Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Guerilla Politics (not advocating anything violent or illegal FYI)

  1. #1
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763

    Guerilla Politics (not advocating anything violent or illegal FYI)

    So the genesis of this idea came from a conversation with a canadian shooter awhile back, he was complaining that in Canada they never issue ATC (authorization to carry, equivelant of a CPL/CHL/ etc) licenses. Apparently in Canada each province has a CFO or "Chief Firearms Officer" who's an employee of the RCMP and is in charge of issuing licenses. so he was saying he didn't think CC was ever going to be possible. So I suggested, "who chooses the CFO?" he looks at me and asks what I mean.

    Me: Well this CFO has a boss, and his boss has a boss, eventually it gets to an elected official or group of elected officials
    Canadian: Ok....
    Me: So find a qualified candidate who's sympathetic to your views but not obviously connected to any gun rights groups if you have any in canada
    Canadian: Ok
    Me: Then have your cronies at this group be groomed out as appointees, if you need one or two Mounties to appoint get some people applying and into being mounties for long enough to be considered for such an office
    Candadian: and if our guys gets elected he's going to appoint one guy who will appoint the next until they get into the CFO position?
    Me: Bingo and then he'll issue the permits cause he's your plant. This of course will take time and patience.

    Well After explaining this underhanded idea to him I though "can this be done easier in the United States since in most anti-rights states it's one elected official (a sheriff) who's responsible for issuing the licenses?

    And of course it is. So for a state like california, has anyone in a gun rights group ever thought of finding a sympathetic, experienced cop to run for sheriff on a completely non-gun related platform so that he could be inserted into the position to issue licenses in states with may issue schemes?

    I think this can be done, and probably easier as long as the candidate(s) you're propping up are not making guns a public issue of the campaign. make sure your sheriff candidate speaks all the feel-good obamalama stuff that everyone in an anti-gun county wants to hear (diversity, social justice, change, or any combination of those words) if asked about the 2A he just says "uhh I believe in the 2nd amendment with reasonable restrictions (same one-liner all politicians give) The idea though is to prop up a "stealth candidate" to effect the change you want seen.

    Has anyone ever heard of this being done for any issue?

    And is it a worthy idea to bring quicker change to states that are anti-rights and elect their sheriffs (like Cali)
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    The counties where this would be possible already issue CCWs, even in CA.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    The counties where this would be possible already issue CCWs, even in CA.
    Well the idea is to do this undetected. run a candidate who says nothing about his true purposes, he sounds just the person people in that county would elect. actually it's basically deception is what I'm proposing, well deception is a hard word because we're not lying about positions so much as... emphasizing something else.

    like I said the idea is a "stealth candidate" put forth by a minority who sounds like the majority so they'll elect him and he can thus serve the minority, in this case gun owners. in pro-gun counties licenses are issued, in anti-gun counties they're not. the idea is to put someone up who will fool anti-gunners into putting him in office. he won't be openly pro-gun like the sheriffs who get elected in rural california, he'll sound like an urbanite until he's in office.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Our problem is that none of us freedom-loving people are willing to pretend to be such swine for that long a period of time.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Well the idea is to do this undetected. run a candidate who says nothing about his true purposes, he sounds just the person people in that county would elect. actually it's basically deception is what I'm proposing, well deception is a hard word because we're not lying about positions so much as... emphasizing something else.

    like I said the idea is a "stealth candidate" put forth by a minority who sounds like the majority so they'll elect him and he can thus serve the minority, in this case gun owners. in pro-gun counties licenses are issued, in anti-gun counties they're not. the idea is to put someone up who will fool anti-gunners into putting him in office. he won't be openly pro-gun like the sheriffs who get elected in rural california, he'll sound like an urbanite until he's in office.
    How is this any different from how politics are run now?

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by J1MB0B View Post
    How is this any different from how politics are run now?

    Shhhhhh. Nobody is supposed to know this is how the liberals have been doing it for forty years.

    (Except that EMN named it in the thread title, of course.)
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-15-2012 at 01:41 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •