Bias in moderations on this board.

[Jim March]

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...ge=25&highlight=NRA AND traitors&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]

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]

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]

Your "facts" are in question, Jim.

Jim March said:

"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

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/information/XcIBViewItem.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.

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.

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?

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...ge=25&highlight=NRA AND traitors&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.

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]

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/information/XcIBViewItem.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]

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]

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:

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:

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

Answer: No

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

Answer: No

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]

Thank you for your confession.

Jim's First Post:

"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:

"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]

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]

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]

Still learning this lesson? OK.

Jim March:

"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]

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]

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

Respectfully, Sam

 

[Byron Quick]

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]

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]

[SIZE=large]Rich:[/SIZE]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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