Progressive Game Plan To Steal The 2nd

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • TraderJack

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 10, 2008
    202
    16
    I read this over on THR, some of you may have seen it. It scares the hell out of me!

    This is the game plan for the democrats/progressives to defeat us at the polls. They plan to 'take back' the 2nd Amendment with subversion and false promises.

    Here's an intro from their web site...

    "Progressives are seen as anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, and disrespectful of gun owners. This seven-step strategy memo shows how progressives can retake the Second Amendment while holding true to their principles."

    My suggestion is that if you care about your guns, read, download and print the PDF.
    Then get involved!

    Attached is the PDF -
     

    turnandshoot4

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 29, 2008
    8,626
    48
    Kouts
    Only one thing is fishy here. It said that 67% of gun owners would support a new AWB. I highly doubt that. A great read and a good reason to get involved. Thanks!
     

    Pami

    INGO Mom
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    5,568
    38
    Next to Lars
    I have a feeling I'm going to make more enemies with this response, so please take it with a grain of salt. It really does come from sincere interest in the answer, not out of devil's advocate response-generating spite. :)

    I read all the way through the PDF (twice, even, to make sure I understood it), and I really think it brings the message home to its target audience -- presidential and congressional candidates who typically lean liberal (Democrat) but support the Second Amendment. However, because they (the candidates) bill themselves as Democrats (Progressives, since that's who this article was written for in 2006), by most gun-owners they are seen as anti-gun supporters and anti-Second-Amendment-Rights people. What this article is telling the candidates to do is to stop avoiding the gun issues (I assume this was done in an attempt to stay within their party guidelines) and speak out in support of these issues:

    Progressives have to take back the Second Amendment – ending all equivocation on the meaning of the Second Amendment by inserting strong support for the individual rights interpretation in all gun discussions.
    Take back the Second Amendment as in show support for it, not as in revoke it completely.

    What concerns me about this article are the facts used to show what voters' true concerns are:

    • By a margin of 92-7%, voters support improving the background check system to make instant checks faster and more accurate (90-9% among gun owners).
    • By a margin of 90-9%, voters support closing the gun show loophole (85-13% among gun owners, and 83-16% among those who have attended gun shows!).
    • By a margin of 77-21%, voters support renewing the assault weapons ban (66-32% among gun owners).
    I wish there were cited sources for those polls and statistics because from what I've been reading on various forums and websites, I'm a little surprised by those staggering numbers. I can see how phrasing of the question during the poll might make a difference...such as "If the definition of 'assault weapon' were more accurately defined, would you support renewing the assault weapons ban?" The leading qualifiers on those kinds of questions can make a huge impact, but rarely are reported when stating overall statistics like that. But without those qualifications being stated, I'm surprised to see the overwhelming support for those statements. (I mean really, 85% of gun owners want to close the "gun show loophole" when what I've been reading suggests many gun owners say the "loophole" is media hype generated to scare the general populace into believing criminals get their guns illegally through gun shows? I'm struggling with that one.)


    I guess my question is this: what is it about this article that scares you? If the candidate is genuine, then his or her previous voting records and speeches would support that sincerity. If it does not, then the candidate needs to strongly show evidence to show his or her mind has been changed and will not be swayed in the future. This article implies that many gun-issue voters are single-issue voters. They vote Republican solely because Democrats are known to want to .. modify (I'm hesitant on "obliterate".. it IS the Second Amendment and would take an Act of God to have it changed significantly at this moment in time) .. the interpretation of our Second Amendment Rights. This article tells the candidates that he or she needs to prove the voters are wrong in their pre-conceived notions about where a candidate stands on the Second Amendment issues we are facing today.

    The key is really to pay very close attention to what exactly the candidates are saying, what their past records indicate (especially recent ones), and make your decisions based on how honest you think the candidate is being. I know.. politics.. honesty... they don't generally go hand in hand...

    I feel as though you are saying that with the statement "Take Back the Second Amendment" you feel that the writer of this article wants to erase the Second Amendment. I didn't get that impression at all. I felt as though he was saying that they need to make clear their position on the Second Amendment and the issues that surround it. As I said, the only thing that really "scared" me was the factoids that were inserted into it to give the candidates confidence that stronger gun "safety" measures will be supported by everyone, not just non-gun-owners.
     

    TraderJack

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 10, 2008
    202
    16
    I was using their language Pami...
    Their strategy is to 'own' the 2nd by trying to convince everyone the progressives are gun lovers too.

    I've heard several liberals say that, "the Founding Fathers were liberal so what's wrong with being a liberal?"

    In essence, they want us to believe they are really on our side. Once they have our trust, lookout.
    They're a sneaky bunch!
     

    Scutter01

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 21, 2008
    23,750
    48
    They're a sneaky bunch!

    dbmvle.jpg
     

    Pami

    INGO Mom
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    5,568
    38
    Next to Lars
    I was using their language Pami...
    Their strategy is to 'own' the 2nd by trying to convince everyone the progressives are gun lovers too.

    I've heard several liberals say that, "the Founding Fathers were liberal so what's wrong with being a liberal?"

    In essence, they want us to believe they are really on our side. Once they have our trust, lookout.
    They're a sneaky bunch!

    So... you're saying once they are in office they'll change their minds and work to revoke the Second Amendment?

    Sorry I'm struggling so much with this. I grew up in a Democratic house and initially voted Democrat because that's what my mom did, but eventually stopped paying attention because Indiana is such a Republican state that I stopped believing my vote would count. I haven't really paid much attention to politics since I was in high school and had aspirations to get into photojournalism as a career (I wanted to be the lead photographer for the National Geographic :D). Now that I'm older and wiser (and have a husband who is much more politically savvy than my first one was), I'm trying to pay closer attention to the differences in the parties/candidates so I can make up my own mind rather than do what my mom (or my husband, for that matter) always does. :)
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    This is coming from the same folks that think that if they change their name we will some how forget what they really are? The simple fact that they put this in writing, let alone not sourcing their statistics, shows their ineptness.

    They do have one thing right though. If they say it enough, people will repeat it and those that care not for accuracy will call it the truth. We all know that there is no such thing as the "gun show loophole" yet this term is used frequently.
     

    IUGradStudent

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 1, 2008
    812
    16
    Bloomington, IN
    Pami--I think they're saying pay lipservice to the 2nd amendment--they're not saying to really support it. It seems to me that Obama's been listening to guys like this. Obama is very careful to say that he supports 2A--he says he's pro 2A. Yet in the past he's advocated a total ban on hanguns in the US. This seems more like wolf in sheep's clothing than wolf becoming sheep.
     

    Pami

    INGO Mom
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    5,568
    38
    Next to Lars
    Pami--I think they're saying pay lipservice to the 2nd amendment--they're not saying to really support it. It seems to me that Obama's been listening to guys like this. Obama is very careful to say that he supports 2A--he says he's pro 2A. Yet in the past he's advocated a total ban on hanguns in the US. This seems more like wolf in sheep's clothing than wolf becoming sheep.

    Thank you, that makes sense to me. :)
     

    IUGradStudent

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 1, 2008
    812
    16
    Bloomington, IN
    Pami--Google has revealed more.

    The group that put out that memo on 2A is "The Third Way Culture Project." Their President is Jonathan Cowan. He is the guy who founded and initially ran Americans for Gun Safety. Uh, oh, does that name sound familiar? That's a group which purports to be about gun safety, but is really about registering guns and licensing gun owners. Here's the NRA's writeup on them from 2002.

    These guys are definately wolves. They're all about how to take your guns without looking like they're about to take your guns. Again, kinda like Obama--look like you're trying to get past partisan politics while running on a hard hard left platform.

    UPDATE: Looks like AGS is gone, they've transmorphed into the Third Way group.
     

    hunter480

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 28, 2008
    122
    16
    Coatesville, In.
    So... you're saying once they are in office they'll change their minds and work to revoke the Second Amendment?

    Sorry I'm struggling so much with this. I grew up in a Democratic house and initially voted Democrat because that's what my mom did, but eventually stopped paying attention because Indiana is such a Republican state that I stopped believing my vote would count. I haven't really paid much attention to politics since I was in high school and had aspirations to get into photojournalism as a career (I wanted to be the lead photographer for the National Geographic :D). Now that I'm older and wiser (and have a husband who is much more politically savvy than my first one was), I'm trying to pay closer attention to the differences in the parties/candidates so I can make up my own mind rather than do what my mom (or my husband, for that matter) always does. :)

    I think you need to look at each party`s platform. Candidates may say that they`re not tied to their party`s platform, and in truth, a very small number of them do actually vote contrary to that platform on some issues. Having said that, most Dems do vote mainly that platform being: spending on many social programs, pro-abortion, and anti-gun. The Republicans base platform being pro-business, anti-abortion, and pro Second Amendment.

    I`ve been deceived by politicans before that claimed to be moderate Dems, and saw they lied as I viewed their voting records. That`s why I`ll always vote straight ticket from now on.
     

    Windwalker

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 20, 2008
    111
    16
    Mr. Kessler gets paid for helping the Dems. win more elections. To do this he knows that they will have to get some of the Second Amendment voters. He is teaching them what to say to get these votes. It has nothing to do with the truth. He can not prove the statistics quoted but is relying on the fact that if something is repeated often enough some of the people will believe it. BEWARE of Leopards changing their spots! If their voting record does not support what they are saying,BEWARE.
     

    kludge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    5,360
    48
    The problem with most of the poll statistics is that they are obtained with questions that give the desired outcome.

    Everyone needs to read "The Bias Against Guns."
     
    Top Bottom