ideas for anti "close the gunshow background check loophole"

[labgrade]

Please put on those thinking caps, boys & girls.

Colorado will have on the November ballot, a voters' initiative that would require background checks for private sales at gunshows (which has some fairly broad language).

I'm agin it.

JPFO has matching funds for billboards. They cannot be political in nature but can be educational.

We'd like to have a couple (few) billboards in the Denver area which may dissuade folks from voting for the initiative.

Any ideas?

 

[TheBluesMan]

Check into whether or not you can choose the content of the billboard if using JPFO funds. I was under the impression that they gave you the choice of one of *their* billboards to put up.


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website

 

[EnochGale]

What will be the argument against the check?

General RKBA, specific problems or what?

This will be tough to beat and what is the strategy.

Do the organizers hope just to get enough
RKBA types out to vote or sway the undecided?

 

[hube1236]

Remember, this is in response to the media's portrayal of the "gun-show's" role in Littleton. The point I would like to make is that little b^&*# who testified before the govt walked away scott-free from a straw-buy. Bad guys or girls walk, good guys are slapped on the pee-pee.

 

[Don Gwinn]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"That little b^&*# who testified before the govt walked away scott-free from a straw-buy. Bad guys or girls walk, good guys are slapped on the pee-pee."[/quote]

Well, at least we have a slogan for this billboard--now all we need is a picture....


The problem is that there's no way to explain this issue on a billboard--it takes a long explanation to make sense. Maybe an RKBA angle would be best since it could be short:
"Did you know that not one background check is required to exercise the so-called "right to free speech" in Colorado? Let's close this loophole!"

"Did you know that not one background check is required to exercise the so-called "freedom of religion" in Colorado? Let's close that loophole!"

"Did you know that not one background check is required to exercise the so-called "right to due process?" Let's close that loophole!"

"Did you know that not one background check is required before you can buy a car? Let's close that loophole!"

"Did you know that not one background check is required before you can buy a set of kitchen knives? Let's close that loophole!"

"Did you know that not one background check is required before you can buy gasoline and matches? Let's close that loophole!"

Well, this could go on for a long time. But you get the idea. It's not a "loophole" when you don't have to be licensed and investigated to practice an inherent human right. And it's not CALLED a "loophole" when you don't have to get a background check to buy a dangerous product--unless the product is guns.

 

[Oatka]

Picking up on Don Gwinn's exercize, how about: "Columbine killers used propane bombs - close the propane loophole!".

That links an emotional event to a ridiculous response.

 

[ruger45]

How about the fact that closing this loophole is a huge step towrd total gun registration.
I bought a gun from an individual at a show not long ago.
I feel like such a criminal now and simply cant stop thinking thoughts of robbing a big bank with my lever action marlin.
Larry Pratt brought out not too long ago
that if a complete gun ban in England hasnt stopped criminals from getting guns theirs no way government checks in a america can do so.
But they can be used just as registration was in England to make sure the 'lawabiding' gunowners are disarmed so that the thugs on the street and in office will be completely safe to rape and pillage,mostly our belongings and our rights
for now...

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"

 

[EnochGale]

I don't think

Good guys are slapped on the pee-pee

is a good slogan

Seriously, I think the proposal has serious emotional appeal and the undecided will not think the car, gas, etc. analogy holds.

Got to do better than that.

 

[MountainGun44]

How about

Constitutional rights are not "loopholes"

Vote against putting holes in the Constitution. Vote NO on...

or

A picture of the constitution full of holes with the caption:

Is this what you see when you read the Constitution? Vote NO on...

 

[MountainGun44]

I forgot to add:

Paid for by : Citizens against hatred and violence.

 

[labgrade]

Kee-rect = not an easy issue to sway anybody's point of view (if they even have one) in a quick soundbite.

I do like the pix of the Constitution with holes all through it. Good imagery.

JPFO does have to approve the ad but it didn't appear that it has to be one of there's. & I guess too, a pretty fine line re education vs political.

& too, the idea is to get as many votes against. It's a straight up majority wins type of deal.

 

[Destructo6]

I like this one:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Did you know that not one background check is required to exercise the so-called "right to free speech" in Colorado? Let's close this loophole!"[/quote]

Then maybe add, "Words hurt. Think before you act."

 

[Don Gwinn]

I like Oatka's better than any of mine--I wanted to do something similar but couldn't remember what they'd used to make their bombs.

 

[EnochGale]

You are writing slogans for the converted, guys. What about the undecided?

The constitutional stuff is for us.

Saying other stuff is dangerous might just reinforce beliefs that guns are also.

How about:

Next, step - Your dad will have to call the FBI to give you grandpa's gun.

 

[labgrade]

Yup = EnochGale, doubtful that The Constitution would carry much weight for those who would gladly give up their rights - if they even knew what there are or what they mean.

Looking moreso to (somehow) reach those who are undecided on this issue.

But sadly enough, polls (right) suggest that even many gunners are for the background check.

 

[sumabich]

How about using Don's concept but relate it to the things that cause a much higher fatality rate like air bags etc.? Oh yeah, I forgot that's logic we're dealing with FEELINGS........... How do you convert visual processing (traditionally male) to FEELINgs (female)? It has to have shock appeal with very few words! I still say get some poster children, women who were brutalized waiting for a permit and show the crime scene then state "so and so followed the law and waited for her permit! If you don't think this will get their attention, just try it!

 

[MP Freeman]

Is this vote even legal? I know the answer - BARF!!

How does somebody persuade another person? I would answer by quoting the highest possible authority. Put up a black bill board, and print in white script or block letters:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"Paid for by: freedom"

Point out the highest law of the land. Maybe put the 1st and 2nd amendments both on the sign. Everyone hears how important the first is, well then, show one and two together as the are.

Try not to persuade with bold statements or scare tactics. Just show the truth. If a person comes to his/her own conclusion, that conclusion will be both firm and lasting.

I mean how many pro-gun people do you know, who were once anti-gun? I used to be (long ago in an evil nightmare), even old Chuck Heston was. I originally was somewhat anti because of quick decisions based on poor information and knee-jerk reactions. But I changed my mind based on evident reason and truth. Now I ask, how many anti-gun people do who know that were once pro-gun? I bet few. The reason is that the pro-gun side has TRUTH on its side. And TRUTH will outlast emotion. Look at the anti-gun groups, always trying to whip up fear and emotion. These things don't last, and they must generate more usually from someone's tragedy. As if they care about preventing tragedy.

Therefore, merely present the truth and let the people decide. In the long run, this approach will win not only this vote, but maybe the nation.

Now I'll step off my soapbox. But only because I need the box.

 

[Don Gwinn]

How about "Would you be willing to submit to a background check before speaking out at a town hall meeting?"

"Are you willing to lose your right to free speech for refusing to undergo a background check?"

If you put that over a picture of a famous "leader of the people" exercising free speech--Martin Luther King, maybe--you might have some impact.

 

[ICBentley]

1) Background checks are ineffective in reducing crime and so are a waste of taxpayer money.

see: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/abs/joc91749.html

2) It is your property. It is one thing to restrict commercial sales, but to keep a private citizen -- YOU -- from disposing of your property however you wish is wrong!

No worthless red tape between me and my private business.

Keep Washington's nose out of our garage sales.

3) If your mother, sister, girlfriend has reason to fear attack, should she have to undergo a bunch of useless red tape before you can lend or sell her your gun?

A bureaucrat would rather your mother died than see that a form wasn't filled out when it isn't any of their business anyway!

4) Freedom is not a loophole! Not 2ndA freedom and not the freedom to dispose of your property and especially not the freedom to help a friend in need.

Lean hard on the identification of background checks as worthless red tape.

I think the comparison to speech, propane etc. is counterproductive for a few reasons: people can dismiss it unthinkingly as apples and oranges, it does nevertheless associate guns with dangers as pointed out above, there are people out there who want to restrict everything don't play into their hands.

Bentley

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
-- Albert Einstein

 

[labgrade]

A few of us TRT-types went to a Sane Alternative to the Firearm Epidemic (SAFE - right, even though there's no firearm epidemic) gala event last night in Denver. Was a party to celebrate them getting well beyond enough signatures (still to be verified but the fix is in) to place this initiative on the ballot.

We (ahem) crashed the party. One of us (as a real invited guest) wasn't allowed in because we was all made & he was with us. Bummer. Missed out on some good micro-brews.

We did have some good conversations with communists, made some very telling points, got a couple to actually say, "you do have a point but I'm voting for it anyway."

One gentleman, when I mentioned that the BoRs specifically limits any governmental intrusion into the rights of the people, actually said that the Constitution is outdated & couldn't believe anybody still clung to that old rag (paraphrased). (As an aside, I do believe that the guvmint can intrude into your freedoms but only when you, yourself give up your rights due to causing harm to another ... won't go into a huge explanation on that right now though ... )

I've had these type chats with probably close to a thousand folk in the past 6-8 months (much easier to be persuasive in voice than in this limited "type as fast as you can" forum )& am quite amazed at the level of ignorance and as sad, animosity towards our freedoms.

I have no doubt that this initiative will pass with flying colors. & then, next year, we can work to defeat the next "loophole."