Quick google search, I did no further research.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/d ... hallenged/

Well, since you doubted me, and someone else got you the link, Now what?

Let's say that some sort of gun ban becomes "political reality" then what? Give them up and turn them in?

Appeasement NEVER WORKS.

Gottleib really needs to rename the SAF. Because it would seem he has no deep and abiding regard for the document, It's just a means to whatever end he chooses for everyone else.

You know something, I've sat on the sidelines and let you have your say while other tore you (and continue to) a new one.

I've really tried to be fair.

But you are wrong. Utterly, and completely on this.

We have these documents here int the USA, the constitution and the bill of rights. Back when, the second amendment wasn't really needed to secure one's rights. You just put a musket ball in the bad guys chest. But it is now, and it has been for some time. Diminish it, and the rest of the documents are diminished.

I know you were raised in the quasi-European thinking that somehow the state is just an omnipotent entity, only looking out for the well being of the masses.

And the darnedest thing about that those parchments. You either believe in them, or you do not. They, in and of themselves are absolute, and I don't appreciate those who want to negotiate them away for some lame idea that it's somehow a win if we get something in exchange, especially if that something is a few degrees less dastardly that what we had.

We fight actual bloody destructive shooting wars over this sort of thing here. You eurocentrics seem happy with being invaded, murdered and bombed into oblivion periodically, but we don't cotton to that sort of nonsense here.

On the whole. we prefer to use those parchments as sword and shield.

Suppressors? SBR's? Trading away rights for TOYS is what we have come to? Especially things that have no business being regulated in the first place?

Your collectivist underwear is showing Anzac.

All or nothing? Yeah sure. Because that is what it will distill itself down to eventually. All guys like you have to decide is where you will draw YOUR line, and hope there are enough of us to lend you a hand when the time comes.


And Dave, since it was ALAN himself who was the source of the notion of withdrawing the 594 suit, I'd like your take on that. I'm kind of surprised you missed that one. Especially the we'd be happy" bit.

Whats this "we" shit. Who's he talking about?

As the guy throws a 1/2 at you, you spend so much effort slipping the 1/2 so gracefully that you didn't notice he charged up for the 3/6 for the KO.


While saf negotiates in the judicial branch, new enemies emerge in the legislative branch.

594 was the posterchild for all the other retards across the nation.

So rivitman, are you taking up arms against the government anytime soon? Tell me just how plan to change the current situation. You complain yet provide no solutions. Let's hear it. Enlighten us on how to work with a legislature and governor to change the current law of the land.

Folks, here is the truth of the matter...
We have people on each side of the spectrum, and we want our rights to be held inviolate. We want to be able to enjoy our firearms and to possess them for whatever purpose we see fit.

It ain't gonna happen, sportsfans. Not this way.

Why?

One major reason is because WE SPEND TOO MUCH TIME FIGHTING AMONG OURSELVES. The anti's don't have to lift a finger--we whip each other on a regular basis, and then moan and wail when oppressive legislation passes.

We snipe at each others and at the organizations that stand for what we believe in: the NRA, SAF, GOA, JPFO, WaGuns, whatever--someone is always in the wings to criticize and to tell the other side--"Hey, you're doing it wrong!!!" We use the buzz words, "No Compromise!" and "From my cold dead hands!!!" freely. We talk about what we'll do when "they come for our guns". And the saddest part of the whole thing is this: IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME TO THAT, OR ANYWHERE NEAR IT. But--we're headed that way.

Heck--WE CAN'T EVEN DECIDE WHO TO VOTE FOR!!!

I used an example at work to demonstrate wasted effort: Picture a covered wagon with eight horses; all big, strong draft horses. Now put them in a harness that has them facing in all directions. Where is the wagon going to go?

NOWHERE.

All that the drover has to do is to re-orient the horses and get them to pull in ONE direction. The wagon will then move at speed.

We talk about "fighting" for our rights. YET, COME ELECTION TIME, SOME OF US STAY AT HOME BECAUSE WE THINK THAT OUR VOTES DON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

I was taught that there are four boxes to Liberty. The soap box--where we present a unified voice. One example was the first demonstration against I-594 in Olympia. Even the State Troopers there said, "No, we're not going to arrest anyone." Why can't we do that on a continuous basis?

The next is the ballot box. We can use the power of the law of our land, the Constitution. We can vote people into office; we can vote people out of office. We can put law on the books with the petition; we can remove laws from the books with the referendum. We can remove officials from government with recall elections.

WHY, OH WHY, AREN'T WE CONCENTRATING ON THAT????

Instead, we quibble about candidates because we don't like the colors of their socks, they were seen talking to a liberal, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

STOP IT, PEOPLE!!! STOP IT!!!

Folks like Dave Workman, Alan Gottleib and others have stepped up to champion our cause. WHY ARE WE TRYING TO DECIMATE THEIR EFFORTS???

Here is another truth: Our times, and our Nation have changed. Whether you want to admit it or not, there ARE people out there who have NO BUSINESS WITH A FIREARM. We have background checks--and they are a necessary evil.

Here's a hot flash for those who will listen: WHY DON'T WE, INSTEAD OF RAILING AGAINST THE LAW, ACT TO MAKE IT FAIR, EQUITABLE AND EASY FOR THE AVERAGE JOE OR JANE TO USE?

Simply put: we get together and ask DOL to establish a toll-free number. Have them publish forms for sale and transfer of legal firearms, and make those forms available to everyone. Now, just like a NICS check, a seller fills out the form, calls the number and has the background check done. You get an approval number, just like NICS, which you put on the form. YOU RETAIN THE FORM, AND THE BUYER GETS A COPY. Done deal.

We also have the jury box--which is being employed now, IIRC, to attempt to address the mess that is I-594.

Finally, folks, let's STOP all of this bickering and fighting. Let's think of our strategy for elections in the future--and VOTE to get good candidates into office. Get out and VOTE! Let's organize a referendum to GET 594 off the books!!! I believe that the only reason it passed was because a LOT of gun owners voted for it. Let's FIX that!

If we can stop poking at each other long enough, we can make GOOD things happen!

Bullshit. Nobody is taking up arm against anything, unless they (the potential opposition) do it first. And then there will be hell to pay on all sides. But I'll tell you you need to look around because everyone is gunning up, armoring up, and tech-ing up. If you don't see it you are blind.

And I have said it again and again, IF SAF believes their suit valid, with a realistic chance of success, PROCEED with it. You want a plan? There's one for ya. Those weenie assholes at the NRA ought to file a more targeted suit using the State constitution, which much more specifically protects our gun rights.

Work with the legislature? They can either do the right thing or not. We already have the Shea bill, which as far as I can tell, has NOT received Alan Gottliebs endorsement.

Work with Inslee? On what? He a hardcore screaming commie-lib gun grabber. The is nothing there to be worked with.

ANY deal you make with the gun grabbers is going to be to their advantage over time.

Powderman:

This fight needs to be had. And it needs to be had now.

Why? Because the clock is ticking on gun rights, and a whole lot of other rights and freedoms as well. Freedom is LOSING on all fronts. many gun owners are too unaware or just too plain dumb to see it.

The other alternative is some sort of dialog. Alan Gottleib has proven, time and again, he doesn't want any. He takes his own counsel and that is it. He could care less about anyone's opinion but his own.

What he's talking about obtaining for you is only good until the next anti-gun initiative, because if he makes a deal and SAF withdraws it's suit, it leaves the door WIDE OPEN for more.

When i posted AG's intent, DAve W called me on it. It has been proven that the words came right out of Alan Gottleib's mouth, And Dave hasn't commented on that vs his claim the SAF is "All In".

Just how "All In" can you be when you offer to withdraw the suit in exchange for whatever? Sure, it could be some sooper seekret special gun guy tactic. But I doubt it. His track record with items like Manchin-Toomy and the effort recently to an effort to trade a universal background check for the State pistol Registry. I think I know exactly where he's coming from. And it makes me dubious that SAF intends to pursue the suit vigorously.

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. No reflection on you, but this is the mindset we have GOT to get rid of. It makes as much sense as saying, "Hey, we're going to war--but first, the Army has to whip the Marines, and the Air Force has to bomb the Navy because then we'll know just who's in charge."

WHY all the infighting? Why are we worried about the semantics when we are watching our freedoms slip away? Is this the best response we can give?

The question has been asked...how do liberals get away with passing bills like 594? It's because we are so busy fighting ourselves that we let them sneak into the back door, again and again. Do you see the Democratic Party or the anti-gun lobby quibble over stuff like this? No. They present a united front, and therein lies their strength. When is the last time you heard Bloomberg slam Sarah Brady? You HAVEN'T, and that is the entire point of my post.

Good luck betting it all on black Rivitman. I'll take The approach that includes all options, not just one.

I've done my homework. I'm betting not on black, but red, white, and blue.

http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=76



http://www.examiner.com/article/speech-commends-virginia-s-grassroots-leaders-defies-gun-grabbers



http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=185



And Dave, you called me out on Alan's statements about dropping the suit. You have been provided with a link showing the quote was directly from him. I'm still awaiting your comment.

Both the SBR and the suppressor bills - were handled by good people with no fundraising, organization backing, or questionable past to deal with.

SAF, Gottleib, and Hicks had nothing to do with either bill.

Neither bill concerned itself with background checks, and gun registration as a byproduct either.

Healthy debate, and ensuring the credibility of the spokespeople who are supposedly representing all gun owners is not a bad or negative thing, it is a necessary thing to do.

Great leaders and statesmen have faced the same level of scrutiny throughout history.

Some were proven to be blowhards, liars, and self serving.

Most went on to serve the people with distinction and a noteworthy place in the history books.

This is no different - if the players currently in question can't take the heat, maybe they shouldn't have been in the kitchen to begin with.

Other leaders of good moral character and impeccable past history will be there to take their places.

"Less Bad Is Worse

A few seemingly pro-gunowner groups have supported gunowner control laws, using the justification that the law was going to pass no matter what, but by supporting it they were able to enact changes that lessened its severity. It as inevitable but by supporting it they made a bad law less bad.

I disagree with damn near everything about this practice, and I openly question the motives and sincerity of folks who use such rationalizations, but let's look at the premise:

Law X would be bad, but it has enough support that it will likely pass. So support is given to Law X and some changes are made, transforming it from a severe law to a moderately bad one. Does this help overall?

By taking a severe law and injecting some measure of moderation into it then the immediate results is that it has less of a drastic impact in the short term, but in the long run it makes it harder to repeal. It is easier to convince a legislature to revisit and repeal a law that is a big change that negatively impacts people than it isif the law was only a moderate change. The same is true of court rulings, and most importantly convincing people to disobey such laws.

Let's say Law X would prohibit magazine with a capacity of more than 6 rounds. Due to the extreme nature of such a law it would not be difficult to persuade either a future legislature or a court that the measure goes too far by almost any standard, and encouraging non-compliance wouldn't be difficult. But if Law X were modified to prohibit magazines that held more than 15 rounds it would make compliance less onerous and consequently make it more difficult to convince a legislature or court of its burdensome nature.

In the short term it seems to help by lessening the damage done by a law, but in the long run it makes a law harder to repeal or have ruled unconstitutional. Further it makes intensifying the effects of a law by further additions over time more plausible. Law X prohibits 15 rounds today, but in 5 years it's reduced to 12, then 10, and finally after a decade or two it's down to the original 6 round limit. Going from unlimited to 6 in on swoop is pretty shocking. Going from unlimited to 15, then to 12, then to 10, then to 6 over the course of some years is less striking. People would gradually become accustomed to it and that would reduce pressure on the government to change such a law.

You know the old saying about gradually turning up the heat to boil a frog. Well imagine a pot full of frogs and when the heat is turned up too fast, some frogs yell to the chef "Hey! Turn it down or we'll jump out of the pot!". That is what the long term effect of "making a bad law less bad" is, and the folks who advocate it, no matter how well meaning, are in the long run hurting the very cause they claim to be aiding.

(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)"

http://publicola.blogspot.com/2015/01/l ... e.html?m=1

Bobbing for Appeasement

http://publicola.blogspot.com/2015/01/b ... t.html?m=1

So hire an attorney to put your case forward and challenge the law.

That's not a valid response, that's a troll.

You can go right ahead and live in a fantasy world and latch onto anyone who you think will save you.

I'm not going to do that. Just because many gun owners oppose Alan Gottleib's tactics , and do not not have a big fundraising machine backing us up doesn't make us wrong.

And Dave, I'm still waiting for you to back up your position that SAF is "All In" with it's suit, given that It has now been conclusively shown that Alan Gottleib is willing to chuck it in the bin if the legislature makes 594 acceptable to him.

I'm not trying to bait you here, but I am, and will continue to put you in a corner on this. YOU called BS on me, and the goods were delivered.