A excellent thought provoking post such as this needs more than a little consideration.

I would conclude that based upon that feedback as well as my own perceptions being somewhat more involved in the community the perception is not good.
I would agree wholeheartedly on that statement.

Firstly lets us examine the strategic direction.
I see a few shortcomings
Number one, there is no strategic view! What is the purpose of the advocacy groups, is it a) to scrap the concept of firearms legislation? b) to scrap the FCA? c) to change the administrators of the FCA? D) to counter the propaganda espoused by Gun Free SA etc etc?
This is probably more from a lack of understanding of the forces at work than anything else.

It would be great if the various organizations spokespersons could speak with some alignment and portray a clear message!

Who is the “enemy”
A very good question and has an obvious answer, anyone who opposes firearm ownership

Although reticent to use that term I must ask this? Who is the opposition?
Is it Gun Free SA, the SAPS, the Government?
Ask the question who opposes firearm ownership?
Does GFSA?
Do the SAPS?

I ask this as at various times all three of these entities appear to be the enemy and at others the SAPS and the Government are unwitting allies etc etc
What is the difference between the enemy and allies of the enemy? While GFSA leaves no doubt of its status that of the SAPS is not so clear since not all of the members of the SAPS are opposed to firearm ownership. In fact the grass roots response in general is one of support. These members however are forced into silence and should never be confused by with those who either for political or ideological reason oppose firearm ownership.

I would suggest that putting the SAPS in the camp of the enemy is short sighted! They are not makers of policy but administrators thereof and to make them the enemy is silly!
Not really, all that need be done is to distinguish who are friends and who are the enemy. The political leadership of the SAPS is by far the greatest problem as well as their willing pawns in Gun Control. Giving the SAPS a blanket “good guy” status is equally short sighted.

Is it GFSA, if so why is the counter message so fragmented? Far more would be gained by expressing the unified and aligned position of gun owners than by reactively jumping up and down over silly GFSA statements! Rather a unified approach which detracts from their logic and their impingement of our constitutional rights
See not understanding the forces at work.

Lets examine attacking GFSA as a strategy.
What would attacking GFSA achieve?

Would this change governments desire to remove all registered firearms?

So yes this is simply stupid but hell it does give some a very good motivation to get off their rear ends as GFSA can be seen as promoting gun control. By all means discredit GFSA but a direct attack is a waste of time. I’m not going to give reasons but consider would a mercenary be convinced to go home by a moral or rights based argument?

The attack is being wasted and the effort should be directed at GFSA’s target, the public. GFSA do not directly attack firearm owners they produce propaganda to influence public opinion that can be sold to politicians as “good policy” demanded by the public.

On that issue, I do understand the passion expressed by the advocacy groups but is often so knee jerk and aggressive it alienates me never minds those who are only potential firearms owners!
The reason people attack the messenger is because they see that as the enemy who has besmirched their good name. It is a perfectly logical and reasonable response no matter how incorrect it is. What needs to be done is a mind shift away from seeing GFSA as “the enemy” and as one undoing or fighting the OBJECTIVE of GFSA. This is the way to hit back at GFSA because without public support they are nothing but a bunch of radical lunatics in the publics mind. Without public support government would not even bother to think about gun control because it would be seen as unpopular and VOTE losing.

Bear with me on this, I need to elucidate! When explaining a concept such as the US political landscape one of the stock truisms is that you will find 30% of the population will always vote Republican and 30% Democrat, its for various reasons, mommy and daddy did, I live in a Republican/ Democrat area, who else is there etc etc, no matter what the other party does or says or who its candidate is, it will not remove them from their position! It’s that 40% that you need to chase! Its their ability to vote with their impression and logic that sway elections and put people in power! So why is this little venture into politics pertinent!
It is a false argument and gun control has been a voting issue in the USA for some time. Hence the changes in legislation.

Clearly this point is missed by Obama who used the simple promise of HOPE for something better to win the Presidential election.

We need to convince Joe Average South African about the validity of our cause, I can almost guarantee you that you can dedicate the rest of your life to the cause and shout and scream at GFSA as much as you possibly can and they will never vacate their position, in fact you will just strengthen theirs by projecting the image of an hysteric teenager!
A correct evaluation of a futile waste of time shouting at mercenaries.

The validity of our cause is equally wrong if all it entails is trying to promote an underdog victimised opinion.

You will not gain the wide spectrum acceptance and support of Joe Average South African by reverting to hysterics and reactive rhetoric, you need to get a unified message that is compelling, logical and fresh and stick to it!
Now there is something I seldom see and that is hysterics and reactive rhetoric from any gun owners. By far the majority start off by presenting sound argument but are invariably countered by emotional issues. That leads to both playing the same game instead of a rational debate.

You can’t debate rationally with somebody whose sole source of information is what has been put there by propaganda. Propaganda does not educate by reason it instils an emotional response. Let’s say “instinctive response” driven by fear for better understanding. Does a fear of heights have a rational response; a fear of guns is no different.

Image Projection is also another key element of the strategy that’s missing!
It is the crux of the problem

If I ask you to name me the top four Rugby Teams in SA you would likely say
Bulls, Sharks, WP and Cheetahs, hardly anyone would think of the Griquas as their first reaction yet the Griquas lead the Bulls on the table as of today!
Why because no matter how well they do they still have the entrenched image of being a junior league or bush league team! Their image of being a professional rugby side has not yet become entrenched in the minds of the average SA Rugby fan! If I were to ask what is the image of the average firearm owner, most respondents would reply, White, male, conservative, anti government, survivalist! This despite the fact that there are as many if not more black firearms owners a fair amount I am sure who voted for the government of the day! This image needs to change and it is an element that behooves the individual advocacy groups to school their members in. Get away from the anti government rhetoric rather project the image of reasonable, logical, hardworking, responsible people who want to enjoy their rights and their sports! After all you did not get a firearm to kill people you did it to defend yourself and participate in your sport! We really need to step away from the tin hat connotations!
That is far easier said than done. I have for 10 years been trying to change the attitude of firearm owners in general and I mean no disrespect by this from one of a laager mentality to one of promoting their image. Unfortunately an “image” is an intangible thing and the majority simply have a great deal of difficulty in connecting the dots to one of absolute necessity.

Another aspect that serves GFSA well is the disparate approach by the various groups, why should they worry about message the individual groups are so busy slinging mud against each other they can sit back, sip their tea and smile!
That is equally easy to understand see lack of understanding of the forces against firearm ownership and believe me there are as many within as there are without.

Let me present a good example of the damage and results of one simple silly mistake. Acceptance of the FCA. What has this meant to the average firearm owner?

It means there is no HOPE. It means anyone who advocates it is promoting a lost battle and lost fight from which there is no return. It means organisations who have this as a mandate have no further interest in firearm ownership and have given up any fight for what they should have been fighting for.

Now anyone can give me dozen good but equally self-defeating arguments about that but what they can’t do is give firearm owners any HOPE of survival. Is anyone surprised that firearm owners are now apathetic and see no reason to do anything? Without hope there is no reason to do anything. The recent court victories rekindled that hope to same small degree but firearm organisations still have absolutely no idea of what they ignore every day. They are promoting the problem by removing hope.

Why has no concerted effort been made to project the logic of the cause over to the millions of South Africans who have not yet entered or even thought much of the debate, WITHOUT being hysterical! I mean come on we are allowing a group who want to legalize drugs as they illegalize firearms get the better of us!
Because hysteria is not the problem, a lack of hope, pride and self-respect is. Desperate people do desperate things.

When 1 million people have been forced to hand over their firearms you have 1 million potential voices against organisations that did nothing to protect their rights. A further 900,000 stand waiting for the axe to fall and the vast majority of firearm organisations do not give a rats rear end about it, while those that do simply don’t have funding or support to make any difference.

But to answer your question because it takes thought, money and work that is not seen as worthy of expenditure. Firearm interest organisations such as sporting bodies don’t have this aspect as a mandate or consider it is a reason for their existence and continued existence. Why? Because members do not demand it and they have no hope so why bother.