Bias in moderations on this board.

Jim March · May 11, 2002, 05:14 PM

Folks,

A while back I published a critique of Angel Shamaya's KABA website, and it wasn't just closed, it was deleted completely.

If any moderators don't know what I'm talking about, a copy is archived here:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/byekaba.html

I recently exchanged EMail with somebody well-known who wanted me to try and make peace with Angel, when I explained that I couldn't. He took that for "won't", and I corrected him thusly:

--------------------------
Ah, I see where you and I are disconnecting.

You're assuming I'm saying I "won't" work with him, when I've been saying "can't".

Allow me to explain.

In most states, there is a local organization that handles gun-rights politics, usually (but not always) as an NRA affiliate organization. Examples include Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) of Massachusetts, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership (MCRGO), etc.

Go here and look under "affiliations" in the bottom left corner:
http://www.goal.org/

In California, it's different. Way different.

The NRA runs the grassroots communications network and local activist meetings directly, called the NRA Member's Councils. They also directly pay for an entire lobbying office in the state capitol, an entire law office in LA with a staff of over 20, and pay a guy to run the MC system. MC chapters have the ability to make organized presentations to local city councils and county boards of supervisors AS THE NRA, not as "concerned local citizens" or "some local gun group", but as THE perceived 800lb gorilla of the lobbying world.

As you can imagine, that's pretty cool from the Point Of View of local activists, but pretty damn frightening from the POV of Fairfax. Why scary? Because untrained amateurs are being allowed to politic under the NRA brand name! It's a measure of how desperate the situation is out here. (Yes, there's still a difference between "NRA" and "NRA Member's Council" but it's not going to be noticed by some tree-hugging grabber twit on a city council or whatever.)

So under the circumstances, there's some limits put on the MCs. We can't use the NRA brand label to support groups that are devoted to the destruction of the NRA! If a Member's Council does anyways, the NRA will yank it's charter and sue 'em if they ever call themselves an "NRA Member's Council" again. Basic trademark law here.

You know all those neat exposes on CCW abuse? I wasn't allowed to post links to them on the MC EMail list. I wasn't allowed to hand out copies at MC meetings if they had KABA's name still attached! And I wasn't allowed to use the CCW abuse research being compiled at the NRA's law offices in articles that were to appear on KABA.

Are you starting to get the picture here?

I have to work with these Calif NRA-connected people and groups. IF it was any other state, it wouldn't be quite such a big deal but it IS California and I'm not going to let %$#^%$ gun-grabber policies and Sheriff's department practices run me out of my HOME. So I'm going to stay and fight, and that means working with the NRA, and that means:

So long, Angel. (At least as long as he keeps up this idiotic war with the NRA.)
--------------------------

It is no secret that Angel believes that support by the NRA for shall-issue CCW bills instead of backing Vermont Carry is treason to the cause.

My view is that no legislature in the US is likely to pass a Vermont bill any time soon. That leads to situations where (as one example) 55% of a legislature is pro-carry, the "Vermont or bust" crowd persuades a small chunk of those to back a Vermont Bill, and the NRA gets upset and strongarms that "hardcore minority of legislators" to get on the shall-issue program, which otherwise will have only 48% support and go down in flames.

Each time this has happened, going back *years*, Angel and his allies have screamed "TRAITOR!" at the NRA. Personally, I'm just sick of it. I've been fighting for shall-issue in California for six years now - if we get close, and a bunch of morons try and slip Vermont in at the last minute screwing everything up, you can bet I'll be *pissed*.

This has happened over and over again, in state after state. The latest is Colorado, and I agree that somebody at the state-level NRA affiliate may have goofed somewhat on the latest shall-issue bill but that still doesn't warrant the response from the "hardcore set".

OK, I've laid out the basic difference here between Angel and myself.

So what does this have to do with TFL?

TFL has allowed an =>UNLIMITED<= amount of "bashing" of the NRA. I ran a board-wide search on the words "NRA AND traitors" and got 37 hits.

Check out any of the threads in the list you'll get, and you'll find stuff like this:

"It's not about "not being hardcore enough," friend. It's about NRA compromising your rights away. If that doesn't bother you, fine. Don't expect everybody else to turn a blind eye to traitors just because you do."

Know who wrote that?

Angel himself, at:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=2

So my question to TFL management is this:

Is "heavy criticism" of gun rights groups going to be RESTRICTED to the NRA, and criticism of all other groups BANNED? Do you believe Angel Shamaya is a human being, while Wayne LaPierre and Charleton Heston are animatronic robots of some sort?

I eagerly await your answer to this apparant double standard.

It's important, because I've completely rebuilt my website, adding cool stuff such as a downloadable *official* California CCW application .PDF literally smuggled out of the DOJ. And that criticism of Angel's site is on my webpage, so if I mention the total revamp I've done, all this is likely to come up.

I'll send the URL for this thread to Angel.

skypod · May 11, 2002, 06:34 PM

Quote:

You know all those neat exposes on CCW abuse? I wasn't allowed to post links to them on the MC EMail list. I wasn't allowed to hand out copies at MC meetings if they had KABA's name still attached! And I wasn't allowed to use the CCW abuse research being compiled at the NRA's law offices in articles that were to appear on KABA.

Jim,

It seems to me that it's the NRA/MC who are being petty dictators here, and you are simply buying into their nonsense and helping them continue to hide the truth.

Melissa (skypod)

**Mike Irwin** · May 11, 2002, 06:34 PM

I've met both La Pierre and Heston.

My vote is animatronic robots, quite frankly...

Sorry, Jim. Not trying to kill the seriousness of your thread, just trying to put a light face on it.

KeepAndBearArms.com · May 11, 2002, 06:48 PM

Jim March said:

Quote:

"It is no secret that Angel believes that support by the NRA for shall-issue CCW bills instead of backing Vermont Carry is treason to the cause."

"Treason" is a strong word regarding that particular issue -- and you have no evidence that I have ever said that, specifically, because I haven't. In some cases, cleaner bills toward citizen carry don't have much chance in passing, but NRA should still support them at least in word -- but they don't. "Why" is addressed below. But I'd reserve the word "treason" in regards to NRA's activities for things like their outright demand for the federal prosecution of local gun laws -- barred, entirely, by the Constitution, but a bleating cry from the NRA. That's treasonous, and the longterm results will do great damage to our people unless put in check and soon.

Are we all to believe that the Project Exile Condemnation Coalition, comprised of numerous highly intelligent gun rights leaders, is entirely incorrect, too, Jim? http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Exile2

Quote:

My view is that no legislature in the US is likely to pass a Vermont bill any time soon. That leads to situations where (as one example) 55% of a legislature is pro-carry, the "Vermont or bust" crowd persuades a small chunk of those to back a Vermont Bill, and the NRA gets upset and strongarms that "hardcore minority of legislators" to get on the shall-issue program, which otherwise will have only 48% support and go down in flames.

Your view is a fine view to take -- for anyone that believes prior restraints on a constitutional right and the outright registration of gunowners is AOK. NRA's management (in opposition to many NRA members) believes that "In the name of safety, any person who carries or is exempted from having a CCW permit should be required to have some form of firearm training." [emphasis theirs] See NRA'S SECOND AMENDMENT for details: http://keepandbeararms.com/informati...em.asp?ID=3198 So I won't even say they betray their own creed on the "prior restraint licensing of rights", Jim -- it's what they stand for.

Quote:

Each time this has happened, going back *years*, Angel and his allies have screamed "TRAITOR!" at the NRA.

You have no proof of this assertion, Jim. None. In fact, you cannot find one instance of my having "screamed TRAITOR!" in regards to the NRA, ever. If you wish to be taken seriously, stick to facts rather than making them up.

Quote:

I agree that somebody at the state-level NRA affiliate may have goofed somewhat on the latest shall-issue bill but that still doesn't warrant the response from the "hardcore set".

No matter how egregious NRA's mistakes, you are quick to minimize the impact of the errors and to belittle legitimate concerns from those who do not worship the National Rifle Association's sometimes misguided leadership. HB1410 in Colorado was wrought with problems, and the NRA "goof" wasn't "somewhat," Jim. I could have had a field day with the inside information I have on that entire situation, but we let it ride (I knew the bill was going down even while NRA was still calling for their members to invest time acting to get it passed).

But just ask yourself one question: Why wouldn't the NRA at least pay lip service to Colorado's 8-page concealed carry bill while pushing their preferred 28-page version this session? In fact, why wouldn't they use their preference for a cleaner bill (8-page version) to help pass their preferred more intrusive bill? Instead, they attacked a truly pro-RKBA legislator in the mainstream press and guilted her into supporting the inferior bill when she was pushing the superior bill they ignored. But we're supposed to believe NRA's leadership is, what, perfect? While saying nothing?

Quote:

Check out any of the threads in the list you'll get, and you'll find stuff like this:

"It's not about "not being hardcore enough," friend. It's about NRA compromising your rights away. If that doesn't bother you, fine. Don't expect everybody else to turn a blind eye to traitors just because you do."

Know who wrote that?

Angel himself, at:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=2

Still waiting on responses from you on that thread, too, Jim. Unanswered questions are sitting on the server, while you're publishing false information about me. I expect a higher integrity level from you.

Quote:

So my question to TFL management is this:

Is "heavy criticism" of gun rights groups going to be RESTRICTED to the NRA, and criticism of all other groups BANNED? Do you believe Angel Shamaya is a human being, while Wayne LaPierre and Charleton Heston are animatronic robots of some sort?

I eagerly await your answer to this apparant double standard.

I won't speak for the moderators, of course, but having read the above false information, it might be that your willingness to invent information to prove your points is seen as a personal attack, Jim. So far as I can tell, personal attacks aren't allowed on TFL. You might consider checking the TFL rules/guidelines to see which ones your original message violated. http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/byekaba.html

Having seen the above false data published by you about me, I haven't even bothered to read your "Time to say goodbye to KABA" message as I'm sure it's more of the same disinformation, misinterpretation and the like.

But I do certainly wish you well in your endeavors. My helping hand, and the reach of KeepAndBearArms.com, will always be available to you when NRA's multi-million dollar machine fails you again.

--AS

Jim March · May 11, 2002, 07:59 PM

I'm not 100% sure you called the NRA traitors over the shall-issue thing. Russ Howard certainly had some strong language on the subject on your site:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=3337 - just look for the word "Vermont" in the text, you'll see the issue in question.

Problem is, his example of Vermont Carry in CO never had a prayer of passage in Colorado. It still doesn't. The legislators who stuck with it screwed up the chances for a good shall-issue bill.

You want to talk about Exile?

Fine. Exile was a necessary method of halting gun control when Clinton held the Oral Office and the Dems had Congress. They *should* have been able to flood in the gun control, but they failed in LARGE part due to Exile and it's clones.

Once we get a good decision out of the USSC, we won't have to worry about the gutted remains of Exile anymore. It was (and remains) a dangerous tool but it served it's purpose.

And it wasn't a sign that the NRA were "traitors".

----------------------------

Angel, let's be blunt. I respect your views, I don't think that your "hard line approach" is because you're secretly a grabber.

But YOU think that the NRA's approach is because they are secretly the enemy.

That's why I can't work with you anymore. The basic disconnect with reality is on your part; you see ill will where only pragmatism exists.

----------------------------

Whatever. It still leaves us with a double standard on TFL, in that you're allowed to rip into the NRA in any fashion you want, but I'm not allowed to complain about YOUR actions which I find worse!

So moderators, what'll it be?

skypod · May 11, 2002, 08:18 PM

I know I haven't posted much here, but FWIW, if my opinion counts at all, people should be allowed to speak their minds. That's the purpose of a forum.

I mean let's face it: Jim's lies about KABA aren't any worse than the NRA Staff's lies about their stand on gun rights.

**Rich Lucibella** · May 11, 2002, 08:28 PM

Jim-
Yup. It was deleted....this is a testimony, not to our heavy-handedness, but to your disregard for Forum Policy. Now, get over it or die with it on your mind. OK? OK? OK?

Your attack went far beyond disagreement with its personal attack on a TFL Member's motives and intent. You were notified, in the most solicitous of ways, as to our action. Now, you wanna take this issue public? Fine. Do so on your own site, Jim.

Excerpt from email sent to another participant in that thread:

Quote:

The thread was moved by Staff and then locked down in my absence. Personally, I think it was a good call by Staff.

TFL seeks the "advancement of responsible firearms ownership". In Staff's opinion this thread runs counter to that goal. Additionally, Jim's post was an invitation to use our site for as the public ring for a personal grudge match between two TFL Members. While we're not willing to make a value judgement as to whether this growing feud is worthy of public scrutiny, it's a foregone conclusion that TFL will not be the battle ground.

[snip]

Bud has responded to you publicly and I have taken the liberty of cc'ing him here. As you point up, Jim's position is readily available on his own site. Angel has the opportunity to respond in his personal venue. Neither you, Angel or Jim are persona non-grata at TFL. We're just not willing to referee a mud wrestling contest between Members.

Rich Lucibella

So, the questions on the floor are yours:

Quote:

Is "heavy criticism" of gun rights groups going to be RESTRICTED to the NRA, and criticism of all other groups BANNED?

Answer: No

Quote:

Do you believe Angel Shamaya is a human being, while Wayne LaPierre and Charleton Heston are animatronic robots of some sort?

Answer: No

Quote:

So moderators, what'll it be?

Answer: We'll continue to enforce the Policies in the most even handed manner we know. And, if Charlton Heston joins tomorrow and attacks you personally, Staff will step in.

There, Jim. Now I've answered all your burning questions. Wanna go Round 2? Do so on your own site or email me directly. This thread will remain open, though I am hard pressed to revisit....it bores me immensely.
Rich

KeepAndBearArms.com · May 11, 2002, 08:33 PM

Jim's First Post:

Quote:

"It is no secret that Angel believes that support by the NRA for shall-issue CCW bills instead of backing Vermont Carry is treason to the cause."

Jim's Second Post:

Quote:

"I'm not 100% sure you called the NRA traitors over the shall-issue thing."

If there is anything else you would like to confess in the area of making false accusations, Jim, I'd be happy to forgive them all. I know you care deeply about this issue, and I happen to care about you as a liberty advocate and even as a friend.

What I find peculiar is that you invent false information about me and publish it while getting upset when I print true information about the National Rifle Association because I don't say it how you think it should be said.

--AS

**Rich Lucibella** · May 11, 2002, 08:40 PM

See what I mean.

Angel-
You and I have had our go 'rounds....as have Jim and I (now). However, in the end you've always respected our Policies. Thank you. And thank you, Jim, as I know you will.

If the two of you wish to go at this, so be it. As soon as it gets personal, it becomes my business. And, right now, I have more than enough "business" to occupy my time. So I ask you both, "Think Twice, Post Once".

Thanking you both in advance.
Rich Lucibella

Jim March · May 11, 2002, 08:46 PM

Fine. I made one mistake. Angel, you've called the NRA "traitors" over so many things, I lost track of one you didn't.

I wouldn't call that a plus.

Rich, do as you please. I know I'm not the only one who's gotten sick and tired of the NRA's *motives* being under relentless attack in recent years over tactical disagreements. Yes, they've made mistakes now and again. But they can and do listen to constructive criticisms from their friends. Virtually every critique of the NRA ever published on KABA is destructive in nature, and hence not going to chance anything even when there's worthwhile commentary in there (maybe 1/4th of the time or less).

Anyways. It's said.

KeepAndBearArms.com · May 11, 2002, 09:11 PM

Jim March:

Quote:

"Angel, you've called the NRA "traitors" over so many things, I lost track of one you didn't."

Jim, my friend, I gently urged you to learn from this mistake of inventing information about me, and you went and did it again. Please validate your claim, which I say is false, by showing us even a few of the "so many times, I lost track". If you fail to do so, you've painted yourself with the same brush from which I just offered a friendly escape.

Rich, you're welcome. TFL's rules are mine to abide. The couple of times I've erred, your team of moderators were highly professional and respectful and even very good coaches, and I commend your leadership for having pulled such a team together. I consider TFL the best site of its kind on the internet today. Keep up the good work, and thank you for the service you provide to liberty advocates.

--AS

Jim March · May 11, 2002, 09:23 PM

Skypod:

I missed your very first comment, and it's worth responding to.

If you look at the NRA Member's Council websites, such as www.nramemberscouncils.com and www.nrawinningteam.com you won't find "bickering" about other gun rights groups.

Attacks on HCI, you bet. Attacks on the actual grabbers, like the Don Perata page on his CCW permit that got picked up by Drudge, certainly.

The MC list is run the same way. Only stuff that advances the cause is allowed. That may be harsh, but it prevented the California MC system from "fragmenting" back when the Neal Knox crusades were heating up. Because the Calif MCs survived when the system fell into squabbling and got cut off from Fairfax in every other state, I can't find myself able to blame Mike Haas and Paul Payne for preserving the focus of the Calif MCs.

That means they don't run it the way Rich runs TFL. So be it. It *worked*.

---------------

Angel, I'll answer your questions in a civil fashion here tomorrow. Right now, I'm late for something in SF.

C.R.Sam · May 12, 2002, 01:13 AM

Angel and Jim; please be cool with each other.
Really don't want to see either of you get 86d.

Respectfully, Sam

Byron Quick · May 12, 2002, 02:12 AM

Hey, guys, here's a different perspective on this issue. I could go into chapter and verse about things the NRA has done that I don't like. I won't on a public forum. Instead, I purchased a NRA Life membership so I have a vote. I challenge everyone else who supports gun rights and doesn't like the direction of the NRA to do the same. If enough of us do so, well, we won't have anyone to point fingers at anymore for the policy of the NRA will be our policy. And while you are at it, get a life membership in GOA and JPFO.

skypod · May 12, 2002, 06:50 AM

Before I continue with the thread... I am noticing a lot of "MOLON LABE" as part of peoples' signatures. I'm happy to meet you all, as this statement has very special meaning for me ever since I read the story posted at this domain! I'm sorry I stayed away so long

skypod · May 12, 2002, 07:25 AM

[SIZE=large]Rich:[/SIZE]

Quote:

Your attack went far beyond disagreement with its personal attack on a TFL Member's motives and intent.

Sorry Rich, I didn't realize things had gotten so bad. I didn't see the original thread, but obviously you are right in removing it. Thank you Mr. Moderator

[SIZE=large]Jim:[/SIZE]

Quote:

The MC list is run the same way. Only stuff that advances the cause is allowed.

Jim, If "only stuff that advances the cause is allowed", then WHY didn't they allow you to post information regarding CCW abuse? You can't use that it was published on KABA as an excuse, because those parts could have easily been edited out.

The FACT is that NRA and their affiliates actively or passively oppose ANY pro-gun action if it originates with anyone other than the NRA. Their passive opposition comes in the form of, "We are neutral on this issue." -- Check the record of ANY non-NRA org or person that has started a good pro-gun project if you don't believe me!

Quote:

But they can and do listen to constructive criticisms from their friends.

Jim, do you know why there are so many people fed-up to the point of publicly complaining about the NRA? No, it isn't because they have personal problems -- it's because of the FACT that the NRA DOES NOT listen to ANY criticism from their friends, constructive or otherwise.

[SIZE=large]Spartacus:[/SIZE]

Quote:

I purchased a NRA Life membership so I have a vote. I challenge everyone else who supports gun rights and doesn't like the direction of the NRA to do the same. If enough of us do so, well, we won't have anyone to point fingers at anymore.

Spartacus, the NRA has, what, over 4 million members now? And issues and positions are decided by majority, right? Even if only 1 million actually vote, we who see what is wrong would have to get over 1 million people to vote the current NRA echelon OUT. Neal Knox has been trying for decades, and he is well-known. If you have any good ideas about how to accomplish your goal, let me know; my husband and I will join back up and help you. Post either in this thread, or send me a personal note.

Byron Quick · May 12, 2002, 07:47 AM

Neal is still trying. I'll keep my membership so's that one less vote he's got to hunt. Your and your husband's vote would make three less. If everybody that fusses about the NRA would join and vote...Neal Knox would probably be over the top.

Jim March · May 12, 2002, 08:00 PM

Quoting Skypod:

"Jim, If "only stuff that advances the cause is allowed", then WHY didn't they allow you to post information regarding CCW abuse? You can't use that it was published on KABA as an excuse, because those parts could have easily been edited out."

Because the stuff was on a website more or less devoted to destructive NRA criticism as one of it's "key issues".

Yes, that was a damn controversial thing for the MC list moderators to do. And I resisted this for a long time. But Angel radically stepped up the attacks to a near-daily crescendo in the two or three weeks leading up to the joint WND/KABA critique of HR218, the Federal cop carry reciprocity bill promoted by LEAA.

I had to come around to their POV, after that.

skypod · May 13, 2002, 05:45 AM

Jim... I already said you can't use the fact that it was on KABA as an excuse. YOU wrote the material, you could have sent it in to MC without KABA on it.

(PS: Jim, you did a GREAT JOB with your articles and actions!!)

As for "attacks", I read the entire thing and I have yet to see KABA "attack" anyone who follows the constitution.

If the shoe fits...

Art Eatman · May 13, 2002, 07:59 AM

The over-arching Cause is the RKBA and our Second Amendment. Dissension among support groups causes confusion among the general membership of all groups and can create emotional factions. Dissension and confusion can keep voters at home on election day.

It is natural for groups to disagree on HOW to accomplish certain goals, but when dealing with legislative bodies or the media it is imperative that in public a united front is maintained. I don't care if it harelips the Pope, the world outside cannot be allowed to know of internal bickerings.

If one is persona non grata with the policy-makers of a group yet wishes to change policy, one must work through somebody who is acceptable to those policy-makers. One thing I absolutely guarantee is that the old cliche of "One catches more flies with honey than vinegar." is as true now as it was in Aesop's time. What I'm seein' is too much vinegar and a short supply of honey.

I've been in this RKBA fight for 35 years. That's a lot of letters, talking to folks, and a significant amount of money to various organizations. And a lot of frustrations with both legislative groups as well as the media.

It harms "MY" cause when folks go to washing dirty undies in public.

My reaction, then, when I see any signs of public dissension and harsh words and accusations, is just really negative. My own rather harsh view is that the children were allowed to stay up beyond their proper bedtimes, and should go take a bath and get where they belong--out of sight and hearing of adults.

The First Amendment gives us all the right to spout off. It does not create any obligation to give credence to that which is spouted.

A great big "Harumph!"

Art

Jim March · May 14, 2002, 01:30 AM

Art, I coudn't agree more. I *hated* writing what I did. But Angel hasn't just written or published one or two articles, he's made KABA "dirty underwear HQ", and that's what I finally couldn't tolerate having my name attached to.

Don't believe me? Y'all can see for yourselves:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra

36 articles under this "NRA gripes" section. Take a good look. I've been called a liar for saying that Angel has complained about a large number of different NRA policies, and labeled them "treason". It's NOT a lie. One of Angel's favorite techniques is to complain about one particular policy, and then mention in passing a whole slew of other policies as a way of "proving" that it's one big conspiracy against our rights.

The problem is, even when he may have the occational legit gripe such as the somewhat ugly CARA thing, he does this "look at what else they do" number and the "what else" is mostly just garbage.

Here's the CARA article:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=2403

CARA was pretty ugly, and probably deserved some critique. But Angel in classic style called it part of a "pattern" of "abuse". To quote Angel:

>>But the NRA has supported and in some cases actively promoted all of the following and more:

1) background checks (NRA's NICS system, which the NRA is all too aware has been used to abuse citizens' rights)
2) "gun free school zones" that make it easier for someone to harm our defenseless children and their teachers
3) "zero tolerance enforcement" of thousands of laws that infringe on the second amendment rights of NRA's members and the other 79,000,000 gun owners
4) "A" grades for known gun grabbers, paving the way for gun enemies to have their way with our rights

et cetera.<<

Sorry Angel, but NICS was a desperate attempt to stop something even worse (permanent Fed waiting periods WITH background checks), the school zone thing has too much "sheeple support" to fight right now (blame the media, not the NRA), and Exile was sadly necessary to block new Fed gun control during the dark years of the Clinton administration. Only the fourth complaint has any merit at all, and while some mistakes were made, it was done to allow pro-gun GOP leadership to stack committee seats in legislatures...so a grabber GOP legicritter is sometime more valuable than a Dem who's slightly better. So there was temptation to rig the ratings...it wasn't right, and they're doing much better.

In other words, Angel wasn't content with just complaining about one issue, he tried to paint a "larger pattern" but he did so with a failed brush, confusing pragmatism and political necessity with treason.

--------------------------------

Quoting Skypod:

"Jim... I already said you can't use the fact that it was on KABA as an excuse. YOU wrote the material, you could have sent it in to MC without KABA on it."

You don't get it yet. Some of these were co-produced with Angel. I had to *credit* him. I still am, in fact, check out:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/marin.pdf (Adobe Acrobat required, download the free reader if necessary at www.adobe.com)

Note that it's now moved entirely to my site, but the credits at the top of the page still include Angel. He did work, he gets credit, regardless of anything else and Mike Haas and company aren't complaining. (I'd ignore 'em if they did, but I'm confident they won't.)

Basically, my stuff and Angel's were so "intertwined", it took a massive break to disentangle. Bad situation, but it wasn't of my making.

-----------------------

OK, I said "36" items up there, but I went and checked and Angel had done another since this whole controvery broke:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=3409

This is actually an improvement over many past pieces Angel has done or been involved with. Gone is any sort of "over-arching conspiracy" language straight out of tinfoil-hat-land.

The complaint itself is sort of accurate, sorta not. The NRA is trying not to foster panic at the idea of "all gun control is about to be killed off in one fell swoop". So Trish ended with the idea that particular gun control laws should be looked at one at a time, not a terrible concept and one that fits with the "appear moderate" gameplan that put Bush in office (a case of "stick with what works").

In my view, Trish should have gone further with the idea that SOME gun control laws are truly obnoxious even by the standards of the average sheeple voter. Once we get the idea across that SOME weapons control just flat-out sucks, voters become more open to seeing that most if not all of it stinks. It's a matter of "getting a foot in the mental doorway".

How?

Allow me to engage in a bit of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, something Angel isn't real good at.

The NRA's main website should contain a "Least Wanted List" of the 10 worst gun control laws in the nation. Structured like the FBI's top-ten most wanted list, and basically parodying it. Laws described should be picked not for how us gunnies view them, but instead picked because they can be villified in terms that ordinary folks can understand and empathize with.

Heavy on the satire.

Examples of some possible entries:

--------------------------------
NOT WANTED:
California's Gun Carry Permit System (Penal Codes 12050-12054)

Known problems: causes racism, corruption, bias and elitism in local police and Sheriff's agencies in the issuance of gun carry permits.

Verified as having been crafted in 1923 for distinctly racist purposes. Similar laws all over the South have already been exterminated, many were lobbied for by the KKK.

See these links for details.
--------------------------------
NOT WANTED:
California Penal Code 12020's ban on the carry or ownership of "any shobi-zue".

Known problems: We don't know what a "shobi-zue" is. No California law enforcement officer or DA staff member we have contacted has any clue either. We checked with a professor of Japanese antiquities, he just looked at us funny. We do not know of any busts under this part of the statute. We do not know how you'd AVOID having a "shobi-zue".
--------------------------------
NOT WANTED:
Ohio's law (get code cite) banning all carry of defensive firearms unless one can prove necessity AFTER the fact.

Known problems: this law is already on "death row" after having been declared unconstitutional by an Ohio state court judge and then three judges on a state appellate panel. It is up for final review by the Ohio Supreme Court. This law is virtually identical to the ban on self defense exterminated by Governor George Bush of Texas in 1996, replaced with a handgun carry license system that has reduced crime and increased personal freedom with no violent downside. Ohio's statute should mercifully meet the same fate either at the hands of the court, or legislation.
--------------------------------

Y'all get the idea. Pick laws that can be lampooned. Find at least one that is horribly unclear, and leave honest citizens uncertain as to whether or not they're breaking the law. California's insanely complex "switchblade law" is perhaps a good example, it leaves us unable to figure out what's an ordinary pocket knife without paid legal advice.

Picking the "10 worst" shouldn't be hard.

Do up a copy for print, in the American Rifleman or something, and we can get popular support for examples of what sorts of utter garbage might meet a timely end under widespread support for the individual rights position that Ashcroft is now behind.

skypod · May 14, 2002, 08:19 AM

Jim: If the NRA's policies can't stand the light of day, they should stay out of their so-called pro-gun business and stick to what they are good at, Gun Safety and Sportsmanship.

Only someone delusional would attempt to ignore or justify the NRA's anti-second Amendment policies and past "because most of what they do is good." That's like saying, "Don't condemn Hitler, after all, he got all those great roads built!"

Jim March · May 14, 2002, 04:55 PM

Angel put it best in EMail: he and I represent two basic "archetypes" of RKBAers. I personally think of them as "hardcore" versus "politically pragmatic".

To the pragmatists such as myself, the NRA's policies CAN withstand the light of day. Easily. Granted, they're not perfect, but the overall approach they're taking is winning. It's getting us widespread shall-issue, it got us Bush (and Rice/Cheney/Ashcroft along for the ride) instead of Gore and God only knows what.

It's getting us an individual rights interpretation of the 2nd at the USSC.

You disagree. Fine. So does Angel. No problem. My point here is that constant "hardcore-tone griping" doesn't help the cause. Instead, it prevents him from being able to work with dedicated gunnies of a "pragmatist" type, especially if the pragmatist has to do biz with the NRA.

Angel's latest complaint article is at least an improvement towards "constructive criticism". Unfortunately, it's not enough to allow me to change policies because the tons of "destructive criticism" already published is still backed by him.

That previous destructive criticism also ensures that any improved, constructive criticism won't be listened to.

skypod · May 14, 2002, 07:51 PM

Ok Jim. I know people have different perspectives depending on what is most important to them in life. I can't expect everyone to agree with my viewpoints, even though, in this case anyway, I know I'm right!

labgrade · May 15, 2002, 03:26 PM

Somewhat slightly OT, but brought up, in this topic - Colorado's latest bout of proposed CCW legislation.

A(n apparent) difference between CA & CO is that we already do have CCW legislation that allows most (not all) who want CCW to obtain it. (Bear in mind that other than your posts, & a couple few others, Jim, I have no idea about CA CCW policies)

In CO, ANY Sheriff or Chief of Police can issue to ANYONE (residents or not) & that outside their jurisdiction & permit's good to go state-wide. That a few Sheriffs/COPs aren't issuing is a huge dividing point locally/statewide which will come to a head fairly toot-sweet.

Part of 1410's provisions was to lock up a Sheriff's ability (in current law) to issue to those who can't get a permit through their own Sheriff - it makes for somewhat of a "modifier" as issuing Sheriffs may/will get fed up to such an extent that they will use current law and issue out-of-county. This has usually to date been mere "professional courtesy" not to issue OOC. Watch for changes in this area soon - film at 11.

If a person is so disgusted with their Sheriff's issuing policies, they can certainly get involved & "throw out the bums" & get one in there who will. We did & our Sheriff supported 1242 & was against 1410.

1410 would have required training aspects not currently "enjoyed," would have prevented CCW in schools (contrary to current CO law), would have invalidated all current CCW permits, had very suspect wording which could create "home rule" entities' control over where one could carry (such as Denver, who can't get CCW locally, & would restrict everybody else who can) besides many "public/private partnership" entities added to the list - for starters ... 1410 was never a "good shall-issue" bill, but a bad one which would have taken us many steps backwards as related to current Colorado law. It was political cover for hacks such as Matsunaka, Guv Owens, etc. in an election year so they could appear "gun-friendly" to those not up to speed - the majority of the electorate.

I've said it many times: if you are not conversant with current CO law, nor have read the text of the proposed legislation, you really have no informed opinion. (this is not directed towards you personally, Jim, but it that shoe does fit many locally - they all have an opinion, but no grasp on anything - haven't read current law nor the proposed bills)

The NRA, either by design or unwitting complicity, assisted Stan Matsunaka, et al, in the "political assassination" of Marilyn Musgrave. Both will run for the Colorado 4th Congressional District to represent us (y'all too) at the Fed-level. No question who needs to be in that position. They screwed up in their 1410 support & as AS mentioned, were still mailing out orange cards (yes, I'm a member) when those in the know knew 1410 was DRT - the political hacks merely had to finish their dance.

Not only did the NRA support an intrusive CCW bill, they also caused political damage to one of the most supportive legislators we have.

Although "somewhat new" to the "political realities" (which disgusts me to no end) surrounding our rights, I do not see how taking five steps back to gain none, could possibly be beneficial to "The Cause."

Jim, I admire your work & stick-to-itness with the CA CCW fight & your MMM-coup was top-notch, but the NRA (& its state affiliate - CSSA) has & will continue to screw us so they can carve another notch in the gun-grip & say, "Yup. Another state's "shall-issue - thanks to the NRA." :barf:

May 11, 2002, 05:14 PM	#1
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	Bias in moderations on this board. Folks, A while back I published a critique of Angel Shamaya's KABA website, and it wasn't just closed, it was deleted completely. If any moderators don't know what I'm talking about, a copy is archived here: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/byekaba.html I recently exchanged EMail with somebody well-known who wanted me to try and make peace with Angel, when I explained that I couldn't. He took that for "won't", and I corrected him thusly: -------------------------- Ah, I see where you and I are disconnecting. You're assuming I'm saying I "won't" work with him, when I've been saying "can't". Allow me to explain. In most states, there is a local organization that handles gun-rights politics, usually (but not always) as an NRA affiliate organization. Examples include Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) of Massachusetts, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership (MCRGO), etc. Go here and look under "affiliations" in the bottom left corner: http://www.goal.org/ In California, it's different. Way different. The NRA runs the grassroots communications network and local activist meetings directly, called the NRA Member's Councils. They also directly pay for an entire lobbying office in the state capitol, an entire law office in LA with a staff of over 20, and pay a guy to run the MC system. MC chapters have the ability to make organized presentations to local city councils and county boards of supervisors AS THE NRA, not as "concerned local citizens" or "some local gun group", but as THE perceived 800lb gorilla of the lobbying world. As you can imagine, that's pretty cool from the Point Of View of local activists, but pretty damn frightening from the POV of Fairfax. Why scary? Because untrained amateurs are being allowed to politic under the NRA brand name! It's a measure of how desperate the situation is out here. (Yes, there's still a difference between "NRA" and "NRA Member's Council" but it's not going to be noticed by some tree-hugging grabber twit on a city council or whatever.) So under the circumstances, there's some limits put on the MCs. We can't use the NRA brand label to support groups that are devoted to the destruction of the NRA! If a Member's Council does anyways, the NRA will yank it's charter and sue 'em if they ever call themselves an "NRA Member's Council" again. Basic trademark law here. You know all those neat exposes on CCW abuse? I wasn't allowed to post links to them on the MC EMail list. I wasn't allowed to hand out copies at MC meetings if they had KABA's name still attached! And I wasn't allowed to use the CCW abuse research being compiled at the NRA's law offices in articles that were to appear on KABA. Are you starting to get the picture here? I have to work with these Calif NRA-connected people and groups. IF it was any other state, it wouldn't be quite such a big deal but it IS California and I'm not going to let %$#^%$ gun-grabber policies and Sheriff's department practices run me out of my HOME. So I'm going to stay and fight, and that means working with the NRA, and that means: So long, Angel. (At least as long as he keeps up this idiotic war with the NRA.) -------------------------- It is no secret that Angel believes that support by the NRA for shall-issue CCW bills instead of backing Vermont Carry is treason to the cause. My view is that no legislature in the US is likely to pass a Vermont bill any time soon. That leads to situations where (as one example) 55% of a legislature is pro-carry, the "Vermont or bust" crowd persuades a small chunk of those to back a Vermont Bill, and the NRA gets upset and strongarms that "hardcore minority of legislators" to get on the shall-issue program, which otherwise will have only 48% support and go down in flames. Each time this has happened, going back years, Angel and his allies have screamed "TRAITOR!" at the NRA. Personally, I'm just sick of it. I've been fighting for shall-issue in California for six years now - if we get close, and a bunch of morons try and slip Vermont in at the last minute screwing everything up, you can bet I'll be pissed. This has happened over and over again, in state after state. The latest is Colorado, and I agree that somebody at the state-level NRA affiliate may have goofed somewhat on the latest shall-issue bill but that still doesn't warrant the response from the "hardcore set". OK, I've laid out the basic difference here between Angel and myself. So what does this have to do with TFL? TFL has allowed an =>UNLIMITED<= amount of "bashing" of the NRA. I ran a board-wide search on the words "NRA AND traitors" and got 37 hits. Check out any of the threads in the list you'll get, and you'll find stuff like this: "It's not about "not being hardcore enough," friend. It's about NRA compromising your rights away. If that doesn't bother you, fine. Don't expect everybody else to turn a blind eye to traitors just because you do." Know who wrote that? Angel himself, at: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=2 So my question to TFL management is this: Is "heavy criticism" of gun rights groups going to be RESTRICTED to the NRA, and criticism of all other groups BANNED? Do you believe Angel Shamaya is a human being, while Wayne LaPierre and Charleton Heston are animatronic robots of some sort? I eagerly await your answer to this apparant double standard. It's important, because I've completely rebuilt my website, adding cool stuff such as a downloadable official California CCW application .PDF literally smuggled out of the DOJ. And that criticism of Angel's site is on my webpage, so if I mention the total revamp I've done, all this is likely to come up. I'll send the URL for this thread to Angel. __________________ Jim March

May 11, 2002, 06:34 PM	#3
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	I've met both La Pierre and Heston. My vote is animatronic robots, quite frankly... Sorry, Jim. Not trying to kill the seriousness of your thread, just trying to put a light face on it. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

May 11, 2002, 07:59 PM	#5
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	I'm not 100% sure you called the NRA traitors over the shall-issue thing. Russ Howard certainly had some strong language on the subject on your site: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=3337 - just look for the word "Vermont" in the text, you'll see the issue in question. Problem is, his example of Vermont Carry in CO never had a prayer of passage in Colorado. It still doesn't. The legislators who stuck with it screwed up the chances for a good shall-issue bill. You want to talk about Exile? Fine. Exile was a necessary method of halting gun control when Clinton held the Oral Office and the Dems had Congress. They should have been able to flood in the gun control, but they failed in LARGE part due to Exile and it's clones. Once we get a good decision out of the USSC, we won't have to worry about the gutted remains of Exile anymore. It was (and remains) a dangerous tool but it served it's purpose. And it wasn't a sign that the NRA were "traitors". ---------------------------- Angel, let's be blunt. I respect your views, I don't think that your "hard line approach" is because you're secretly a grabber. But YOU think that the NRA's approach is because they are secretly the enemy. That's why I can't work with you anymore. The basic disconnect with reality is on your part; you see ill will where only pragmatism exists. ---------------------------- Whatever. It still leaves us with a double standard on TFL, in that you're allowed to rip into the NRA in any fashion you want, but I'm not allowed to complain about YOUR actions which I find worse! So moderators, what'll it be? __________________ Jim March

May 11, 2002, 08:18 PM	#6
skypod Member Join Date: February 17, 2000 Location: South Carolina Posts: 17	I know I haven't posted much here, but FWIW, if my opinion counts at all, people should be allowed to speak their minds. That's the purpose of a forum. I mean let's face it: Jim's lies about KABA aren't any worse than the NRA Staff's lies about their stand on gun rights. __________________ Melissa (skypod) - MOLON LABE -

May 11, 2002, 08:40 PM	#9
Rich Lucibella Staff Join Date: October 6, 1998 Location: South Florida Posts: 10,229	See what I mean. Angel- You and I have had our go 'rounds....as have Jim and I (now). However, in the end you've always respected our Policies. Thank you. And thank you, Jim, as I know you will. If the two of you wish to go at this, so be it. As soon as it gets personal, it becomes my business. And, right now, I have more than enough "business" to occupy my time. So I ask you both, "Think Twice, Post Once". Thanking you both in advance. Rich Lucibella __________________ S.W.A.T. Magazine Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook

May 11, 2002, 08:46 PM	#10
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	Fine. I made one mistake. Angel, you've called the NRA "traitors" over so many things, I lost track of one you didn't. I wouldn't call that a plus. Rich, do as you please. I know I'm not the only one who's gotten sick and tired of the NRA's motives being under relentless attack in recent years over tactical disagreements. Yes, they've made mistakes now and again. But they can and do listen to constructive criticisms from their friends. Virtually every critique of the NRA ever published on KABA is destructive in nature, and hence not going to chance anything even when there's worthwhile commentary in there (maybe 1/4th of the time or less). Anyways. It's said. __________________ Jim March

May 11, 2002, 09:23 PM	#12
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	Skypod: I missed your very first comment, and it's worth responding to. If you look at the NRA Member's Council websites, such as www.nramemberscouncils.com and www.nrawinningteam.com you won't find "bickering" about other gun rights groups. Attacks on HCI, you bet. Attacks on the actual grabbers, like the Don Perata page on his CCW permit that got picked up by Drudge, certainly. The MC list is run the same way. Only stuff that advances the cause is allowed. That may be harsh, but it prevented the California MC system from "fragmenting" back when the Neal Knox crusades were heating up. Because the Calif MCs survived when the system fell into squabbling and got cut off from Fairfax in every other state, I can't find myself able to blame Mike Haas and Paul Payne for preserving the focus of the Calif MCs. That means they don't run it the way Rich runs TFL. So be it. It worked. --------------- Angel, I'll answer your questions in a civil fashion here tomorrow. Right now, I'm late for something in SF. __________________ Jim March

May 12, 2002, 01:13 AM	#13
C.R.Sam Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 1999 Location: Dewey, AZ Posts: 12,858	Angel and Jim; please be cool with each other. Really don't want to see either of you get 86d. Respectfully, Sam

May 12, 2002, 02:12 AM	#14
Byron Quick Staff In Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA Posts: 2,361	Hey, guys, here's a different perspective on this issue. I could go into chapter and verse about things the NRA has done that I don't like. I won't on a public forum. Instead, I purchased a NRA Life membership so I have a vote. I challenge everyone else who supports gun rights and doesn't like the direction of the NRA to do the same. If enough of us do so, well, we won't have anyone to point fingers at anymore for the policy of the NRA will be our policy. And while you are at it, get a life membership in GOA and JPFO.

May 12, 2002, 06:50 AM	#15
skypod Member Join Date: February 17, 2000 Location: South Carolina Posts: 17	Before I continue with the thread... I am noticing a lot of "MOLON LABE" as part of peoples' signatures. I'm happy to meet you all, as this statement has very special meaning for me ever since I read the story posted at this domain! I'm sorry I stayed away so long __________________ Melissa (skypod) - MOLON LABE -

May 12, 2002, 07:47 AM	#17
Byron Quick Staff In Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA Posts: 2,361	Neal is still trying. I'll keep my membership so's that one less vote he's got to hunt. Your and your husband's vote would make three less. If everybody that fusses about the NRA would join and vote...Neal Knox would probably be over the top.

May 12, 2002, 08:00 PM	#18
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	Quoting Skypod: "Jim, If "only stuff that advances the cause is allowed", then WHY didn't they allow you to post information regarding CCW abuse? You can't use that it was published on KABA as an excuse, because those parts could have easily been edited out." Because the stuff was on a website more or less devoted to destructive NRA criticism as one of it's "key issues". Yes, that was a damn controversial thing for the MC list moderators to do. And I resisted this for a long time. But Angel radically stepped up the attacks to a near-daily crescendo in the two or three weeks leading up to the joint WND/KABA critique of HR218, the Federal cop carry reciprocity bill promoted by LEAA. I had to come around to their POV, after that. __________________ Jim March

May 13, 2002, 05:45 AM	#19
skypod Member Join Date: February 17, 2000 Location: South Carolina Posts: 17	Jim... I already said you can't use the fact that it was on KABA as an excuse. YOU wrote the material, you could have sent it in to MC without KABA on it. (PS: Jim, you did a GREAT JOB with your articles and actions!!) As for "attacks", I read the entire thing and I have yet to see KABA "attack" anyone who follows the constitution. If the shoe fits... __________________ Melissa (skypod) - MOLON LABE - Last edited by skypod; May 13, 2002 at 07:42 AM.

May 13, 2002, 07:59 AM	#20
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	The over-arching Cause is the RKBA and our Second Amendment. Dissension among support groups causes confusion among the general membership of all groups and can create emotional factions. Dissension and confusion can keep voters at home on election day. It is natural for groups to disagree on HOW to accomplish certain goals, but when dealing with legislative bodies or the media it is imperative that in public a united front is maintained. I don't care if it harelips the Pope, the world outside cannot be allowed to know of internal bickerings. If one is persona non grata with the policy-makers of a group yet wishes to change policy, one must work through somebody who is acceptable to those policy-makers. One thing I absolutely guarantee is that the old cliche of "One catches more flies with honey than vinegar." is as true now as it was in Aesop's time. What I'm seein' is too much vinegar and a short supply of honey. I've been in this RKBA fight for 35 years. That's a lot of letters, talking to folks, and a significant amount of money to various organizations. And a lot of frustrations with both legislative groups as well as the media. It harms "MY" cause when folks go to washing dirty undies in public. My reaction, then, when I see any signs of public dissension and harsh words and accusations, is just really negative. My own rather harsh view is that the children were allowed to stay up beyond their proper bedtimes, and should go take a bath and get where they belong--out of sight and hearing of adults. The First Amendment gives us all the right to spout off. It does not create any obligation to give credence to that which is spouted. A great big "Harumph!" Art

May 14, 2002, 01:30 AM	#21
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	Art, I coudn't agree more. I hated writing what I did. But Angel hasn't just written or published one or two articles, he's made KABA "dirty underwear HQ", and that's what I finally couldn't tolerate having my name attached to. Don't believe me? Y'all can see for yourselves: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra 36 articles under this "NRA gripes" section. Take a good look. I've been called a liar for saying that Angel has complained about a large number of different NRA policies, and labeled them "treason". It's NOT a lie. One of Angel's favorite techniques is to complain about one particular policy, and then mention in passing a whole slew of other policies as a way of "proving" that it's one big conspiracy against our rights. The problem is, even when he may have the occational legit gripe such as the somewhat ugly CARA thing, he does this "look at what else they do" number and the "what else" is mostly just garbage. Here's the CARA article: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=2403 CARA was pretty ugly, and probably deserved some critique. But Angel in classic style called it part of a "pattern" of "abuse". To quote Angel: >>But the NRA has supported and in some cases actively promoted all of the following and more: 1) background checks (NRA's NICS system, which the NRA is all too aware has been used to abuse citizens' rights) 2) "gun free school zones" that make it easier for someone to harm our defenseless children and their teachers 3) "zero tolerance enforcement" of thousands of laws that infringe on the second amendment rights of NRA's members and the other 79,000,000 gun owners 4) "A" grades for known gun grabbers, paving the way for gun enemies to have their way with our rights et cetera.<< Sorry Angel, but NICS was a desperate attempt to stop something even worse (permanent Fed waiting periods WITH background checks), the school zone thing has too much "sheeple support" to fight right now (blame the media, not the NRA), and Exile was sadly necessary to block new Fed gun control during the dark years of the Clinton administration. Only the fourth complaint has any merit at all, and while some mistakes were made, it was done to allow pro-gun GOP leadership to stack committee seats in legislatures...so a grabber GOP legicritter is sometime more valuable than a Dem who's slightly better. So there was temptation to rig the ratings...it wasn't right, and they're doing much better. In other words, Angel wasn't content with just complaining about one issue, he tried to paint a "larger pattern" but he did so with a failed brush, confusing pragmatism and political necessity with treason. -------------------------------- Quoting Skypod: "Jim... I already said you can't use the fact that it was on KABA as an excuse. YOU wrote the material, you could have sent it in to MC without KABA on it." You don't get it yet. Some of these were co-produced with Angel. I had to credit him. I still am, in fact, check out: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/marin.pdf (Adobe Acrobat required, download the free reader if necessary at www.adobe.com) Note that it's now moved entirely to my site, but the credits at the top of the page still include Angel. He did work, he gets credit, regardless of anything else and Mike Haas and company aren't complaining. (I'd ignore 'em if they did, but I'm confident they won't.) Basically, my stuff and Angel's were so "intertwined", it took a massive break to disentangle. Bad situation, but it wasn't of my making. ----------------------- OK, I said "36" items up there, but I went and checked and Angel had done another since this whole controvery broke: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=3409 This is actually an improvement over many past pieces Angel has done or been involved with. Gone is any sort of "over-arching conspiracy" language straight out of tinfoil-hat-land. The complaint itself is sort of accurate, sorta not. The NRA is trying not to foster panic at the idea of "all gun control is about to be killed off in one fell swoop". So Trish ended with the idea that particular gun control laws should be looked at one at a time, not a terrible concept and one that fits with the "appear moderate" gameplan that put Bush in office (a case of "stick with what works"). In my view, Trish should have gone further with the idea that SOME gun control laws are truly obnoxious even by the standards of the average sheeple voter. Once we get the idea across that SOME weapons control just flat-out sucks, voters become more open to seeing that most if not all of it stinks. It's a matter of "getting a foot in the mental doorway". How? Allow me to engage in a bit of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, something Angel isn't real good at. The NRA's main website should contain a "Least Wanted List" of the 10 worst gun control laws in the nation. Structured like the FBI's top-ten most wanted list, and basically parodying it. Laws described should be picked not for how us gunnies view them, but instead picked because they can be villified in terms that ordinary folks can understand and empathize with. Heavy on the satire. Examples of some possible entries: -------------------------------- NOT WANTED: California's Gun Carry Permit System (Penal Codes 12050-12054) Known problems: causes racism, corruption, bias and elitism in local police and Sheriff's agencies in the issuance of gun carry permits. Verified as having been crafted in 1923 for distinctly racist purposes. Similar laws all over the South have already been exterminated, many were lobbied for by the KKK. See these links for details. -------------------------------- NOT WANTED: California Penal Code 12020's ban on the carry or ownership of "any shobi-zue". Known problems: We don't know what a "shobi-zue" is. No California law enforcement officer or DA staff member we have contacted has any clue either. We checked with a professor of Japanese antiquities, he just looked at us funny. We do not know of any busts under this part of the statute. We do not know how you'd AVOID having a "shobi-zue". -------------------------------- NOT WANTED: Ohio's law (get code cite) banning all carry of defensive firearms unless one can prove necessity AFTER the fact. Known problems: this law is already on "death row" after having been declared unconstitutional by an Ohio state court judge and then three judges on a state appellate panel. It is up for final review by the Ohio Supreme Court. This law is virtually identical to the ban on self defense exterminated by Governor George Bush of Texas in 1996, replaced with a handgun carry license system that has reduced crime and increased personal freedom with no violent downside. Ohio's statute should mercifully meet the same fate either at the hands of the court, or legislation. -------------------------------- Y'all get the idea. Pick laws that can be lampooned. Find at least one that is horribly unclear, and leave honest citizens uncertain as to whether or not they're breaking the law. California's insanely complex "switchblade law" is perhaps a good example, it leaves us unable to figure out what's an ordinary pocket knife without paid legal advice. Picking the "10 worst" shouldn't be hard. Do up a copy for print, in the American Rifleman or something, and we can get popular support for examples of what sorts of utter garbage might meet a timely end under widespread support for the individual rights position that Ashcroft is now behind. __________________ Jim March

May 14, 2002, 08:19 AM	#22
skypod Member Join Date: February 17, 2000 Location: South Carolina Posts: 17	If the Shoe Fits... Jim: If the NRA's policies can't stand the light of day, they should stay out of their so-called pro-gun business and stick to what they are good at, Gun Safety and Sportsmanship. Only someone delusional would attempt to ignore or justify the NRA's anti-second Amendment policies and past "because most of what they do is good." That's like saying, "Don't condemn Hitler, after all, he got all those great roads built!" __________________ Melissa (skypod) - MOLON LABE -

May 14, 2002, 04:55 PM	#23
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	Angel put it best in EMail: he and I represent two basic "archetypes" of RKBAers. I personally think of them as "hardcore" versus "politically pragmatic". To the pragmatists such as myself, the NRA's policies CAN withstand the light of day. Easily. Granted, they're not perfect, but the overall approach they're taking is winning. It's getting us widespread shall-issue, it got us Bush (and Rice/Cheney/Ashcroft along for the ride) instead of Gore and God only knows what. It's getting us an individual rights interpretation of the 2nd at the USSC. You disagree. Fine. So does Angel. No problem. My point here is that constant "hardcore-tone griping" doesn't help the cause. Instead, it prevents him from being able to work with dedicated gunnies of a "pragmatist" type, especially if the pragmatist has to do biz with the NRA. Angel's latest complaint article is at least an improvement towards "constructive criticism". Unfortunately, it's not enough to allow me to change policies because the tons of "destructive criticism" already published is still backed by him. That previous destructive criticism also ensures that any improved, constructive criticism won't be listened to. __________________ Jim March

May 14, 2002, 07:51 PM	#24
skypod Member Join Date: February 17, 2000 Location: South Carolina Posts: 17	Ok Jim. I know people have different perspectives depending on what is most important to them in life. I can't expect everyone to agree with my viewpoints, even though, in this case anyway, I know I'm right! __________________ Melissa (skypod) - MOLON LABE -

May 15, 2002, 03:26 PM	#25
labgrade Member In Memoriam Join Date: November 29, 1999 Location: west of a small town, CO Posts: 4,346	Somewhat slightly OT, but brought up, in this topic - Colorado's latest bout of proposed CCW legislation. A(n apparent) difference between CA & CO is that we already do have CCW legislation that allows most (not all) who want CCW to obtain it. (Bear in mind that other than your posts, & a couple few others, Jim, I have no idea about CA CCW policies) In CO, ANY Sheriff or Chief of Police can issue to ANYONE (residents or not) & that outside their jurisdiction & permit's good to go state-wide. That a few Sheriffs/COPs aren't issuing is a huge dividing point locally/statewide which will come to a head fairly toot-sweet. Part of 1410's provisions was to lock up a Sheriff's ability (in current law) to issue to those who can't get a permit through their own Sheriff - it makes for somewhat of a "modifier" as issuing Sheriffs may/will get fed up to such an extent that they will use current law and issue out-of-county. This has usually to date been mere "professional courtesy" not to issue OOC. Watch for changes in this area soon - film at 11. If a person is so disgusted with their Sheriff's issuing policies, they can certainly get involved & "throw out the bums" & get one in there who will. We did & our Sheriff supported 1242 & was against 1410. 1410 would have required training aspects not currently "enjoyed," would have prevented CCW in schools (contrary to current CO law), would have invalidated all current CCW permits, had very suspect wording which could create "home rule" entities' control over where one could carry (such as Denver, who can't get CCW locally, & would restrict everybody else who can) besides many "public/private partnership" entities added to the list - for starters ... 1410 was never a "good shall-issue" bill, but a bad one which would have taken us many steps backwards as related to current Colorado law. It was political cover for hacks such as Matsunaka, Guv Owens, etc. in an election year so they could appear "gun-friendly" to those not up to speed - the majority of the electorate. I've said it many times: if you are not conversant with current CO law, nor have read the text of the proposed legislation, you really have no informed opinion. (this is not directed towards you personally, Jim, but it that shoe does fit many locally - they all have an opinion, but no grasp on anything - haven't read current law nor the proposed bills) The NRA, either by design or unwitting complicity, assisted Stan Matsunaka, et al, in the "political assassination" of Marilyn Musgrave. Both will run for the Colorado 4th Congressional District to represent us (y'all too) at the Fed-level. No question who needs to be in that position. They screwed up in their 1410 support & as AS mentioned, were still mailing out orange cards (yes, I'm a member) when those in the know knew 1410 was DRT - the political hacks merely had to finish their dance. Not only did the NRA support an intrusive CCW bill, they also caused political damage to one of the most supportive legislators we have. Although "somewhat new" to the "political realities" (which disgusts me to no end) surrounding our rights, I do not see how taking five steps back to gain none, could possibly be beneficial to "The Cause." Jim, I admire your work & stick-to-itness with the CA CCW fight & your MMM-coup was top-notch, but the NRA (& its state affiliate - CSSA) has & will continue to screw us so they can carve another notch in the gun-grip & say, "Yup. Another state's "shall-issue - thanks to the NRA." :barf: