Overcoming measure 5 and other anti-gun laws, will require civil disobedience. Make a public spectacle of yourself, draw the attention of the authorities, violate the law "in their faces," go to jail and fight it out in court, but be prepared to lose. Alone if need be, but preferably in the company of others willing to do the same. Who wants to go first? But it doesn't stop there. In order to be successful, you must have public opinion on your side, if not at the outset, then eventually. That requires a sympathetic news media. Do you really think the good citizens of Oregon, who repeatedly elect liberal activists to public office, will rally to our side? They, who overwhelmingly passed Measure 5? In all honesty, I think not. I would be pleased to be proven wrong, but I'll not hold my breath.

The opposition takes a long view. Our side seems to want instant results. The opposition has the patience, the media, and the political motivation to slowly whittle away at the Constitution, until the Bill of Rights is rendered meaningless. We want it our way, right now. We  must learn how to fight that. We must learn how to adopt the practice of incrementalism. We must learn how to mobilize and motivate our fellow citizens to view what we consider common sense, as "correct" political idealism.

We must learn how to make this an emotional issue. The public responds to emotion. There has been hunger and famine in Africa for decades. It is only when the public is shown pictures of starving children, that we respond. The opposition runs an ad, showing a young child reaching onto a closet shelf for a pistol. That has strong emotional impact. The average citizen does not put any thought into the ad, but responds emotionally, demanding mandatory trigger locks. Sara Brady parades her poor husband about for her own political benefit, as an example of what "evil" guns can do. Ignored is the fact the Brady Act would have done nothing to prevent what happened to James. Emotional impact. Who do we have as an example of successful self defense? We know of many, and the NRA publishes many each month in their magazines. The Second Amendment Sisters have an excellent message, but they are ignored by the media, and thus the public. Rosie O'Donnell can spew her vile hatred, and is a beloved icon of political correctness. The public does not care that she is a hypocrite who hires armed body guards for her children, but would deny them the same protection their kids.

The opposition spreads lies such as 13 "children" per day killed "by guns." Such as the "47% more likely" lie that has been around for years. When we point out the lies, and refute those lies with facts, we are ignored and called names.

The public is told that "criminals" buy guns at gun shows, and the county sheriff in Portland tells us they; "Go on to commit thousands of crimes with them." That is a lie! I know it. You know it. The sheriff knows it. He offers no supporting proof. I have said so publicly, as have other police officials. So what? We are ignored. We site statistics and facts, while the other side uses emotion. We lose.

Politicians call for registration and licensing to fight crime, while ignoring the fact that not once has a crime been solved by licensing and registration. Ignoring the fact that registration has always led to confiscation. We only have to look north to Canada to see an example of that this very day, as the RCMP is beginning it's gun roundup. John Lott does the dirty work, digging out the truth, and he is ridiculed. No one can dispute his findings, but he is none-the-less, written off as some kind of nut. Why is that? We have the truth on our side! Why can't we get the message delivered? It is as if we are calling with the truth, but we get only a busy signal.

The opposition sites "easy accessibility of guns by children" as part of the problem. They ignore the fact that before 1968 anyone could buy almost any kind of gun, as long as they could pony up the money. Including by mail order. I had my first gun at age 13 in the 50's. I never once was tempted to shoot up my schoolmates. Instead I was enrolled in a Jr. NRA Marksmanship program. I took my rifle with me on Boy Scout camping trips. Kids have had access to guns since they became widely used, centuries ago. It only became a problem in our modern "politically correct" society. Mass school violence is at it's lowest point in modern times. Why then all the attention to Columbine, and others? I say it is easier to blame an object, than to accept personal responsibility. The responsibility of a lenient juvenile justice system. Lenient parents and school officials. A lenient society that says, "If it feels good, do it." A society that allows political leaders to commit felonies on a grand scale, but not hold them accountable. A society that tells us we must "honor diversity." Well not all diversity, just the kind of diversity WE think you should honor. If you are white, Christian, heterosexual, then you don't count. That isn't the kind of diversity WE mean. If you happen to be a Black, Christian, conservative, heterosexual, then you are criticized by others as being an "Uncle Tom."

In the meantime, the NRA is divided into two distinct political camps, with constant bickering and sniping at one another. The GOA and some others do not have the funds, or the political clout that is required to be effective in lobbying. The GOA and others tend to be purists, who see any compromise as too horrible to contemplate. They refuse to join with the NRA, which does have the funds and political clout. The purists do not seem to realize that in the real, hardball political world, compromise is the way things get done. They seem to think there is nobility in losing the fight, as long as you lost it on principle. Hog wash!

I recently learned from a very reliable source, that only 2/3 of the membership of the NRA is registered to vote. And you think these people will mobilize for civil disobedience? Hardly! It would be helpful if we could get all gun owners to join something, be we can't even do that. Too many of our fellows are content to go along for the ride and let others fight the fight.

The bench shooters, trap & skeet shooters and some hunters see anti-gun measures, and believe that does not effect them. "They only want to outlaw pistols, and I don't own any pistols, so what do I care?" They do not see that banning pistols, or "Saturday night specials," "junk guns," or whatever the catch word of the day, in any way effects them. They do not see that as just the first step. The person who owns his grandpa's old pump action shotgun does not see that he is considered a threat to society. (Outlawed in Australia.) The deer hunter who goes out with his trusty deer rifle once a year, or so, does not consider himself a threat. He just enjoys his sport, and doesn't want to hurt anyone. He is most likely unaware that some of the opposition consider his deer rifle a "sniper rifle" and should be outlawed. Same thing with the plinker and his 10/22, which when equipped with some cosmetic changes, suddenly becomes an "assault weapon." Why should they care about HCI, Inc., or Cease Fire Oregon, or MMM, etc.? If they can keep us squabbling among ourselves, they win. Divide and conquer.

Just think how effective we would be if we were to unite and with one voice say "Enough!"

The NRA has Charlton Heston, a well known personality, who is doing the best that he is able to do. But he alone can not carry the load. The other Hollywood celebrities, such as Steven Spielberg who are gun owners and collectors, keep that their "dirty little secret," for fear of being ostracized by their peers.

You say we should ignore and disobey all gun laws. That is an individual choice only each of us can make. But as with other such acts, there are consequences. That is an individual act, and unless organized and prepared to fight it as a civil rights issue, it will have little impact. Dr. Martin Luther King was willing to go to jail. Who shall be our Dr. King?

As I approach the end of my police career and retirement, I will not have to make that choice. By law, I will be able to carry concealed without a special permit, at least here in Oregon. When I travel out of state, I will then have to decide if I wish to break the laws of the states I travel in. If any sort of registration law should be passed, then I will have to decide if I shall comply, or tell the authorities that I sold all of my guns. (By the way, we already have de facto registration via Instant Check.)

There are many millions of gun owners in the United States. We could represent a considerable political force if only we could get our selves organized and motivated to do so.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." (Pogo)

BACK