The reason the NRA is effective is very simple. They are THE central lobbying arm for their position and their opposite position is lobbied by a series of different groups. Basically, the NRA power is consolidated like the Catholic Church, and gun-control groups are all over the place like the Muslim sects.
Excellent point ELC.
They have no consolidation or strong brand. They have plenty of energy to fuel a fight they just won't coalesce. The anti-gun groups will have to capitulate under a larger umbrella.
It seems reasonable that "mothers" could come into play as they did with MADD. (No need to belabor the difference between the two causes here)
So, you band some strong willed and well spoken moms together and you arm them with the New Testament. No sense in going to one of these things "unarmed"! Anyway, at least a cadre of strong willed Irish Catholic mothers who have suffered the ultimate loss and can deliver the point in a way that is palatable in the element "of this particular issue". So, we have our group : MAG. "Mothers Against Guns"
Now you have your group, MAG. First thing to do is apply your own nickname to your organizations members - dont let just anybody "name/smear you". So, in a series of PSA-like prime time boadsides you introduce a cast of ladies. They call themselves "Maggie Maguires". You puposefully invoke a great name in the world of underdogs by invoking the resonant image of people who fought an oppressive industrialist power. Don't imagine that this fight will be without tears...nevertheless the leaderhip of MAG
will have to have a stiff upper lip and be able to answer opposing arguments without recourse to lachrymose appeals. Your group will have to be tough, fair minded and straightforward in your appeal to those women who do not (yet) share your "reasonable views for deterring public access to semi-automatic machine guns and armor piercing bullets". That is MAG's position. "You" reasonably want to try and stop someone in our society from having the ability to kill 25-30 people in 60 seconds. You seek strong background checks for gun ownership overall and yet your group respects the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners. You say that last part a lot.
So then, to achieve your aims you don't have some expansive vision of big government intrusion. No, no, no, your group does not want to "Tread on Anybody". Instead, "MAG seeks the prohibition of all public sale of munitions for this weaponry as well as the prohibition of the sale of any armor piercing munitions to any member of the general public".
"Weaponry" and "Munitions" are a couple of "nice" incindiary words. Use them a lot. They make mom even more uneasy than mere bullets and weapons.
Now then...your opponent is primarily male. You want to get to that segment that is reasonable toward sensible arguments. The members of the opposition are not without good qualities. You show decency and respect and in hearings your group does not appeal to him emotionally nor try and publicly humiliate "him". No, you come back at him over and again with the image of 5 year olds being shot multiple times in the chest and one after another.
Man, to his great credit, has shown the ability to change. Your group will have to work that hardened shell with logic and the repeated drumbeat of common sense. MAG's aim is to get inside the hearts by way of the minds of the opposition.
As ELC says...the opposition to the NRA has to coalesce and find a resonant symbol/metaphor to get behind. If they don't then their argument and sustaining power will scatter like buckshot. Time to get their own "Big Gun" and narrow the sights on the target. The target is not the NRA or the 2nd Amendment.
