Out to win the culture war against the gun hobby?

I'm not sure what that means. If I take it literally, it could only mean what Alan Gottleib's vision for it is. And his alone. And that would be a poor goal to pursue, and it would cause them to have to allow the continual erosion of our rights to achieve their panacea of peace and goodwill with gun haters. It won't work and never has.

To put it simply, They are in favor of some gun control. They seem to believe that there is a tolerable amount of infringement or impairment on our rights.

They will only fight for the rights they want us to have. The ones you already have, but are being interfered with.

The provably want universal background checks the facilitator of registration.

They provably want safe storage laws.

And there is no doubt in my mind, that they would sell out open carry in a heartbeat. They seem to have a certain level of disdain for it, even if carried out in a manner most deem proper.

They want the background check Period. Alan Gottleib said so, himself. Workman tried to deny that, Then he called me out on it. Then he played dumb. Then he dismissed it "DUH".

To my thinking, there is exactly ZERO chance that Workman didn't know about the quote. The article with Gottleib's quote was an AP story, with mass distribution, appearing in many outlets. And SAF's chief spokesperson in Washington, and senior editor plays dumb? Calls me out and attacks me? Accuses me of hiding because I post under a handle like 99.9% here do?

Again Dave, My name is Steve Ramsey, Graham Wa. want to publicly trade home addresses?

Why not do something useful and encouraging, like come out with an endorsement of the Shea bill?

I know why.

You know how we've been upset here in WA because it's so difficult for the legislature to repeal or revise 594? Well, someone from Arizona stopped us at SHOT Show to discuss this issue, and he mentioned that the legislature there CANNOT repeal an initiative. The only way to undo an initiative is to pass another initiative.

That looks to be true.



Reference: http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_t ... in_Arizona

that kind of crap won't go anywhere in arizona. tucson and flagstaff are pretty blue while rest of the state is red as can be. especially maricopa county where sheriff joe is elected time after time.

Hey my house is in maricopa.... might meet sheriff joe one of these days...

They're going after Oregon now.

"GRANTS PASS — Fresh off a victory in Washington state, a leading gun control group backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg is hoping to make Oregon its next prize in a campaign to require gun sales to go through universal background checks.

Everytown for Gun Safety backed a voter-approved initiative in Washington last year that made the state the 17th in the country to expand background checks past the federal standard applying only to licensed gun dealers."



http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... g_for.html

Steve:
I don't think you will ever be satisfied. I could apologize for whatever, I could declare to the world that you were right, Gottlieb was wrong, I could probably say you should be king of the world, but somehow I dont think you'd be satisfied.

You want truth? Whose "truth?" Gottlieb expressed an opinion — shared by a LOT of people — about the OC incident in the House gallery that got us what? OC is now banned in both the House and Senate galleries. People can whine, piss and moan all they want about it being an illegal act, unconstitutional, whatever, but the ban is in place and neither you, nor I nor Alan Gottlieb is going to change that and it wasn't Alan's fault in the first place that happened. Period.

A handful of people are suddenly on the warpath, blaming Alan Gottlieb for all kinds of things. I'm waiting for them to get around to the Titanic and the fall of the Alamo, it's that silly.

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed Gottlieb is perfect. nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes, errors in judgment, you name it. Anyone who NEVER made a mistake never did anything. Maybe 591 was a huge error. Could be trying to influence Manchin-Toomey was a mistake, though some people have quietly suggest that if it had passed as Gottieb envisioned, we wouldn't have Bloomberg prancing his money around the country now, buying elections all over the place, or getting ready to. We'll never know.

Maybe Manchin-Toomey would have been a launchpad for rolling back some onerous laws. That takes time, same as it took time to incrementally erode our 2A rights.

Gottlieb didn't invent the background check or the waiting period. A lot of people like them, and that evidently includes a lot of gun owners. I can't recall a single instance in which a background check prevented a nutball or criminal from getting a gun...although they've stopped some people from getting a gun at retail.

Frankly, I think I-591 might have passed, had it not been for Pilchuck High School. I'm not entirely sure I-594 would have gotten 59 percent of the vote if it hadn't been for Pilchuck, either. When two similar or opposing initiatives are on the ballot, historically both fail. But a high school shooting is poison for any pro-gun effort.

I suppose someone will blame Alan for Pilchuck, or for failing to prevent it and costing us the election. There are a lot of conspiracy theorists out there.

The other thread got locked. It went on for 13 pages, with nobody solving anything. I didn't lock that one. I think that happened when I was on an airplane that landed late (I hit the sack soon as I got home and never checked anything until today) but I'm not terribly sorry that it was locked. Think about it this way. That thread lockup was essentially the same kind of thing that happened in Olympia. Something got out of hand and it didn't have to.

I can lock this thread. I don't want to because I really believe in the First Amendment as well as the Second. I live both daily.

Alas, you seem intent on carrying on an argument. If Gottlieb was a member here, he'd probably answer your complaints. And then I suspect you'd come back for more after declaring him wrong.

Personally, I'm tired of arguing with you. Got that? I'm tired of arguing with you. It doesn't accomplish anything. I'm going to politely ask others who have argued back at you to stand down also. Everybody take a deep breath. Lower the decibel level.

You can send Gottlieb a letter and explain your problems with his strategies. I'm certain he'd be happy to hear your concerns, provided, of course, it's all spelled out in a rational narrative. Offer some suggestions, some different strategies. You never know. He might agree with you.

nicely said Dave...

I for one admit to "instigating" a few of the pages on the other thread... I already decided it wasn't worth the effort and will stay out in the future... I think all that could be said were said...

Well Dave, for one, it's pretentious for you to say I can't be satisfied, when up until about six weeks ago, I saw us as being directed at a common purpose. Sure, I had some issues with Alan, but then he himself decided to open my eyes.

Gottlieb is entitled to his opinion, but as the self appointed maximum leader of gun rights in this state, expressing his intemperate point of view (as i am often accused of) by labeling people "Kooks and extremists" deserves all the criticism in the world.

But the real problem is that it didn't start there, nor has it ended there. Smearing the opposition within the ranks of gun owners has been Alan's stock in trade for YEARS. It was reignited with his remarks over the DEC 13th rally, and it's been seriously downhill from there, with Alan pushing the sled.

I've simply had enough of it. I'm not going to abide it anymore.

Nearly ten times the number of people showed up on Dec 13th as did on Jan 15th. To an open carry rally, with no permit, organized by an unknown guy from the dry side. Many didn't show up on the 15th because they were turned off by all the foo foo requests being made by the organizers. A few decided to tell Alan to get bent and did their own thing. And they were very effective at it. They will do the same, again and again as long as they are shut out of the equation.

Is 594 Alan's fault? He has some blame to take yeah. He gave the idea of a UBC traction and credibility by trying to negotiate one last year. Now again, this year, he's pumping one. Not to mention the million dollar failure of 591.

This years failure is the filing of a federal lawsuit as nothing more than a bludgeon to get exactly what he wants: A Universal Background check, And with each bill passed to deal with one of 594's defects, the absolute permanence of that bill becomes more certain, and he KNOWS it, just like a few years back, when he hoped to get the anti's off our back with a safe storage law.

Yes, I remember HB 1424. Alan thought safe storage laws inevitable, so he tried to get one pre-emptivly. Just like the UBC.

Pray tell, just what else does Alan see as 'inevitable' so he can spend the money of contributors getting enacted instead of defended against?



Seriously Dave, you really have lost it when you dig your hole that deep. I mean really, that's so ridiculous it actually got a chuckle from me. That alone stretches credulity to beyond the breaking point.

Pilchuck was not responsible for overcoming a ten point electoral loss. But you are right, and as I have asserted since the election, gun owners had to vote for 594 to pass it.

They were poorly educated. So where was SAF and it's vaunted education mandate?

Nowhere to be seen.

I know you did not lock the previous thread. Good for you. Threatening to lock this one? Not so much. That's petty. Go ahead and lock it if you must, but you will be showing your colors when you do it. Mine remain nailed to the mast.

Alan want's to argue his case? Let him log on and do it. He can't handle the 'little people'. That's what he has you for ostensibly.



Then just stop. Nobody is twisting your arm. You post, I respond. You respond? I make a rebuttal. You don't like it? Tough. You can look forward to more of the same. Unless someone decides it's time to kick me out. Which provably, I can live with.

As to Gottlieb, he already made a half ass'd response to Claire, with the promise of an article in a couple of weeks, but it's clear he doesn't want a debate. He wants his way.

My only suggestions to Alan is the same one I have posted now several times as my preferred plan. Pursue the suit. Stop making a deals in exchange for a UBC. Stop diminishing the effectiveness of the suit by correcting bits of 594 piecemeal. We can live with 594 as is for one legislative cycle even if there is no injunction granted.

But we don't want to live with it because Allan Gottleib says we have to.

I can see it now, the State's attorney telling the judge:

"Your Honer, The director of the Second Amendment Foundation himself said he's not trying to stop background checks, so just why are we here? Over some defects and ambiguities the legislature is in the process of correcting? I move for summary dismissal for failure to show cause."

And stop attacking gun owners concerned enough about their rights to arm themselves at the capitol, and stop labeling them ala SPLC, "kooks and extremists". Stop making hay over the gallery incident. The only reason it's still news is because you keep using it.

Stop all that sniping and start giving some more frank, more candid answers, and we might have an environment to lower the volume. Just don't expect fanboy lockstep.

Effective at posing for the media exactly the images that will feed MDA's coffers, and effective at getting OC banned in the legislative chamber.

Again, you fall into the trap of believing there is anything gun owners can do to prevent media mis-portrayals. Stop being naive. Stop pretending that open carry in the gallery is a big loss, as if that were some form of recreation to you. I'm not impressed with the faux indignation.


As to the gallery ban, if it entirely derails Alan Gottlieb's plan to trim 594 to his satisfaction, leaving only the UBC in place, so be it. Then he will have to either fight 594 in the courts, or not.

This is just history repeating itself, in this case, Alan Gottleib's history.

Emphasis mine:

He's about to go to jail himself last I checked...

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/loc ... /21869887/

So you think it was not an incremental loss for gun owners? You have no regrets, would support them doing it all over again?

As for the media portrayal, people standing in the gallery holding rifles up high harms us far more than it hurts us, and the media didn't force them to do it, they just documented it. I don't mind the images of people wearing whatever they like standing in a crowd with rifles over their shoulders, but waving guns around will not win gun owners any support. Even though I support 594, anything that becomes fodder for banning "assault weapon" or restricting our rights to own and carry guns is concerning to me.

This has NOTHING to do with the title of the thread. You guys had your chance and it got locked down before. Don't derail this thread as well.

Not going to ask again, either start a new thread or let it go.

Not so much "guys". More like guy.

No, I don't think so, I believe I have the vast majority of the Gun Rights writers, and gun rights organization in this country on the same side as me.


[url]
http://www.examiner.com/article/comprom ... igh-ground[/url]

Next, Gottlieb goes so far as toi try to discredit David Kopel Really?



http://www.examiner.com/article/new-yor ... -gun-op-ed



http://www.captainsjournal.com/2014/10/07/universal-background-checks-the-monster-that-just-wont-die/