From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Nov12.004225.15048@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>
	<1992Nov12.180624.1867@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:58:31 GMT

<In article <1992Nov12.180624.1867@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

<   >  What about the national organizations: GOA, CCRKBA, SAF.
<   > They are an alternative to the NRA.
<   > 
<   > (Gun Owners of America)
<   > (Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and bear Arms)
<   > (Second Amendment Foundation)
<   > 
<   > 
<   > RP- Member of all of them, including NRA.

<	   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-
<	   distribution newspaper. Silent organizations are useless.
<	   They must be even *louder* than the NRA, make themselves
<	   distinct from the NRA and hammer their point of view home
<	   to the mass audience. 

	Given that NRA was unable to get any spots on major TV
	networks during the Olympics, given that "TIMEWEEK" 
	has refused to run ANY NRA ads, given that "Vogue"
	and other "women's" magazines refuse to accept ANY
	advertising from Smith & Wesson or NRA...what chance
	do the smaller organizations have of getting themselves
	heard?

<	   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. 

	And the same image-makers who have worked so hard for
	years to create that poor image are going to accept
	advertising from GOA or CCRKBA? 

	One hates to prick such charming naivete, but...

<Other prominent images are necessary
<	   so that the general public can see that it isn't ONLY the NRA
<	   that supports the RKBA, but many people - for many different
<	   reasons.

	Which may well be *precisely* why NRA, GOA, CCRKBA will not
	be allowed to run their ads on major network TV, in major
	"news" magazines such as "TIME" and "NEWSWEEK"....the 
	opposition isn't stupid and plays by its' own rules,

<	   The NRA has commonly used hunting as the main reason to own
<	   firearms. 

	Yes and no. Read the current set of "CRIMESTRIKE" ads
	for a new and very different approach..by NRA.
	
<The result has been the ban on 'non-sporting' 
<	   weapons ("assault" rifles) from many foreign suppliers and
<	   soon probably on domestic suppliers as well. 

	Note that the import ban was done by Executive Order..

<Even worse,
<	   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 has already been said of military-style look-
	alikes....

<	   So, we see a unique turn of events ... the NRA says that
<	   hunting is the purpose of guns (no mention of defending
<	   ones life - too nasty a subject). 

	Sorry, that simply isn't correct. Again, see the "new"
	NRA ad campaign, "Crimestrike", running in any and every
	magazine that will accept it since mid-Summer.

	"Crimestsrike" must be having some effect; I just read
	a newspaper "analysis" (in someone else's paper,
	unfortunately) that called the program both "alarmist"
	and "unjustifiable".

<So, the fed says "Fine,
<	   then you won't mind if we ban all weapons unlikely to be
<	   used by hunters.". Next thing, the anti-hunting groups are
<	   doing a great job making hunting into a great moral evil
<	   that only bloodthirsty savages would indulge in. 


	Yes, this scenario has been pointed out not only on this
	group, but by Neal Knox and others.

<	   In this manner we are trapped by the NRAs rhetoric. 

	Huh? 

<	   interested. The situations in LA and Homestead should have
<	   figured promenently in national pro-RKBA spots ... but the
<	   NRA just can't do it. 

	Excuse me? I've got at least 2 or 3 magazines at home
	in which LA is prominently featured by NRA in "Crimestrike"
	series ads.

<Someone else has to. (and for gods 
<	   sake, don't place pro-gun ads in GUN MAGAZINES ! Talk about
<	   preaching to the converted ...)

	Preaching to the converted? If only it were so; I bet that
	less than 10% of the subscribers of "Guns & Ammo" are NRA
	members. If just 1/3 of the rest joined, NRA membership
	would exceed 4 million in short order.

	There is also the issue of convincing the apathetic that
	"salami" tactics affect THEM; convincing the hunter who
	owns only rifles that handgun bans will affect HIM,
	convincing the sporting-clays enthusiast that banning
	semi-auto rifles will affect HER, convincing the target-
	pistol owner that "trigger lock" requirements will affect
	HIM...not today, but very soon.

	If only the readers of the gun mags WERE converted...our
	task would be much, much easier.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns