amzbrady
Regular Member
I wouldnt mind seeing something like the NFA (National Firearms Association), to replace the NRA, or the WFA (Washington Firearm Association).
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Would you financially support the establishment of a Washington State group?
- Thread starter gogodawgs
- Start date
Ruby
Regular Member
I am of two minds about this. While I can see the advantages of being a formal organization, I also see the disadvantages, which Deros enumerated better than I can. Yesterday at Spanaway Starbucks is a perfect example. How effective would it have been if it all had to be planned out and organized, decided who would speak and represent the group, what would be said, all on such short notice? We would never have made it, we would still be planning it instead of DOING it. I know I am reiterating what Deros said, but I agree with him. I have sat on the board of two organizations, one a chapter of the Audubon Society, and the other of a kayak and canoe club I once belonged to. You think we fuss and argue now?!? Baby, you ain't seen nothing yet!! You will have the inevitable personality clashes, the struggle for control of some aspect of control of the organization, people who will belong but won't do anything to advance the cause, people who will want to boss the whole organization, in short, all the problems and headaches of any organization. I believe it will tear us apart. So you form an organization for xyz purposes. How will you treat those who choose not to belong? Will they be ostracized or made to feel bad because they choose not to belong? You may gain some support, but you may lose just as much. I can tell you right now that I can't financially support such an organization, hell I can barely support myself. If I had the money to support such a thing, I would choose to give it to Josh or Tom for their legal expenses instead of to an organization whom I have no way of knowing what they will do with it.
We all have other responsibilities such as jobs, families, and other social obligations. How many of us really NEED another responsibility asking for our attention and our money? The way things are now, we all contribute what we can when we can as far as showing up for meets, being politically active on behalf of OC, etc. I think quite a lot is being done by people without them feeling obligated to do things. Most people are already obligated enough. Everyone's contribution to OC is what they are able to do; some will do more than others because they have the time and the money to do so. Other people will not contribute as much because they can't; will they be looked down upon because of that?!? I believe that one reason we have been successful is because everyone's contribution, whatever it is, is seen as important, as it should be, because it is. You will lose that when you create a hierarchy.
I guess my answer is no, at least for now, for monetary and philosophical reasons.
We all have other responsibilities such as jobs, families, and other social obligations. How many of us really NEED another responsibility asking for our attention and our money? The way things are now, we all contribute what we can when we can as far as showing up for meets, being politically active on behalf of OC, etc. I think quite a lot is being done by people without them feeling obligated to do things. Most people are already obligated enough. Everyone's contribution to OC is what they are able to do; some will do more than others because they have the time and the money to do so. Other people will not contribute as much because they can't; will they be looked down upon because of that?!? I believe that one reason we have been successful is because everyone's contribution, whatever it is, is seen as important, as it should be, because it is. You will lose that when you create a hierarchy.
I guess my answer is no, at least for now, for monetary and philosophical reasons.
Bookman
Campaign Veteran
I voted no.
I voted no because I think that society identifies better with a grass roots movement than with an organization whose officers are paid to promote a cause or to do a certain job. (Google "Tea Party")
Me, I'm your neighbor up (or down) the street. That's what I tell people when they ask if I'm a cop (or a bounty hunter). They listen to me when I talk to them because I don't represent an organization. They think it's fascinating that anyone who is legal to own is legal to carry.
My personal mission in life, in support of the 2nd Amendment, is to not only educate people about their rights, but to bring new shooters to the range. In the past year and a few months I've managed to get 6 people to the range who had NEVER fired a gun before. One of them was TERRIFIED before she went. By terrified I mean she was literally trembling in her shoes. She confronted that fear, though, and has asked me to take her again. That's victory, my friends, and I'll settle for it.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be more than willing to donate to a defense fund on a case by case basis. I just don't think we need a formal organization to get this done,. I want ALL of my donations to be available to the person I send them to/for and I want the say in who my money goes to. I DON'T want to be paying someone else to decide for me who will be represented and who won't, or that my donation will go to a case I don't believe in. I guess I'm just funny that way.
I voted no because I think that society identifies better with a grass roots movement than with an organization whose officers are paid to promote a cause or to do a certain job. (Google "Tea Party")
Me, I'm your neighbor up (or down) the street. That's what I tell people when they ask if I'm a cop (or a bounty hunter). They listen to me when I talk to them because I don't represent an organization. They think it's fascinating that anyone who is legal to own is legal to carry.
My personal mission in life, in support of the 2nd Amendment, is to not only educate people about their rights, but to bring new shooters to the range. In the past year and a few months I've managed to get 6 people to the range who had NEVER fired a gun before. One of them was TERRIFIED before she went. By terrified I mean she was literally trembling in her shoes. She confronted that fear, though, and has asked me to take her again. That's victory, my friends, and I'll settle for it.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be more than willing to donate to a defense fund on a case by case basis. I just don't think we need a formal organization to get this done,. I want ALL of my donations to be available to the person I send them to/for and I want the say in who my money goes to. I DON'T want to be paying someone else to decide for me who will be represented and who won't, or that my donation will go to a case I don't believe in. I guess I'm just funny that way.
Last edited:
.45ACPaddy
Regular Member
That's pretty much what I was saying. I'd like to see a legal defense fund set up, run by volunteers rather than paid workers. It wouldn't be an official Washington Open Carry organization, it would just be a legal defense fund for us OCers. With that, we would have a sold form of legal representation, but we wouldn't be some official organization of open carriers where MUST belong or you're ostracized.
We've done a kick-ass job as a group of individuals, let's keep it going! Why fix something that ain't broke? The only thing I see as being broke is the lack of a legal defense fund. Not all of us an afford a lawyer...
killchain
Regular Member
I voted no.
Once an "organization" takes control of a grassroots issue, it becomes bureaucratically choked to death.
I will, however, donate to causes that advance our rights (such as court cases and the like.)
Once an "organization" takes control of a grassroots issue, it becomes bureaucratically choked to death.
I will, however, donate to causes that advance our rights (such as court cases and the like.)
amzbrady
Regular Member
Biggest problem I see is the power trips the oppointed officers would get, then wanting more money for what they do, then the backstabbing while vying for better positions. After all I'm sure you would need a Pres, vice pres, accountant, and secratary. Not to mention all the rules and regulations that go with memberships. Probably some goofy hats would be needed too, or official badges. If someone gets a non profit deal going, then they will be golden on tax write offs. Maybe we should all set some money aside in envelopes and if the need arises, we can donate directly to an attorney or bail bond ourselves.
I didnt like it when the forum changed and it got harder to post funny pictures with captions, kinda took some of the fun out of this for me. I hate to think of more changes.
I didnt like it when the forum changed and it got harder to post funny pictures with captions, kinda took some of the fun out of this for me. I hate to think of more changes.
Ruby
Regular Member
I agree with amzbrady also. I would be willing to donate what little I can to a legal defense fund for OCers in Washington. I also agree with Bookman, I want to be in control of where my hard earned dollars go. I just remembered an organization I belonged to back in the nineties. It started out just like this, a loosely organized group of people. Then it got organized and became a non-profit. In the space of 2 years, it committed suicide. Those with the money wanted to run everything and those who didn't have much ended up being marginalized. It didn't end pretty and some of the animosity became permanent. I would hate to see that happen to us.
According to shotgun, WCI has done more in a year than he's done in 15. WCI is all voluntary work.
You guys will have to ask WCI why they set the organization up they did. I know a little bit why, but I think it would be better if they said it.
First ,that fact that this is stickied indicates that someone wants to control this issue and thinks they know better how to things.
When I talked to the reporters I made a statement that were a true grass roots organization of like minded folks on this issue coming togather on a forum and we did not want to turn this into a formal entity with officers .
Lets use this incident for example.You would have a board that believes they know best calling a strategy meeting to plan how to respond.Then they would want to decide what is said per script and decide who can and who can't talk.They would be telling people what to say really and who would be allowed to say it.
We don't want scripted responses to these things or someone deciding who will or will not talk and what they will say sticking to so called talking points.
Again we accomplish so much more without worrying who's president and vp etc.We got this done without any one small group deciding how to proceed .Everyone was involved here and we got huge results and we were't paying a staff to do it.
Now maybe small donations to a legal fund would be ok with the group voting on where it's to be used.We don't want to set up a non profit big time group with paid officers because the money you donate would go to pay salaries .This is not only about open carry it is about 2a .We have the SAF.That really has in the last year come around to see we're not the nuts .Peronally I would would donate to them as they already take up the big cases that effect us all.
I wouldn't mind doing a fundraiser for those guys..
This is already becoming devisive.
When I talked to the reporters I made a statement that were a true grass roots organization of like minded folks on this issue coming togather on a forum and we did not want to turn this into a formal entity with officers .
Lets use this incident for example.You would have a board that believes they know best calling a strategy meeting to plan how to respond.Then they would want to decide what is said per script and decide who can and who can't talk.They would be telling people what to say really and who would be allowed to say it.
We don't want scripted responses to these things or someone deciding who will or will not talk and what they will say sticking to so called talking points.
Again we accomplish so much more without worrying who's president and vp etc.We got this done without any one small group deciding how to proceed .Everyone was involved here and we got huge results and we were't paying a staff to do it.
Now maybe small donations to a legal fund would be ok with the group voting on where it's to be used.We don't want to set up a non profit big time group with paid officers because the money you donate would go to pay salaries .This is not only about open carry it is about 2a .We have the SAF.That really has in the last year come around to see we're not the nuts .Peronally I would would donate to them as they already take up the big cases that effect us all.
I wouldn't mind doing a fundraiser for those guys..
This is already becoming devisive.
Last edited:
Dave Workman
Regular Member
Yeah, be right up front with an insult toward people you are eventually going to NEED for support in Olympia. Good thinking.
I've read through this thread and frankly am not convinced the OC movement "needs" a formal organization. Here's why: You guys work impressively as a grassroots, loose-knit, group of PRIVATE CITIZENS. The moment you become part of an organization, you are immediately dismissed as a wing of "the gun lobby." Anything you do from that second forward will be looked at by politicians and media as an orchestrated move by "the gun lobby" and not a bunch of average private citizens protecting their civil rights.
The only way to carry that off is with numbers. CCRKBA accomplishes stuff because it has 650,000 members and supporters all over the country. SAF is successful because it files lawsuits and wins them.
If you managed to get more than a couple of thousand members, you would be remarkably lucky. How big is your base? Are there more than, say, 2,500 people here who OC?
There are approximately 90,000 NRA members in WA. The WAC has more than 15,000 members. There are approximately 258,000 citizens with CPLs here. Do you think for a heartbeat they will come to your support if you castigate them as "FUDDS" on your own forum? Dream on.
You people are effective because you are NOT organized. Your people show up here, there, everywhere, anywhere, and that keeps the pols and press guessing. I see this because it's the business I'm in.
Honestly, what DEROS and Bookman and a couple of the others here makes the most sense.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
There is a lot of thought that went into Wisconsin Carry and how we set it up. It took a lot of time and money, so I would encourage anyone doing the same to think everything through. Here is what I considered.
First, there were PLENTY of other gun-rights groups in Wisconsin. I initially resisted creating WCI because the last thing I wanted to do was splinter the movement into another group. In Wisconsin we had Wisconsin Gun Owners, we had the Wisconsin Patriots, We had WI-Force, we had ICarry (an illinois group that wanted to cover Wisconsin and Illinois.) We had the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association, Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement.
So just off the top of my head there were 6 groups. I didn't think just "another" group was what the state needed.
What eventually changed my (our) minds was the opportunity to do something that other groups were not doing and wouldn't do.
That was file lawsuits. We initially incorporated WCI in order to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Gun Free School Zone law. Other gun-rights groups in Wisconsin hadn't taken this approach and I didn't think they would be receptive to it.
In addition, the organizational structure of other groups, I didn't think lent itself to the principles we established.
Our mission statement was very important to us.
That mission was to advocate for the right to carry. Period. Open-carry, concealed carry, that is up to the individual to decide (not the government) We would take a pro-active action-first approach. We committed to the cost of filing the initial GFSZ lawsuit AND filed the suit before we ever asked for a penny from anyone. "action first"
We didn't think taking money on the 'promise' of getting something done would work in Wisconsin. There were already plenty of groups taking donations. (not disparaging their efforts, we just felt that we'd HAVE to set ourselves apart if we wanted to be taken seriously from the get-go)
Other important things: I think its DANGEROUS to have people have vested financial interest in the "struggle". Sometimes, I wondered what people who made a living off of fighting for the right to carry in Wisconsin would do when we got right to carry. Would people REALLY be willing to work themselves out of a job? I think there will always be a need to guard and protect liberty. History shows us you can't accomplish freedom and then walk away and let it stand for eternity. You have to protect liberty from a constant assault of misguided intentions.
Having said that, NO DOUBT financial support for an organization is going to wax and wane depending on the issues of the day. We felt that once Wisconsin got concealed carry, financial support for an organization would drop dramatically. Therefore we thought it was critical that WCI be 100% volunteer so that when donations and financial support was high OR low, no one's livelihood was at stake and no one could question the motives of the organization. No one could say we were acting against the interest of accomplishing gains in freedom in Wisconsin in order to drum up more support financially.
So what I would say to you guys is:
-Are there already groups to work with/within? Are those groups volunteer based?
-If you do start a group, I strongly suggest you make it 100% volunteer, no one gets paid a penny for their time. Its the only way to make sure you are focused on achieving goals, not just perpetuating the struggle.
-Have a clear well-thought-out mission statement that is based in principles of freedom that you can strictly adhere to. Prepare yourselves for how you will navigate 'tough' issues that would segment the gun-rights crowd. We all know there are the "no compromise" gun advocates who will come out against anything that isn't 100% un-infringed right to carry. Make sure your organization is prepared to navigate around the concerns of those who just want MORE access to opportunity to carry (even if in the form of a privilege) from those who are hard-core no compromise right to carry. In Wisconsin we said that we would advocate for anything that expanded opportunity to carry (even if a permit "privilege") so long as it didn't trade an existing right (open-carry) for a privilege. In other words anything that moved us forward, nothing that exchanged one right at the expense of another.
-be "action first". Take substantive action first and THEN ask people to support what you have done.
-focus on results, not membership growth. If you accomplish things, people will join. If you keep accomplishing things, people will continue to join. As soon as you stop accomplishing things and just try to grow membership, you will lose your way.
-Do not do for others that which they should do for themselves. As a 100% volunteer organization, you want people to engage and be active. Foster a culture within the organization with clear policy/procedures that limits the organizations "official" role to only those things that require an organizational participation to make happen. You don't want people to send in $15 and expect that the organization then does "everything". You'll never be able to fulfill the demands put on you. As an example, in Wisconsin, open-carry picnics and "meet-and-greet" events at Starbucks for Coffee, or restaurants have been a great way to raise public awareness. Many times, those events are organized by members acting independently, and then WCI is invited to attend. As a courtesy, we will then communicate information about the event to our vast membership to get the word out and bring in great attendance. But as a volunteer organization, people don't expect that WCI will spear-head and organize every event all across the state. Our members can just as easily set up events. Since we are all volunteer from the Board of Directors, to officers, to members, there is no reason for people to sit back and expect the organization to do something that they themselves could do. It encourages action from members. The resources of the organization are still there to provide things the members could not.
-Utilize technology resources to promote your accomplishments and build your active member network into an efficient machine that can disseminate information exceptionally fast and draw participation.action from members quickly.
at Wisconsin Carry, we use twitter, facebook, youtube, and listbox (for bulk email communication)
Twitter allows us to send out instant messages when we need a quick response to a situation.
our youtube channel allows us to communicate a message the media may not be willing to cover
Facebook allows us to share a great deal of information as well as giving non-dues-paying "members" a chance to participate and be informed.
We are still in the infancy of utilizing those resources to their fullest (especially the youtube channel we have huge plans for) but they are in place.
Anyway, these are just a few rambling thoughts. Most important is to strictly adhere to your principles. Establish a mission that is based in principle and a realistic results oriented approach to achieving goals. Establish an organizational structure that is pure and that nurtures involvement and results, not personal profit or self-promotion.
First, there were PLENTY of other gun-rights groups in Wisconsin. I initially resisted creating WCI because the last thing I wanted to do was splinter the movement into another group. In Wisconsin we had Wisconsin Gun Owners, we had the Wisconsin Patriots, We had WI-Force, we had ICarry (an illinois group that wanted to cover Wisconsin and Illinois.) We had the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association, Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement.
So just off the top of my head there were 6 groups. I didn't think just "another" group was what the state needed.
What eventually changed my (our) minds was the opportunity to do something that other groups were not doing and wouldn't do.
That was file lawsuits. We initially incorporated WCI in order to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Gun Free School Zone law. Other gun-rights groups in Wisconsin hadn't taken this approach and I didn't think they would be receptive to it.
In addition, the organizational structure of other groups, I didn't think lent itself to the principles we established.
Our mission statement was very important to us.
That mission was to advocate for the right to carry. Period. Open-carry, concealed carry, that is up to the individual to decide (not the government) We would take a pro-active action-first approach. We committed to the cost of filing the initial GFSZ lawsuit AND filed the suit before we ever asked for a penny from anyone. "action first"
We didn't think taking money on the 'promise' of getting something done would work in Wisconsin. There were already plenty of groups taking donations. (not disparaging their efforts, we just felt that we'd HAVE to set ourselves apart if we wanted to be taken seriously from the get-go)
Other important things: I think its DANGEROUS to have people have vested financial interest in the "struggle". Sometimes, I wondered what people who made a living off of fighting for the right to carry in Wisconsin would do when we got right to carry. Would people REALLY be willing to work themselves out of a job? I think there will always be a need to guard and protect liberty. History shows us you can't accomplish freedom and then walk away and let it stand for eternity. You have to protect liberty from a constant assault of misguided intentions.
Having said that, NO DOUBT financial support for an organization is going to wax and wane depending on the issues of the day. We felt that once Wisconsin got concealed carry, financial support for an organization would drop dramatically. Therefore we thought it was critical that WCI be 100% volunteer so that when donations and financial support was high OR low, no one's livelihood was at stake and no one could question the motives of the organization. No one could say we were acting against the interest of accomplishing gains in freedom in Wisconsin in order to drum up more support financially.
So what I would say to you guys is:
-Are there already groups to work with/within? Are those groups volunteer based?
-If you do start a group, I strongly suggest you make it 100% volunteer, no one gets paid a penny for their time. Its the only way to make sure you are focused on achieving goals, not just perpetuating the struggle.
-Have a clear well-thought-out mission statement that is based in principles of freedom that you can strictly adhere to. Prepare yourselves for how you will navigate 'tough' issues that would segment the gun-rights crowd. We all know there are the "no compromise" gun advocates who will come out against anything that isn't 100% un-infringed right to carry. Make sure your organization is prepared to navigate around the concerns of those who just want MORE access to opportunity to carry (even if in the form of a privilege) from those who are hard-core no compromise right to carry. In Wisconsin we said that we would advocate for anything that expanded opportunity to carry (even if a permit "privilege") so long as it didn't trade an existing right (open-carry) for a privilege. In other words anything that moved us forward, nothing that exchanged one right at the expense of another.
-be "action first". Take substantive action first and THEN ask people to support what you have done.
-focus on results, not membership growth. If you accomplish things, people will join. If you keep accomplishing things, people will continue to join. As soon as you stop accomplishing things and just try to grow membership, you will lose your way.
-Do not do for others that which they should do for themselves. As a 100% volunteer organization, you want people to engage and be active. Foster a culture within the organization with clear policy/procedures that limits the organizations "official" role to only those things that require an organizational participation to make happen. You don't want people to send in $15 and expect that the organization then does "everything". You'll never be able to fulfill the demands put on you. As an example, in Wisconsin, open-carry picnics and "meet-and-greet" events at Starbucks for Coffee, or restaurants have been a great way to raise public awareness. Many times, those events are organized by members acting independently, and then WCI is invited to attend. As a courtesy, we will then communicate information about the event to our vast membership to get the word out and bring in great attendance. But as a volunteer organization, people don't expect that WCI will spear-head and organize every event all across the state. Our members can just as easily set up events. Since we are all volunteer from the Board of Directors, to officers, to members, there is no reason for people to sit back and expect the organization to do something that they themselves could do. It encourages action from members. The resources of the organization are still there to provide things the members could not.
-Utilize technology resources to promote your accomplishments and build your active member network into an efficient machine that can disseminate information exceptionally fast and draw participation.action from members quickly.
at Wisconsin Carry, we use twitter, facebook, youtube, and listbox (for bulk email communication)
Twitter allows us to send out instant messages when we need a quick response to a situation.
our youtube channel allows us to communicate a message the media may not be willing to cover
Facebook allows us to share a great deal of information as well as giving non-dues-paying "members" a chance to participate and be informed.
We are still in the infancy of utilizing those resources to their fullest (especially the youtube channel we have huge plans for) but they are in place.
Anyway, these are just a few rambling thoughts. Most important is to strictly adhere to your principles. Establish a mission that is based in principle and a realistic results oriented approach to achieving goals. Establish an organizational structure that is pure and that nurtures involvement and results, not personal profit or self-promotion.
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
Ruby, Deros, Workman....
make good points. The point of a formal organization would not be to organize meets and responses through a bureaucracy.
But if you notice, we generally respond to incidents. i.e. Assault weapons bill, Brewster incident.
An organization would be able to be proactive and possibly introduce bills to force the anti gunners to respond to. Also, would be able to gather resources/finances to handle things like an appeal for Josh/Kirby type incidents.
Regardless the shape and outcome is in the hands of everyone and is nothing more than a question that many have asked to themselves, to others but not as a whole. How the question is answered remains to be seen.
(btw, I asked for it to be a sticky so that we could have a better idea over time of the thoughts of the many who read this forum who don't always post. Sure the 150 of us that post all the time have strong feelings, but the hope is to see how the question is answered by the casual viewers and lurkers in this arena)
make good points. The point of a formal organization would not be to organize meets and responses through a bureaucracy.
But if you notice, we generally respond to incidents. i.e. Assault weapons bill, Brewster incident.
An organization would be able to be proactive and possibly introduce bills to force the anti gunners to respond to. Also, would be able to gather resources/finances to handle things like an appeal for Josh/Kirby type incidents.
Regardless the shape and outcome is in the hands of everyone and is nothing more than a question that many have asked to themselves, to others but not as a whole. How the question is answered remains to be seen.
(btw, I asked for it to be a sticky so that we could have a better idea over time of the thoughts of the many who read this forum who don't always post. Sure the 150 of us that post all the time have strong feelings, but the hope is to see how the question is answered by the casual viewers and lurkers in this arena)
superdeluxe
Regular Member
Not only that, but if it is a designated non-profit, if I volunteer, I can submit for a 250$ grant (And most likely will get at least one a year, as there are not many that put in for these grants)
1245A Defender
Regular Member
huh
i really admire the response of WCI in the case of the madison 5!
i have followed the scene since saturday night over a week ago.
the WCI was getting reports and starting action against the cops
WHILE it was going down!!!!
i would like to see something like that here in washington!
i really wanted to save that "give a damn" notice, so i put it here.
i really admire the response of WCI in the case of the madison 5!
i have followed the scene since saturday night over a week ago.
the WCI was getting reports and starting action against the cops
WHILE it was going down!!!!
i would like to see something like that here in washington!
i really wanted to save that "give a damn" notice, so i put it here.
devildoc5
Regular Member
I will say this: We already have "a formal orginaization" every single one of us is the CEO/Pres/Dictator/Vicelord/whatever... We ALL "mobilize" and respond quickly to ANY incident that occurs to provide support OR get media attention. We ALREADY donate to associates legal defense funds via either paypal or the GP or whatever means possible.
That being said what EXACTLY would a formal organization do other than consume precious resources? (money and time)
Sure we could have a WAOC twitter or youtube, but why does this have to be "finacially support formal organization"???? Hell I can set up a twitter page in 5 mins and I wont even charge anything for it!
I guess what I am trying to portray is we are ALREADY doing a HUGE number of things that an "offical organization" would do, and combined with SAF there is not much else that can be done except for zombie mind control of the antis...
That being said what EXACTLY would a formal organization do other than consume precious resources? (money and time)
Sure we could have a WAOC twitter or youtube, but why does this have to be "finacially support formal organization"???? Hell I can set up a twitter page in 5 mins and I wont even charge anything for it!
I guess what I am trying to portray is we are ALREADY doing a HUGE number of things that an "offical organization" would do, and combined with SAF there is not much else that can be done except for zombie mind control of the antis...
Last edited:
jt59
Regular Member
Maybe that's the mission....
GoGo really makes a good point...it would create a proactive approach to issues, identified in advance....then monies wouldn't have to be collected randomly for defense and could be put to use in other more productive ways. There is a lot being done and that has been done....but this concept is not an either/or proposition it is a both/and
My letter to the PCSO (along with GoGo's) regarding Tom's incident is still unaknowledged...and we have been able to do little to really control the message of the incident....
The lead in on Channel 5 to the story "Armed Citizens in a SHOWDOWN with police"...not entirely accurate, along with the slant....
One of my staff saw me on TV over the weekend and we talked a little about it....the main questions that I asked her were: What did you think the story was about?...what was your take away as a viewer....
Her responses:
It was about guns...
I guess there are two sides of every issue....
...and Ed Troyers comments were not taken live, they were recorded....
What is the KTTH listening audience...what is the audience demographic, who's mind are we trying to inform? What is their broadcast area....it is a powerful media, but what is the star of the show's intent?...Do they regularly take up 2nd and 4th amendment rights?...or is it just the story of the week?...being unorganized and independent, we are at the mercy of everyone else's POV and outlet. If you want to affect change on a broader scale, you have to control the message....
devildoc5
Regular Member
no offense but there is a pretty big difference between rights (especially 2A) and gatorade...
This all sounds like a gatorade ad to me ^...
Are we gonna try and get superbowl commercials too?
I thought the idea of OC was to NORMALIZE it, not sensationalize it...
We would just then be doing the same thing as the media, just in reverse....
This all sounds like a gatorade ad to me ^...
Are we gonna try and get superbowl commercials too?
I thought the idea of OC was to NORMALIZE it, not sensationalize it...
We would just then be doing the same thing as the media, just in reverse....
Ruby
Regular Member
superdeluxe
Regular Member
I think the Wisconsin Carry group has the right ideas, let your volunteers set up the meet and greets/picnics etc...and do things first..then ask for donations.
Stretch
Regular Member
How does a group go about making it normal, then? I haven't seen/heard the SAF, NRA or any other group standing up to say, anything about what happened in Spanaway, or Vancouver. Making it known that OC is just as acceptable as CC is a matter of getting the word out. Be that via radio interviews, flyers, press statements, or televised media. That is how people learn these days.
Repetition of the legality is what we need right now to teach those who don't know. The more people know that OC is OK, the better. The best way to do that is through using the informal gatherings such as the latest Starbuck's meeting, formal gatherings (for instance a "sponsored Willow Lake" type event) and through media releases. Clear, concise messages from an organized group of people.
Look at how little details were left out of the Spanaway meet, please don't take this as bashing those in attendance and who were on TV. Perhaps a more focused message could have been delivered had a "Washington Carry" group been active. Maybe there could have been a spokesperson to deliver the message that yes 2A was the start of the issue, but the real issue was 4A. That seems to have been lost in the media coverage, Tom's 4A rights were trampled, only because he chose to exercise his 2A rights. The people that watch TV and listen on the radio may have been more compelled to "rise up" and say, PCSO why DID you violate that man's rights. Instead, people are still looking at the holstered gun as the issue.