Diversity and Inclusion in the 2A Community

[Chucktshoes]

If any of y’all haven’t taken the time to listen to this excellent episode of the podcast, I’m bumping this thread up to highly encourage you to do so.

When you do so, set aside your defenses and listen with an open mind. Sometimes when we hear a criticism of something or someone we like, we can throw up our mental walls and not really hear what the other person is saying.

In this podcast Tiffany and Aqil gave us the opportunity to understand that while some of the NRA’s messaging may be speaking to us, it may not be speaking to the best parts of us. In addition, what it might be telling folks who come from a different background is that they’re not welcome. If you don’t think that’s not the message being sent, I implore you to pay special attention to the part of the discussion where the discussion turns to the Dana Loesch “clenched fist” ad. Don’t listen with a mind to develop a rebuttal, but a mind to put yourself in the shoes of another and see things from their perspective.

See that it isn’t an attack. 

See that this is an opportunity. 

Its an opportunity to ask those who are already here despite being told they aren’t welcome how we can tailor our message to bring more folks into the fold. It’s an opportunity to learn how to walk the walk of the 2A is for everybody instead of just saying it while our firmly keeping a dog whistle in our clenched fist.

 

[TGO David]

9 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

If any of y’all haven’t taken the time to listen to this excellent episode of the podcast, I’m bumping this thread up to highly encourage you to do so.

When you do so, set aside your defenses and listen with an open mind. Sometimes when we hear a criticism of something or someone we like, we can throw up our mental walls and not really hear what the other person is saying.

In this podcast Tiffany and Aqil gave us the opportunity to understand that while some of the NRA’s messaging may be speaking to us, it may not be speaking to the best parts of us. In addition, what it might be telling folks who come from a different background is that they’re not welcome. If you don’t think that’s not the message being sent, I implore you to pay special attention to the part of the discussion where the discussion turns to the Dana Loesch “clenched fist” ad. Don’t listen with a mind to develop a rebuttal, but a mind to put yourself in the shoes of another and see things from their perspective.

See that it isn’t an attack. 

See that this is an opportunity. 

Its an opportunity to ask those who are already here despite being told they aren’t welcome how we can tailor our message to bring more folks into the fold. It’s an opportunity to learn how to walk the walk of the 2A is for everybody instead of just saying it while our firmly keeping a dog whistle in our clenched fist.

 

 

I normally quote parts of a reply that I think are important.  In this case, every single word you posted is important.

We had someone post on the Shooters Nation forum, using a screen name and a throw-away email address to obscure their identity, who took real issue with the notion that Dana Loesh, Ted Nugent and Colion Noir aren't the best representatives of the NRA that we could have.  That person clearly didn't use any of the critical thinking that you just outlined and that's a damned shame.

No one called Loesh or Noir "racist" in the interview.  Angry, yes, and angry doesn't sell well unless it resonates with you.   Other people can be turned off by it and never listen to the message or feel invited in and made welcome.  Nugent, on the other hand, has several well documented cases of making racist and xenophobic remarks.   He's verbally assailed the Jews, Arabic people, and black people.  You don't have to take my word for that, you can Google it and find his own words supporting it.

This episode of the Shooters Nation Podcast was absolutely meant to be an opportunity to see things through the eyes of others and ask yourself if you're doing anything to lower barriers and be ambassadors of the Second Amendment, if you're just being passively apathetic about who partakes, or if you're intentionally or unintentionally fostering anything that deters people from joining the cause and exercising their Rights.

It's sad that  MacGyver and I were chatting about this very thing yesterday and he commented that sometimes as a community we're just so white that we can't even see the issues and relate to how other people might feel.

That might piss some folks off.  If it does, I'll pray for you, but you need to ask yourself why you're so upset about it.

 

[McGarrett]

 I was reading a similar thread over on Politically Correct Gun Owners.

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, McGarrett said:

 I was reading a similar thread over on Politically Correct Gun Owners.

If you’re just going to stand to the side and make snarky comments, at least put a little effort into it. That was a very low energy attempt. 

[TGO David]

1 hour ago, McGarrett said:

 I was reading a similar thread over on Politically Correct Gun Owners.

Link to the thread?

 

[McGarrett]

Low energy or not I think you got my point.

I'll have to listen to the podcast sometime, I haven't yet so I don't really have the right to say much. I agree with including everybody in 2A and TGO 100% but this thread just seems a little over the top. After all this is an internet forum, we really don't know much about the member's race, color, gender, orientation, etc. just from their screen name and avatar.

Please carry on.

Edit: no link, just a snarky joke, I doubt there really is a PCGO, if there was I wouldn't be visiting their site anyway

Edited June 23, 2018 by McGarrett

[Chucktshoes]

28 minutes ago, McGarrett said:

Low energy or not I think you got my point.

I'll have to listen to the podcast sometime, I haven't yet so I don't really have the right to say much. I agree with including everybody in 2A and TGO 100% but this thread just seems a little over the top. After all this is an internet forum, we really don't know much about the member's race, color, gender, orientation, etc. just from their screen name and avatar.

Please carry on.

Edit: no link, just a snarky joke, I doubt there really is a PCGO, if there was I wouldn't be visiting their site anyway

Snark gets snarknin return, but a serious post gets serious treatment. 

 

I will reiterate encouragement to listen to the podcast with an open and empathetic mind. It will give the context to the conversation in this thread that you are missing. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by Chucktshoes

[Omega]

After listening to this podcast I'm going to have to lean towards the NRA bashing side.   I tried, really tried, to keep an open mind, but I found it a little insulted on the way they described, at least their perception of NRA members.  It's a bit disingenuous about mentioning the fringe NRA members without at least touching upon the other sides vastly larger fringe groups. Yes, I'm an NRA member, have been for decades, but I've been pro 2A much longer.  I don't usually wear 2A clothing, fly any flags, or really any of the described offensive, to them, things, but I don't see them the same way they do.  

I also disagree about how the pro 2A side should act, we, yes we, have been much too passive in the past, that is why we have been tread upon so often.  We keep giving away slices of pie each time anti-gunners come up with "sensible" laws to keep us law abiding gun owners in check.  Let's face it, they will never stop until they get their way, and that is complete disarmament, so we must be as vocal if not more so than they are.  

I'm never embarrassed about being pro-2A, military, hispanic, heterosexual, male, or any other hot button thing brought to the forefront by the MSM,  social media, or fringe group.  I'm more than ready to defend myself against the bashing that ensues when something pops up of which l could be included in the offending group.

[n0rlf]

Finger group I think his it pretty much dead center. I also got a heavy sense of NRA bashing. That aside some of the points are great. But s little on the virtue signalling side of debate. It comes across as almost creating yet another group that is offended by things that are really overblown. 

Oh well, it hurts nothing and does point out some items that need looking at occasionally. Problem is there are so many podcasts these days it is hard to really get through the noise to the truly good ones. And when we do find one we like we need to keep in mind that listening to others occasionally is a good idea. 

In this case it is not over the top and does have a underlying message most need to hear. If it just got to that message without some of the very same boxing and labeling it is pushing against. 

And I still agree that Uncle Ted needs to stay away from cameras and microphones. 

Very close to a great message, keep working it, most shooters might not like it in the beginning but I think most will come around. 

[McGarrett]

On 6/22/2018 at 11:07 PM, Omega said:

After listening to this podcast I'm going to have to lean towards the NRA bashing side.   I tried, really tried, to keep an open mind, but I found it a little insulted on the way they described, at least their perception of NRA members.  It's a bit disingenuous about mentioning the fringe NRA members without at least touching upon the other sides vastly larger fringe groups. Yes, I'm an NRA member, have been for decades, but I've been pro 2A much longer.  I don't usually wear 2A clothing, fly any flags, or really any of the described offensive, to them, things, but I don't see them the same way they do.  

I listened to the podcast and I agree with Omega. I'm an NRA member but I don't really live and breath all of it. I don't wear 2A clothing, no bumper stickers, and I couldn't care less about Ted Nugent.  I'm just not really the activist or advocate type, I mainly just keep to myself. I can barely get enthused enough in the NRA to send them a membership payment. 

I felt a little like it was preaching to the choir regarding the fringe element. I don't run in those circles so I can't really change what they do and how it makes us look. TGO is already very welcoming but I'm sure we will strive to always keep that bar high. 

I did get a little context by listening to the podcast but just a little. I totally agree with diversity and inclusion of everyone but I'm still lost on why the demographics don't make sense. If you do a study of the demographics of people that buy F250 diesel 4x4 pickups you will probably find it is slanted toward a certain demographic, but I don't think it's because the Ford dealer is not welcoming to everyone or their marketing is not sound it's just not everyone wants to drive a diesel 4x4 pickup, or can afford to. Shooting and firearms are kind of an expensive hobby in case you haven't noticed and also not everyone is into it no matter how you market it.

I don't have any statistics to back this up but I would say that sites like Pirate4x4,  PowerStrokeNation, AR15.com and TGO would all have have close to the same demographic statistics, or at least in the ballpark. Probably for the same reason I hear ads about knee replacements on the radio station I listen to sometimes, the demographics of the radio station support marketing to aging people who have knee problems. They wouldn't probably run that same ad on a station that played music for the younger crowd. Disclaimer: I'm no marketing or demographics expert by any means.

I totally agree with trying to bring more people into the fold, certainly we need those votes on our side. I think that along with most things it starts at home, my kids are grown but both my son and daughter own multiple firearms and have been actively involved with handling and shooting firearms since they were young and they will vote accordingly. 

[TGO David]

I hear what you all are saying about the focus on the NRA in this particular episode.  I agree that maybe we could have moved on to other things, but these podcasts aren't exactly scripted.

It's like any other conversation between friends:   You might sit down with a group and talk about a thing.  You might talk about that thing from one perspective, and then another.  You and your friends might talk about it from different angles and make the same points several times over, but in different ways.  You do this because people tend to try to conceptualize, rationalize and explain things to ourselves and to others.  We're both students and teachers, simultaneously, and this multi-angled approach of informing and learning is the method that we go through to make sure that we're not being lazy about our thoughts.

To some folks, it feels maybe like beating a dead horse.  That's probably why college English Composition professors and good high-school teachers tell us to write rough drafts, distill our thoughts down into something concise, and then write our papers.

Podcasts, unless highly scripted, aren't often like that.  You get to see the whole process play out.  It's like sitting at the Chef's Table at a restaurant.  You're going to see the sausage get made before you ever see it cooked on the stove.

 

I guarantee you that Tiffany and Aqil's message isn't singular, nor is it all about the NRA.  That's why I am glad to keep the door open for them to come back and continue the conversation with us.  There's a LOT to consider when we start talking about diversity and inclusion.  We didn't even scratch the surface.

 

[Erik88]

I didn't come away with the same impression that they were too hard on the NRA. Actually, I think a little tough love is healthy. Tiffany and Aqil shared how they are meeting new people that are interested in shooting but those same people want nothing to do with the NRA. Now maybe that aversion is deserved and maybe it isn't, but at minimum the NRA might want to reflect on what's causing that. The NRA does a lot of positive things that often get ignored. I think they could do a better job of promoting those things instead of putting people on screen that seem so angry. Their ability to drum up fear obviously leads to increased donations but I'm not sure it really helps our cause overall. Colion is a great addition but even he can come across a bit aggressive. The same could be said with Dana. Now, her message might resonate with us, but I doubt she's going to bring many new comers into the mix. 

[n0rlf]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

I didn't come away with the same impression that they were too hard on the NRA. Actually, I think a little tough love is healthy. Tiffany and Aqil shared how they are meeting new people that are interested in shooting but those same people want nothing to do with the NRA. Now maybe that aversion is deserved and maybe it isn't, but at minimum the NRA might want to reflect on what's causing that. The NRA does a lot of positive things that often get ignored. I think they could do a better job of promoting those things instead of putting people on screen that seem so angry. Their ability to drum up fear obviously leads to increased donations but I'm not sure it really helps our cause overall. Colion is a great addition but even he can come across a bit aggressive. The same could be said with Dana. Now, her message might resonate with us, but I doubt she's going to bring many new comers into the mix. 

I think a bigger part of the NRA hatred is driven by the mainstream media which again is showing their bias and agenda. The NRA certainly has some ownership but the never ending vitriol spewed by the obviously biased liberal press is the main reason we see the hate and discontent. They are doing a great job of distracting from the real problems by going after an oprginization that nothing to do with any of it.

So apparently that distraction technique is working for sheep that are just not able to see psdat the rhetoric. The bigger disscussion if anyone is really meaning to help solve the issues is what next? Obviously neither sides solutions are working so where do we go next. A lot of folks love to portend they know the cause but as usual they bring no resolution. That is known as being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

So bring forth your solutions folks! Stop the cycle, break the agendas! 

[TGO David]

1 hour ago, n0rlf said:

I think a bigger part of the NRA hatred is driven by the mainstream media which again is showing their bias and agenda. The NRA certainly has some ownership but the never ending vitriol spewed by the obviously biased liberal press is the main reason we see the hate and discontent. They are doing a great job of distracting from the real problems by going after an oprginization that nothing to do with any of it.

I think you're talking about a completely separate issue.  Sure, the anti-NRA bias is definitely out there in the media and has been projected powerfully enough that weak-minded folks have adopted it as their new opinion of something that they formerly had no opinion on.

But please don't write-off the legitimate complaints about the NRA and its past that it steadily ignores, from people who have been directly affected by those things, as being nothing more than the result of anti-NRA propaganda.

Like I said, a lot of gun-control laws trace their roots back to 1967-68 California and the Mulford Act which the NRA supported.  A lot of gun control laws were and, sadly, still are segregationist even if only evaluated through the lens of who they infringe upon the most.   The government's mantra seems to be, "Here are your Rights which we license back to you and tax you for participating in.  If you can afford it, come all ye who may.  But if you can't, well, you people having them scared us a little anyway".

There are entire communities of citizens in this country that don't feel served by the Second Amendment and the NRA isn't doing much to reach out to them and make them want to be part of it.   Their lives are as precious as ours are.  If that doesn't resonate with you, at least recognize that they VOTE and the Second Amendment needs vocal, voting, advocates.

[n0rlf]

1 hour ago, TGO David said:

I think you're talking about a completely separate issue.  Sure, the anti-NRA bias is definitely out there in the media and has been projected powerfully enough that weak-minded folks have adopted it as their new opinion of something that they formerly had no opinion on.

But please don't write-off the legitimate complaints about the NRA and its past that it steadily ignores, from people who have been directly affected by those things, as being nothing more than the result of anti-NRA propaganda.

Like I said, a lot of gun-control laws trace their roots back to 1967-68 California and the Mulford Act which the NRA supported.  A lot of gun control laws were and, sadly, still are segregationist even if only evaluated through the lens of who they infringe upon the most.   The government's mantra seems to be, "Here are your Rights which we license back to you and tax you for participating in.  If you can afford it, come all ye who may.  But if you can't, well, you people having them scared us a little anyway".

There are entire communities of citizens in this country that don't feel served by the Second Amendment and the NRA isn't doing much to reach out to them and make them want to be part of it.   Their lives are as precious as ours are.  If that doesn't resonate with you, at least recognize that they VOTE and the Second Amendment needs vocal, voting, advocates.

I do understand how some folks are still angry with the NRA, I do not follow them closely enough to come down on either side of the argument. However, claiming that today's hatred against them is due to the past is a little bit of a stretch. For some mebers yes, for those that are not members and have no idea of the corruption and shenanigans, NO. It is not due to the past hat millenials and anti gun groups today are spouting hate about the NRA. It is nothing more than trying to discredit a orginization they think is responsible for the lack of gun control. Nothing more or less. Giving them more creedit than is due is playing riht into their hands.

I guess I am thinking along the lines of what Tiffany mentioned how as soon as someone hears it is NRA organized training they get defensive. now anyone that knows the history or is unhappy with the NRA for its compromises would already be predisposed and knowleedgable of that. So they would not have the same reaction a someone that is clueless about the NRA. It is more of the current media blitz effect than anything else that causes a new shooter or someone just interested in shooting to dislike or be aware of the NRA.

I am pretty sure we cannot extend the compromises and shenangians of the NRA boards to today's dislike. That is directly related to the media blitz currently going on. And a great tool and technique by the Anti's I might add. 

Now, how do we counter it?

[TGO David]

2 hours ago, n0rlf said:

I do understand how some folks are still angry with the NRA, I do not follow them closely enough to come down on either side of the argument. However, claiming that today's hatred against them is due to the past is a little bit of a stretch. For some mebers yes, for those that are not members and have no idea of the corruption and shenanigans, NO. It is not due to the past hat millenials and anti gun groups today are spouting hate about the NRA. It is nothing more than trying to discredit a orginization they think is responsible for the lack of gun control. Nothing more or less. Giving them more creedit than is due is playing riht into their hands.

I guess I am thinking along the lines of what Tiffany mentioned how as soon as someone hears it is NRA organized training they get defensive. now anyone that knows the history or is unhappy with the NRA for its compromises would already be predisposed and knowleedgable of that. So they would not have the same reaction a someone that is clueless about the NRA. It is more of the current media blitz effect than anything else that causes a new shooter or someone just interested in shooting to dislike or be aware of the NRA.

I am pretty sure we cannot extend the compromises and shenangians of the NRA boards to today's dislike. That is directly related to the media blitz currently going on. And a great tool and technique by the Anti's I might add. 

Now, how do we counter it?

I feel like I am talking to a wall here.  Can you at least consider for a moment the possibility that you are not seeing the issue because you don't want to see it ?

[n0rlf]

I kind of feel the same way. You also may not see the issue as you want to see it as you do. I think that most shooters are going to be the same way.

Some saw the cast as somewhat bashing and some did not. No worries as we have been civil and can still hoist a pint if we should get the chance. 

We can just agree that we disagree. 

[gregintenn]

On 6/22/2018 at 2:47 PM, TGO David said:

 

It's sad that  MacGyver and I were chatting about this very thing yesterday and he commented that sometimes as a community we're just so white that we can't even see the issues and relate to how other people might feel.

 

 

How white are we? I do not know, nor care what the ethnic makeup of this forum is. I do not recall checking a box to indicate my race when I joined either. Is this something you feel we should apologize for or be ashamed of? I don't think much about another member's skin color unless he or she brought it up in a post. I think that if we ever get serious about  getting past racism, that would be the correct mindset. I'm often wrong, however.

[n0rlf]

On 6/26/2018 at 4:41 PM, TGO David said:

I feel like I am talking to a wall here.  Can you at least consider for a moment the possibility that you are not seeing the issue because you don't want to see it ?

The more I think about this the more questions it raises. What is it exactly you think I or anyone else does not want to see?

Hopefully I am wrong and you are not saying we are not including minorities? For is that not a rather broad accusation of a group to suggest they are noninclusive,?

I am sure I am missing something here so please fill me in what it is the cast was meant to show. 

[TGO David]

2 hours ago, n0rlf said:

The more I think about this the more questions it raises. What is it exactly you think I or anyone else does not want to see?

Hopefully I am wrong and you are not saying we are not including minorities? For is that not a rather broad accusation of a group to suggest they are noninclusive,?

I am sure I am missing something here so please fill me in what it is the cast was meant to show. 

You know, I am glad that this is making you think about these things but at the same time I wonder why it's making you seemingly obsess over it.  Hopefully it is because it caused you to be introspective and ask of yourself the same questions that you're asking here.

To answer your question: 

YES I am saying that, from what I have seen across the spectrum of social media and in person, the majority of people that you see posting online or at gun shops or at the shooting range are white folks just like me and there isn't a whole lot of diversity.  What I also have personally witnessed is the difference in how specific minorities are treated when they walk into some gun stores and onto some shooting ranges.

If an Asian guy walks into a gun store, no one bats an eye.  But if a black guy, a Hispanic guy or a Middle Eastern guy walk into a gun shop, I've personally witnessed them being watched closely by the dudes behind the counter  So, am I the only person that notices this?  The fact that you're questioning what my motives are suggests that you haven't seen it.   But to answer my own question, I know I am not the only one who does. 

This podcast was a lens into another community's view of the firearms culture and my sincere hope was that people would look through it and see things differently.  I had hoped it would help us see things from that community's perspective.  But instead I've got folks on TGO, like you, insinuating that there's something wrong with me and that community for seeing and noticing things the way that we do.

 

I'm just going to say it:  There's innocent ignorance and then there's willful ignorance, and only the former is forgivable.

 

[gregintenn]

Sorry David, but methinks you are off the rails on this.

[TGO David]

18 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Sorry David, but methinks you are off the rails on this.

Greg, I respect your opinion.  Where am I off the rails?

[Omega]

I think outside perspective, and if you come in with a chip on your shoulder, reality can be a bit skewed.  I can walk into most ANY range, gun store, or just about anyplace and not be "monitored".  But I also don't take immediate offense when someone walks up to me and asks if they can help me look for something.   I've witnessed incidents of people being approached and making a scene or just get that defensive attitude, and also have seen some come in and just look suspicious as all get out so even I keep an eye on them. 

Let's face it, we all profile, it's just the nature of the beast.  When I grew up in Denver, I got extra looks sometimes, no scratch that, MOST times, but I fit the profile of the ones responsible for all the crimes committed there so it came with the territory.  Attitude can make it a good experience or a bad one, you come into a place like you belong there and don't act like you're up to something and for the most part you will be accepted. 

[TGO David]

Greg, I still would like your thoughts on this.  Feel free to PM me if you'd rather.

That being said, however, I am going to recuse myself from this thread for the time being.  I am not sure that my continued posting within it will add any more value or if it will just muddy the waters further.  Let me say one thing before I check out of it, though:

My hope from the start was that this particular podcast episode would inspire the Second Amendment community to be more inclusive of others and more welcoming of diversity within our ranks.  The response seems to have been, "But aren't we already doing that?" and I would guess that as far as a forum can be, we're not doing a bad job.  But my focus wasn't TGO but rather the larger 2A community as a whole.

On a forum, it is fairly impossible to ascertain a member's race or gender from a screen-name or an avatar.  I bet a lot of people still think @LINKS2K is Keifer Sutherland.    My only ask of everyone here is that we not make assumptions from the vantage point of not knowing, and strive to be welcoming by not giving quarter to behavior that would turn people away.

When my wife and I were looking for a new home church recently, we visited a lot of them.  None of them made us feel particularly unwelcome, but only one of them made us feel like they wanted us there.

I want TGO to do that.

 

[MacGyver]

I'm going to offer a few thoughts for perspective.

Have you ever been somewhere where you just felt like you didn't belong? Maybe there was nothing obvious.  Likely nothing was said. But, you just felt like you didn't fit in.

Many of us have never had that experience - or would need to really stretch our thinking to do it.  Looking for a church is a perhaps a good analogy.  If you've ever left home and felt compelled to find a church in a new town - it can be daunting.  I recently had a family member move to Murfreesboro.  For a couple of years they tried probably a dozen churches.  They were at one of the bigger ones for about 6 months because their kids went to school with a lot of the kids at that church.  They really put in the work, but still ended up leaving.  When I was talking to my family member about it, she said, "there are some really great people there - but after 6 months I've got people still introducing themselves like I'm a visitor multiple times - and I don't really know that we're wealthy enough to afford to be able to go to church here."  

There's a lot in that statement that breaks my heart - but there's a lot of truth, too.  There's nothing obviously wrong with that church - they're serving a lot of people - but maybe there's more that they could be doing.

--

When it comes to the 2A community - maybe more than one thing can be true at the same time.

I'm going to explore that a little bit in this post.

1. The NRA as it exists today is doing just fine -  Its membership is as large as it's ever been. It raises more money than it ever has. It has a string of legislative and judicial wins at the local, state, and federal level. As an organization, it is feared by it's opponents, and may be the most effective lobbying group that's ever been. 

When many of us go to the conventions - we see a floor packed with guns and gear. We hear people speak that are talking about things that we care about.  It's probably the furthest thing from most of our minds that most everyone there looks like us. And, that's fine on the surface.

The NRA is doing great.  Why change something that is doing fine? If people don't feel welcome, that's their problem, not mine. I'm welcoming and affirming and tired of people telling me that I'm the problem.

All of the above can be true, and this likely is pretty accurate for most of us.  But, something else can be true, too.

2. The NRA as it exists today isn't going to be enough to see us through the fight that is coming - The conditions on the ground are changing. I'm convinced that we're going to see gun regulation be a more dominant force in our political arena in the next few years than it's ever been. Opponents are mobilized, growing, and increasingly well funded.

The NRA (as a proxy for all of us) is not ready for this coming fight.

We need as many allies as we can get - and what's worked so far - being a culture that's predominantly included white, middle class, generally "conservative" males - isn't going to get us where we need to go.  We're going to need a bigger team.

--

I think a lot of us read stuff about diversity and inclusion - and we're made to feel like we're somehow the problem.  We're tired of being made out to be the problem.

I'd love to redirect our focus a bit.  We all view things through a lens of our experience.  We can't change that.  But, occasionally something comes along to put a scratch on that lens and make us think. 

Let's go back to that church hunting analogy a bit. Many of you who've gone through this process would likely echo feeling something like this.  My family member did wind up at a church where they're happy and engaged.  When talking to her about it, she mentioned that the first Sunday that they were there people went out of their way to make them feel included.  People didn't just introduce themselves, the pastoral staff met them and learned about them. Other kids introduced themselves and showed their kids where to go.  People invited them to lunch after church. They made sure they knew about small groups.

All of this could seem overwhelming - unless you're looking for a community to get engaged in. Then, you see it through a perspective of people going out of their way to make you feel welcome.  That church was fine before this family got there - but when they showed up they went out of their way to make them feel welcome. And now, they're all better for it.

If I were to extend that out to the NRA (again as a proxy for all of us) what does that look like?

Let's say I'm a young Hispanic man here in Nashville, or a single black mother in Memphis who has bought a gun to defend her family, or maybe I'm a dad in government housing who can here gunshots weekly from my stoop as my kids play in the yard. 

Let's say I've joined the NRA to learn more about guns because that wasn't a part of my upbringing. I get a copy of American Rifleman or American Hunter in the mail every month. How do those publications speak to me?

What would those publications look like if they included stuff that was important to the non-white, non-suburban, non middle class male reader?

Off the top of my head:

1. Let's talk Philando Castile - here was a young (black) man who did everything you're supposed to do as a permit holder when engaging with law enforcement.  He notified them of his permit, was respectful, and didn't go anywhere near his gun - and still wound up shot. That's terrifying - and the NRA was silent on it.
2. Let's talk firearm security when a $1000 safe may not be an option
3. Let's talk firearm safety and handling in an environment where people aren't going to look at you crossways just because you're there
4. Let's talk cultural issues where your family and your community may look at you crossways because the only people they know with guns are thugs
5. Let's really open up some channels with law enforcement, and be an advocate, and have some hard conversations about interactions with our members who are terrified that they're going to get shot for something stupid.

A lot of things can be true at the same time in life. As I look at our community of gun owners at large right now - we're as strong as we've ever been. But, that likely isn't strong enough to get us where we need to go next.

America is getting browner.  That is something that many of us welcome and celebrate.  The 2A community of the future can't look like the one of today if we're going to remain as strong in future generations as we have in this past generation.

Maybe the point of this thread isn't necessarily to call us out on doing something wrong - rather it's to start a conversation about how we can be more welcoming - even if at times we go out of our way to do it.

How much stronger would the 2A community be if it were in fact a leader when it comes to inclusion? 

That's the thing. Leaders don't just show up one day with a group that is like, "yeah, I guess we'll follow you." No. Leaders create a space that people want to be involved in - and know that in doing so everyone is better.