2010!

[recon]

2010 will be a big year! Congress will be up for relections. I think 34 seats in the Senate will be up. Also 36 states will elect new governors. Could be interesting then! Also get more people to join the NRA!

[ddemis]

Ahmen Brother!

[Gunrider]

They're always talking about 50 to 80 million gun owners -- how come on a little over three million are in the NRA?
If we voted the way blacks and homosexuals did, as a unified block, we would sway EVERY election.

Just stop voting for Ron Paul!

[1859sharps]

2010 is the election people should be focused more on, and preparing for.

Two words for you.... census and redistricting.

[ddemis]

The NRA has about 4 million members the last time I checked. If every member could recruit just one single person the NRA would be the most powerful gun rights org. in the world. Lets all get to work and show the media elite we will never go away. Call the NRA and get pamplets to hand out to everyone you know and lets make the next elections work for us. Like Winston Churchill said; never give up the fight, never!

[BackBlast]

I prefer GOA, but joining any gun lobby is better than no gun lobby.

[Charlie Golf]

OP has the right idea.

What's done is done. Don't panic. Don't lose focus.

And don't forget to vote in Mid-Term elections.

[ricko1]

start now and get involved!

[Cruncher Block]

I agree with a strategy of focusing on 2010. It's a political cliche that the party in the White House tends to lose seats in mid-term election. That effect could be amplified by a large number of gun rights advocates who see an opportunity. Of course, I'm hoping there will be a large number of Second Amendment supporters running for office as well.

Because mid-terms don't get quite the "Super Bowl" media coverage of Presidential elections, they provide an opportunity for those who are serious about political involvement rather than those who vote just because everybody's talking about it. 1994 caught a lot of people by surprise. As I recall, Clinton was actually reasonably popular at the time but the AWB motivated a lot of people to get to the polls and say, "No more."

There are some very important differences between now and the early 90s. Perhaps the most important factor is right in front of you. In the early 90s, there just wasn't a widespread, rapid means of getting the word out like we have with the World Wide Web. Talk radio, magazines, and mailers were about the best that anyone could do at a time when most of the information was controlled by an anti-gun media.

Moreover, I don't have any hard proof, but I think gun rights advocates are more aggressive and watchful now than we were 15 years ago. Look at what's happened since 1994: A majority of states have shall-issue concealed carry. The Heller decision is significant (though it's pathetic we need a 5-4 Supreme Court decision to tell us what the Constitution clearly says). We still have a LONG way to go but the current anti-Constitution Congress is a setback, not the end of the fight.

[rly45acp]

After doing a bit of research on the demographics of this elections, I'm beginning to wonder if folks like us are the minority. 6 in 10 of post graduate, 18-24 and even Catholic voters (considering Obama's stand on abortion, this one really throws me!) going for Obama, I have to wonder if only those in the military and men like me over 50 are the only conservatives left in this country. It appears most folks living in urban and suburban areas went for Obama, while mostly white males in very small town and rural areas went Republican. Women, Blacks (95%), Asians, Hispanics, etc., all went for Obama big time. Just slightly over half of white males went for McCain.

The economy was the deciding factor, but still, these numbers are a bit disturbing. Having said that, the American Revolution was won by only 33% of the population, with another 33% fighting for the British and 33% sitting it out. But then, they weren't voting, they were fighting. We're trying to change things without such drastic measures, and I'm not sure we have the numbers now or in the future. Some pundits fear this could be the end of conservatism, especially if Obama can get an even larger numbers of the population dependent on social programs, virtually ensuring a non-reversible socialist (and Democratic Party controlled) government. Only time will tell. I hope these folks are wrong, but my background is in sociology and these numbers are very troubling.