Via Joe Huffman, we get this little juicy tidbit from the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. This is their Objectives for Fiscal Year Beginning 2007

Our analysis of the current stalemate in the national debate over gun control has led the Ed Fund to believe that activists must challenge the idea that guns protect freedom and democracy.

And while you're at it, you should challenge the idea that babies don't really come from storks or that Santa Claus isn't real, because all of them have the same basis in reality.

We have begun to fuel a debate among academics, journalists, progressive leaders, and the general public over the relationship between guns and the values that define us as Americans.

With less than $31,000 in funds, I'd suspect you're going to use up that "fuel" rather quickly. However, you're biggest problem is academics, journalists, and progressive leaders. They're not your target audience if you're looking to change minds.

Please, by all means though, focus on the "general public". Remind them how they are not to be trusted with firearms. Remind them that their masters will protect them. Tell them they should give up more rights and that it's better for them.

And throw in a few "for the children" quotes too. The plebes eat that shit up!

By demonstrating how the "insurrectionist" philosophy of the National Rifle Association has helped to build and sustain the conservative movement,

Mistake #3 - The NRA != Gun Owners. They have 4 million members. There are 270,000,000 firearms in the hands of civilians in the US. Unless each member has 67.5 firearms each (a respectable number in my opinion) , I'm going to have to say the NRA isn't such a blanket organization.

But if you wish to spend your paltry slush fund on attacking them, please be my guest.

the Ed Fund hopes to drive a wedge between the highly partisan and ideologically extreme leaders of gun rights organizations

You mean the extreme position that humans have the right to self defense and that they should be allowed to use the tools that serve them best? Or the extreme idea that 10,100 gun deaths resulting from .000347% of all guns isn't a logical reason to punish the other 99.9997%?

 and moderate gun owners, as well as the non-gun owning public. We believe this strategy will give policy makers the best chance of enacting sound, progressive gun laws at the federal and state level that will ultimately save lives.

What is it with progressives that they feel the need to attach that word to every thing they talk about? "Progressive Leaders", "Progressive Solutions", "Progressive Rights Violations". I mean, if you can't get the majority of the people to vote for your positions, what makes you think that repeating the very word they rail against is going to change their minds?

Face it, gun controllers are on the retreat. It's not that they're out of ideas, it's that their ideas are not based in reality or on any sort of facts that can be backed up. But they do rely on emotional appeals which can be effective against people who are the fence sitters or do not have access to the full range of information they need to make an informed decision.

But that's exactly what the gun grabbers want to avoid.