	Time to drop it from the rhetoric *now* before it
	becomes a genuine liability.

> This is very much at odds with my experiance with the new NRA. I
> haven't seen any of the recent T.V. ads (I haven't watched t.v in
> over three years except for the election coverage). Maybe someone

	Sir, I strongly suggest that you watch quite a bit more
	TV. Dull and trite as it may be, it is the prime feed
	for popular culture. Who was it that said "know your enemy" ?
	In this case, TV has become the enemy. Observe how it
	undermines the will to resist aggression, how it portrays
	effective resisters as lunatics, how it glorifies the
	'Bambi mentality'. Somehow or other, wimpish and passive
	attitudes got mixed into the otherwise positive trend
	towards social liberalism. ( yep, I'm a liberal ... whatever
	that means ) These attitudes must be dissected and
	counteracted without having to impress fascism on the
	rest of the cultural experience.

	Most TV is very unrealistic in regards to personal threats
	and how they must be dealt with. Not all, but most. 
	The other most disturbing aspect is the unending slew
	of 'hero cop' shows - where the saintly police, after
	torturing the bill of rights for most of the show, appear
	like magic just in time to save the poor defensless victims.

> |> 	Personally, I never hunt anything larger than your average
> |> 	common rodent - squirrels, jack-rabbits etc.. I have a
> |> 	gut feeling that rejects sport hunting of larger species.
> 
> I hope you get to feeling better. Just kidding. Gut feeling you know...
> Twas a joke... OK. a bad joke. ;-)

	Not to worry.

> |> 	Survival hunting is OK by me, however. So, even myself who
> |> 	strongly supports the RKBA is unmoved and unmotivated by
> |> 	the typical NRA ad. Breech the issue of self-defense or
> |> 	keeping would-be totalitarians at bay and I get very
> |> 	interested. The situations in LA and Homestead should have
> |> 	figured promenently in national pro-RKBA spots ... but the
> 
> Well it (LA) did in their magazine adds. As I say I don't know about
> the TV.

	I saw a few magazine ads ... in gun magazines ... relating
	to these situations. The TV coverage was rather anti-RKBA,
	though not totally. Korean resisters were commonly shown
	burning ammunition - but the large hostile crowds they were
	holding at bay were mysteriously left out of the camera frame.
	The Homestead situation was actually a more pro-RKBA scenerio.
	No horrible massacres were committed by the armed homeowners
	even under those trying conditions. I don't think that any
	undeserving person was shot. Perhaps the most compelling
	pictures were of rather young children toting shotguns while
	their parents got some sleep. Even they didn't abuse the
	power that was entrusted to them. It took over a week before
	any worthwhile police presence was reestablished there, and
	the citizens did just fine taking care of themselves.


> |>				And for gods [sc for non-theists] 
> |> 	sake, don't place pro-gun ads in GUN MAGAZINES ! Talk about
> |> 	preaching to the converted ...)
> 
> I agree that every effort must be made to get more exposure in the
> popular magazine, TV etc but I think that the ads in the gun magazines
> are useful considering that only a tiny minority of gun owners in this
> country are members of any pro-RKBA organization.

	You are correct ... but 90% of these ads are in gun mags
	alone. This is a waste of money. Put a *few* ads in such
	magazines and save the big cashwas for the 'not-us'.

-- Jim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns