Re: Excellent Post
If the JPFO provides information in quality and quantity over the NRA and argues for our second amendment rights in a more accurate interpretation of the second amendment it doesn't mean they are more effective at preventing gun control legislation. The JPFO does not have the clout the NRA has and therefore isn't as effective. It also has a credibility issue with people because of its in-your-face style. It doesn't mean I don't agree with some of what the JPFO argues but, if you want to be heard and your want to influence people you can't come off like a reincarnate of the Black Panthers or the Ku Klux Klan (no, I am not comparing the JPFO with either of those organizations, just stating how people react to the JPFO's approach). Without compromise there is only battle. Who was more effective at procuring civil rights for black Americans, Martin or Malcolm? The answer is obvious.
JPFO's executive director Aaron Zelman states:
"go directly to the public via bill-boards, newspaper adds, radio adds, TV adds, etc., and shift money away from lobbying law-makers, who mainly seek free lunches"
To move away from lobbying lawmakers would accelerate the end of our 2nd amendment rights. How well do you think those cigarette commercials are doing at preventing smoking? Not well. Teenage smoking is on the rise. However, a law is being considered now in parts of IL to eliminate all smoking from all public buildings, bars and restaurants included. I'm not making a point about smoking I'm making a point about how things get done- through the law makers, not t.v. commercials. You tell me what network will accept any amount of money the NRA could afford to show a pro-gun commercial. None. The networks have an agenda, which is to promote gun control because it's good for (their) business.
On another note, if you want to protect your second amendment rights I wouldn't start with alienating those who have a similar agenda. If what KPaul said is enough to make you *rotflmao* you need to get out more.