Tom Gresham and "Gun Talk"

Tom Gresham said:

Passion is fine, Jeff.

But, when you say that I ignore the Second Amendment, and you say things like "Tom Gresham and his ilk . . . " you are not just showing passion. You are telling lies, spreading hatred, and following the trend that says anyone who works for the Second Amendment in a manor that's different from yours is . . what? Working AGAINST the Second Amendment?

I started actively fighting gun control laws in 1967. Soon after that it became an important part of the career I chose, and I've been fighting gun control laws for more than 40 years.

My position is clear -- and simple. We should repeal every gun control law. Period. Not really hard to understand, is it? I've said that hundreds of times on the air. If you have a way to say that which makes it more clear, I'm open to suggestions.

My other position is that I'm primarily interested in winning. NOT making gun banners publicly admit that they are wrong and we are right. For some strange reason, some folks on the gun rights side have that as their goal, and it often prevents them from recognizing a win -- or a loss. If you don't know which of your efforts results in wins and which result in loses, it's likely that you'll continue to do things that increase the loses.

My question is always "Is what we are doing working?" Does a particular move, or tactic, or campaign bring us closer to whatever that specific goal is? How would you know? What is your measuring mechanism? Who are you talking to? (Hint: If it's only other gun rights folks, you can not know if your tactics are working.)

You say you have no faith in "the system." What system is that? Elections? Legislative changes? Litigation? Should we abandon our efforts (where we have made massive gains in the last few years)? In favor of doing . . . what?

Now, to dig a bit deeper. ALL the rights we are able to enjoy (note the careful use of words, please, because I did not say the rights we have) are dependent upon public opinion. HORRORS! Did I really just say that? Of course I did. Run it out as far as you can imagine. Public opinion can and has repealed Constitutional amendments. If you want to win in elections, in the legislatures and in Congress, and in courts, you MUST win public opinion.

(Note, please, that yesterday I was carrying my 1911 openly, because that worked for the dress and the occasion. Later in the day, I was carrying concealed, because fit the dress and the occasion.)

Here's the question I ask on the air, and I ask it here. Have the long gun carry efforts inside stores, with photos posted, improved our image with the public? Or, do you think these staged efforts drive the public toward more restrictive gun control laws? What do you base your opinion on? I suggest talking to people in stores -- people you don't know. Strike up a conversation with a dozen people in a Target, Macys, Dillards, Williams Sonoma, etc., and get their opinion. I suspect you'll find, as have I, that much of the public is not in favor of this, and that (the most important part) they would like to see laws preventing long gun open carry.

If that is the case, and these actions are driving the public toward supporting MORE gun laws, and not fewer gun laws (and we won't even talk about the PR bonanza it provides the anti-gun groups), in what metric does this qualify as winning?

Stomping your feet and *demanding* your gun rights doesn't nothing more than show the world that we don't know how to get things done.

Actually WORKING on it . . . in legislatures, in Congress, in elections, in the courts, through public relations, is certainly less satisfying than just yelling I WANT WHAT I WANT WHEN I WANT IT.

As boring, tedious, frustrating, time-consuming, difficult and expensive as it is to do these things, these are how we currently are winning.

The gun banners didn't make so much progress by demanding. They worked the system for 50 years while many on our side comforted themselves with "What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand?" Cute. Catchy. And totally not helpful.

We will not continue to win back gun rights without being willing to fight, and without being willing to make honest appraisals of our successes and our failures.

Click to expand...

georg jetson said:

I can see that the topic of this thread is about Tom, but the OP seems willing to move the conversation to a more open discussion of the 2A in general. If so then I have some questions.

-Working "outside the system" can have different meanings. Does it have to include bloodshed?
No bloodshed would be best. However the INITIATORS of force most likely would be Agents of The State trying to enFORCE their "laws".

-I say the number one enemy of individual rights is the legal profession. At one time, it was understood that a Republican form of government required strict adhearance to a written constitution. The courts have slowly morfed this into a long list of excuses why the written constitution can be superceeded. Once this genie has been let out of this bottle, can it be placed back by working "within the system"?
Yes, the bottom feeding lawyers, are the ones who proclaim "fighting for your rights" while doing it in THEIR "system". When I hear and see Gottlieb speak my stomach turns. The honchos at the NRA worse as they have taken in hundreds of millions in the last couple years and have done NOTHING to reverse things in California etc. And No I do not believe it will EVER be restored to strict adherence to the Constitution(Pre NFA1934) using the "system"

-Tom brings up a good point about the rights we're able to enjoy being subject to public opinion. This idea is an old one and is the very reason it takes more than a simple majority to change the several constitutions. However, if we allow simple majority opinion to rule the day, we'll inevitably lose the battle. How do we restore the authority of the several constitutions "working within the system"? So far the only "victories" I see succeed in changing state law, but in no way have I seen a 2A victory remove any of the court's excuses to violate it. Even in the Heller v DC "win" the SCOTUS makes it clear that...
The "public opinion" ruse is merely trying to appease the wolves into not eating the sheep. There should be NO negotiation in regards to anything in the Bill of Rights, yet the "Gun Rights advocates/lawyers" will gladly step up to The State's table and negotiate all day long, Hell, Gottlieb will even write the States laws for them. I'm sorry, but Tom's "working within the system", and concern over "public opinion completely defines "Democracy" OWKA 2 wolves and a sheep voting over what's for dinner and ABANDONS The Constitution all together. When Tom pretty much came out AGAINST Open Carry Texas and other citizens in Texas because of their dress or appearance a while back that settled it for me where he's going to stand (With the lawyers and LOBBYISTS in Suits and Ties). The terrible shame is, WE don't NEED lawyers and lobbyists when we HAVE the 2nd Amendment, and if the politicians ignore it they should be removed from office BY ANY MEANS for violating their oath and committing treasonous acts (enslaving The People with Unconstitutional "laws")


"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

I'm not contending that this was not a win, but how does it get us any closer to having the full authority of the several constitutions restored?

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

I not taking a side, but can someone provide cites to Tom Gresham standing up for constitutional carry?

Click to expand...

Tom Gresham said:

Sure. Here's one.

I, Tom Gresham, fully support the ability to legally carry a gun without a permit, and without the permission of any government agency.

If you need multiple cites, I can post another one.

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

Not here, we can expect that here. Transcripts from your public speaking or citations.

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

Not here, we can expect that here. Transcripts from your public speaking or citations.

Click to expand...

Tom Gresham said:

So, what I say isn't good enough for you? But what I have said on other occasions is? In other words, you are saying you expect me to lie. Strange. But, then, perhaps you don't know me. I don't say one thing to one group and something else to another.

If it's important to you, you are welcome to listen to the past radio shows. Perhaps you'll find what you are looking for there. We have about eight years' worth archived here: http://guntalk.libsyn.com/.

Enjoy.

Click to expand...

J_dazzle23 said:

I've been lurking this thread for quite a while, and it seems there is something quite obvious going on in our nation that I'm not sure is being conveyed in a way that jeff is able to see.

Over the last 20 years in the US, we have seen a HUGE rise of numbers in, for example, gay rights activists. We have seen the lgtb community win state after state in a LANDSLIDE for marriage equality. I'm not going to give any opinions on that, but one thing that is quite clear is that something that is not NEARLY as clearly spelled out in the bill of rights is getting basically whatever they want, and it is because it is A. Trendy (of all things) and B. It is killing it in the media and court of public opinion.

In my view, gun owners and 2nd amendment activists could learn a thing or two about the LGBT community. In less than 20 years, they went from being a violation of social more and cause of aids to an equality status symbol, hollywood focus, and civil rights movement that basically gets whatever it wants.

I think this is the point Tom is trying to make. The LGTB community never would have made it anywhere had they been rolling their San Fran parade down the Isle at Dillard's or target....they used the SYSTEM.

Seems like a smart move, to me.

Click to expand...

Primus said:

Stop making sense damn it.....

Click to expand...

Marco said:

While Gresham believes that all “responsible” adults should carry a gun, he too does not believe the government should require training

Http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35839541/ns/us_news-life/t/minutes-concealed-weapon-permit/#.VDb9d2bLfMI

Click to expand...

J_dazzle23 said:

The LGTB community never would have made it anywhere had they been rolling their San Fran parade down the Isle at Dillard's or target....they used the SYSTEM.

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

The article is about permission slips, not constitutional carry.

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

The LGTB community got in people's face for years with their sexuality, even though they knew it offended people. Same for the civil rights movement. We will never get our RTKBA back by kissing arse, NEVER. In fact if we do not get it firmly implanted in case law, not legislative law, we will lose it forever the same as most of the world.

Some people think making rights popular by compromise will win the day. It never has worked! In most of the countries where guns are outlawed, gun control is popular. As soon as it is popular, and SCOTUS shifts direction guns owned by the public will be gone forever.

And we all can thank those popularity soldiers, more so than the antis.

Click to expand...