C.A.N.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sameshot,

Decent answers, I appreciate it.

On this one issue, and only at this time, let's just agree to disagree. Note that I said nothing before today because I didn't want to step on anyone else's enthusiasm, project, or Second Amendment efforts. However, the posts took a turn that, in my personal opinion, not only justifies my lack of support but a rebuttal.

Let's just agree to disagree agreeably.
 
Mykl wrote:

SameShot, et. al.:

“C.A.N. has been created in response to the frustrations of many Pro-Constitution minded people voicing that there is no available way to organize together in the face of Crisis.”

“The Constitutional Action Network is a group of private United States Citizens that is being formed to communicate with each other in the event of National Crisis or Emergency and possibly take actions to protect the Lives and Rights of each other, as well as other Americans. C.A.N. has no definable purpose beyond that.”

Comment #1: Were you active in NC, and helped to facilitate the evacuation efforts or muster volunteers to assist in the post-disaster clean-up and recovery operations when the hurricane struck recently?

**** C.A.N. is less than a month old, and is designed to some extent to deal with Constitutional disasters, no hurricanes****

“C.A.N by itself is only a network for like minded people to communicate with each other should the need arise. Any objectives other than that are formed retroactively by the membership itself in times of crisis.”

Comment #2: I believe this is why we have multi-levels of government, precisely to preclude the necessity of possibly ill-advised but well-intentioned autonomous actions by citizens. I believe the words ‘lynch mob’ and ‘vigilantes’ are normally inserted in the legal dialogue to describe such autonomous collective efforts.

***I believe there is a general concensus that not all people are willing to put 100% of their trust into even a Multi-Level Government. If I recall correctly the 2nd A' was penned out of such mis-trust. I think the names inserted for these people have actually first been traitor, then patriot, then ForeFather.***


Notably absent from your discussion, is any point that one could infer support to those persons already committed to those legitimate networks, which are already in place and interacting with the various levels of local, state, and federal disaster preparedness and other emergency response activities, to do exactly what you’ve stated to be the goals of C.A.N. Or, is helping folks not “constitutional” enough in your context of activity? Working within the bounds of our society and it’s laws to effect change are not only effective, but they are legal.

***Is this FEMA you are speaking of? The agency coined as being the most powerful and potentially dangerous agency on the planet?.
Well, that's besides the point really. It is obvious to me that C.A.N. was never intended to be the Red Cross. Did you honestly get the idea that this was the intent of C.A.N.?
Nothing in C.A.N. restricts member from joining the Red Cross.
Is it beyond you to vision a Constitutional emergency? Even in this Multi-Level Goverment age that we live in today? And if you can, which agency exactly is set up to deal with that?****

***

“For you see, as I have stated. C.A.N. is not politcally (sic) motivated in any way, nor is it even a group. It is only a way to communicate. A phone tree.” … “If we are to the point that they will bust us for using the phone or email to contact another person to talk about the U.S. Constitution, then we are already hosed.”

Comment #3: This concept is great, and it works well for the PTA, garden clubs, even grass-roots political action committees, all of which have a well defined and legitimate purpose for their communications effort.

***Now it's you who are saying that you must have a defined political agenda to assemble as a group. Do you consider the members of TFL to be some sort of group? I say they are in some sense a group of like minded (for the most part) people. Isn't that enough?****

Personally, I can't help but wonder how you'll execute the "phone-tree" under some of the circumstances to which you've alluded. Such as: when the power is out (natural catastrophe) or when communication utilities are limited to official and emergency use, as would be in a national crisis of the proportion to which you alluded in your first post (the government OWNS and controls the bandwidth that you talk on, both via microwave transmitters (telephone) and the cellular wavelengths. Even HAM, C/B & family communications bands are a boon from the Federal Government. So, given these limits of our most common modalities of communications, this whole concept seems to be based upon some unrealistic assumptions. Aside from giving some of our membership (and member of other forums as well, you did indicate you’ve been busy recruiting elsewhere) a false sense of security, what substantive grounds do you have for your claims?

***If the telephone system, and internet are not working, then we wont be looking at TFL either, and I would assume that the mail system wont work either if that happens, which means we wont be getting our GOA mailer, or our "American Rifleman" mag for that matter.
I don't think members of these groups harbor any false feelings of security****

Consequently, your project seems to be like all too many of the laws that are being passed lately... no substance, just feel good stuff.

**** With this, like Dennis, you have passed me and the other C.A.N. members an insult for our troubles. I don't know how to respond to that except to say "we are trying".


------------------
SameShot, Different day




[This message has been edited by SameShot (edited November 16, 1999).]
 
Hehehe, Dennis....
People are going to be dizzy trying to follow this.
Look, it was never my intent to stir up any trouble at TFL. I love the site, and I am here every day.
The TFL "powers" chose to post something that discredits the efforts of myself, members of other boards, and some members of THIS board.
I wish that you had emailed me with your concerns, and I would have liked to have worked it out that way. But many people believe in C.A.N. and if you are going to tarnish publically while in a position of authority, then I must defend it by responding to your claims.
As I said, I hold TFL dear to me, and pissing off every single Moderator on this board to defend C.A.N. is what you would call a sacrifice on my part.
I would like to live here too.
If you have problems with C.A.N. Please tell me about them, or try to give us a little leeway to fix what your beef is instead of telling us that it is ok to post, ant then out of the blue changing your mind and bashing us.
Is that too much to ask?

------------------
SameShot, Different day
 
OK- Deep Breath all.

SameShot-
I am going to post my position here rather than by email as I've nothing to hide...there are no hidden forces pressuring us.

When SameShot first approached me for permission to use TFL to promote C.A.N., I was glad to pitch in. I even endorsed the original concept...and still do.

However, that concept, described at http://forums.ar15.com/Forum3/HTML/004342.html , centered around a group to help get the word out for protest of government actions which might threaten the Bill of Rights. This, I support wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, organizations, like web sites, like political parties, like societies have "life cycles". While I consider SameShot a gentleman and his actions praiseworthy, I feel that C.A.N. may be getting away from it's original scope. Between discussions of PGP encoded messages, thinly veiled allusions to armed resistance against gun confiscation and tyranny, we have already moved to the following position: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>C.A.N. has been created in response to the frustrations of many Pro-Constitution minded people voicing that there is no available way to organize together in the face of Crisis [/quote]
This, along with some of the rhetoric that has begun to surround C.A.N. posts, is a real departure from the original concept of organizing awareness and protest at the State level.

It must be understood that our Members and Staff include proud American Military and Law Enforcement personnel, in addition to well known professional trainers. I was asked by two such people to revisit this thread last evening. I did so and came to the conclusion that we cannot support the direction that I see C.A.N. taking. I have yet to speak to anyone on staff regarding my position, and their posts here have not been solicited.

I know that some out there believe that I am "faint of heart" or that TFL is too PC . As concerns the first charge, I refuse to respond. Those who know me, what I stand for and what I've done are all that matter in this context.

To the second charge, TFL was started in response to the screaming, bickering and extremism found on other firearms related sites. (You'll note that such traits usually mark the end of that site's "life cycle".) So, I guess TFL can be charged with being too "middle of the road" for some; for others we're already considered extremists.

The fact of the matter is that we have not been attacked by a tyrant's forces as happened 200 years ago. We still own this nation and can win back our freedoms in the voting booth and at the State Capitols...if we all work together. I believe this will occur. As concerns what I might do if the UN Troops suddenly appeared on my street: I'm not 100% sure (no one can be)....but I do know that I'm not going to announce my intentions over the Internet.

So, in short, I think C.A.N. has benefitted from it's exposure on this site. As the organization develops, it may return to it's original premise. If that happens, I'll be glad to embrace it with apology. It won't be the first (or last) time I've done a public about face on TFL. Such actions, and controversial decisions, come with the territory.

Until that time, I would ask that recruitment efforts on TFL be halted. It's simple, easy and inexpensive to organize an email list. I suggest that you consider such. Fair enough?
Rich Lucibella

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited November 16, 1999).]
 
Rich,
Your first post alluded that the you were concerned that a group that might, in the worst of all "constructions" aid those who would stand armed and physically oppose the goverment, and that you felt that allowing us to post invitations to join this group on this board would somehow involuntarily mean that this would be the intent of all of the members of TFL. It occurs to me that TFL is some assemblance of a group in itself, and people often post whimsical notions of overthrowing this or that, or taking a stand and such.
Let's just look for a minute just at the signatures of the members of this board.

Off the top of my head I can think of...
"shoot to kill, they'll stop when they're dead"
"If you can't beat city hall, at least deficate on the steps"
"Aim for the head, they wear body armor"
"Take my guns..Lead First!"

I'm sure you could browse a little and come up with some even more interesting sig's than that.

Then there's the liberty sig's like
"give me liberty or give me death"

I suppose that this is somehow translated on this site to mean death from licking stamps?

And then there's the latin. I don't read latin, but am I to believe that this latin trasnlated means something like...
"it's hammertime!"?

That's just the sig's, I wont even bother going into the text that is often discussed on TFL.

Is there no fear of these people mis-representing your site?

Let me ask you this then since you believe that C.A.N. has taken a more hard-core stance..
How many men in the MO 51st Militia are card carrying NRA members? Are you? How about Miss Demeanors (who I am a fan of)? Did She just join the 51st somehow by association?
I think not.

Does your (TFL) "group" have a variety of opinions expressed by it's members, ranging from mild, to extremely hot? Are they still considered TFL members? What do you do if someone here has a hot opinion as is also promoting that you join the GOA? Do you kick them off, and send a letter to the GOA voicing your dis-approval?
How can you possibly expect C.A.N. to regulate the opinions expressed by IT's members? Like any group, it consists of a wide variety of people with varying opinion as well.
How many times have I read people exclaim that they wish their beloved NRA would take some sort of action. Many.
Do you stop promoting the NRA because of that person's ideas?

Let's say, for the sake of your arguments (Dennis, and Mykl included), that C.A.N. did only have one purpose, and that this purpose was indeed to aid an armed conflict against the govenment should that day ever come.
Would this be the first time that you have allowed such a thought on this board? Or is it that jabber-Jabbering about it is fine, but any group that takes a direction to prepare to do so is a threat?
If you feel that this topic is tabboo on this board and opens TFL up to lawsuits, and government scrutiny, then I understand.
I could dredge up quotes about "Freedom" and "Safety" and "deserving neither", but I wont <wink>. If that is how you like to play, then fine. Safe is good too I guess.
I could let it go at that, but wait.. what is this?...
I browse through the topics for 15 seconds and I find this>>>>
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=24388
The title of this topic is...
"Man in Ca. defies state registration. Will he stand alone? "

To make a long story short, this topic is about a man who sends a letter to his rep declaring that he will willingly break the law by not registering his firearm. A FELONY!
The topic asks "will he stand alone", and a long list of 2 or 3 word replies follows including Dennis "Will he stand alone? NO"
Now I would like to know what Dennis meant by this? I guess I would have to conclude from his post in this thread, that he will stand with the guy "in spirit", or stand with him by writing letters to his reps. I couldn't possibly read into this that he means that he would go out with GROUP of gun owners and protest?
Then it gets better, Rich, you also reply to the topic "If it turns out to be a for real act of civil disobedience, I'm way in."
These posts made by the two of you were made YESTERDAY. The same day we got involved in this discussion.
Ok fine, for the sake of argument, let's just say that what you guys meant was that you would stand...literally. Just go over there and stand..in place. Well, your standing there might have more impact if you had other people there to stand next to you too. Might even keep you a bit warmer. Don't you think this would be a great way to use C.A.N.? And that it is also an action that is appropriate to the situation? I don't know if you live in CA or not, but if you didn't, the local C.A.N. group may even be able to put you up.
I certainly would take you in my home.
Will the NRA do this? Will the GOA do this?
Will Mykl's "Multi-Level Government do this?
Hell, I'd probably take you out for a drink afterwards and show you the town.
Ironically, that same topic is at AR-15.com and I (the founder of C.A.N.) posted a lengthy essay on why I thought it was a bad idea to incriminate yourself over registration, while you two "mild" TFL captains voiced your desire to "stand" up for a man committing a felony.
Am I to understand now that that I should view all TFL members as having this opinion?

You can find my take on the topic here:
http://forums.ar15.com/Forum3/HTML/005124.html

Rich, I will absolutely respect your request to halt what you term as "recruiting" here at TFL. However, I feel that you 3 have been hipocrates, and that you gave a group that really is intentioned to help out, a very raw deal. Forgive me, but I have lost some respect for you here and I DO care what you think.
I still have not slept over this.
In closing, I do admire the fact that you at least had the balls to weather out this conversation and did not just lock it, or delete it as the Rosie boards used to do.
For that, you are men in my eyes. Hypocrates yes, but still men.
Thank You.
*********************************
To the C.A.N. operators:
Please honor the request of the heads of this board and to not post invitations to join C.A.N. on TFL.
People interested in joining C.A.N. should look for us on the other boards.
Thank You
*********************************

------------------
SameShot, Different day




[This message has been edited by SameShot (edited November 16, 1999).]
 
SS- <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hypocrates yes, but still men.[/quote] Well, at least you haven't lost your sense of humor! :) Sorry about the loss of sleep.

I apologize if you're offended. Like I said, you've been a gentleman thruout. I'm sorry that I don't get the same credit for having extended resources to you. I hardly think you've lost anything in the bargain. You need to decide whether we helped fill your glass halfway or failed to help you fill it completely.

I'm not going to respond to your post in detail, as I've already clarified my position as best I can. But I do have one question:

If one of your members puts forth the concept of developing a list of Cabinet and CongressCritters' home addresses, floor plans and security in the "event" they attempt to seize power, will the discussions be welcome at C.A.N.? After all; there's nothing illegal about this. If you will welcome such discussion, then I'll pray for you. If you do not, then you've established that, like me, you're willing to "censor" what others call "free speech". No need to respond publicly...the question is rhetorical. The point is obvious.

Rich Lucibella

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited November 16, 1999).]
 
I'll respond, no problem.
If you had emailed me and politely asked that we suspend our posts here, then I would have considered that a "half-full" glass, but instead 3 of the top-ranking TFL'ers beat our effort into the ground as a way to justifiy a "clean break". This sort of negates what you condsider that we did accomplish.
However, Rich, I do consider you a gentleman as well, and I'm sorry that I forgot to put that in my last post. I really do.

As for your theoretical assassin, I would ask him to try to convince me of why that would need to be done, and probably try to talk him out of his plans. Would I pass it down the line for discussion? I suppose that this would depend on the "climate" that we were facing at the time. If you call that censoring, then I give you that at least I would do my best to understand this person's ideas, and then try to find in myself if that is too outrageous to pass down. Even if I did pass it down, it would lay solely on the discretion of the members as to whether they would partake in it. I for one..would probably not.
To me, C.A.N. is a defensive network.
In any case, I don't recall accusing you of censoring in any of this. You came up with that.

------------------
SameShot, Different day

(edited to include the "defensive" part)


[This message has been edited by SameShot (edited November 16, 1999).]
 
Rich Lucibella opens mouth, exchanges feet.

Sean-
You're right. I might have given you the courtesy of a private email. In retrospect, however, that would truly have been hypocrisy.

In any case, it's a loose-loose situation on this end. These calls always are.
Rich
 
Unlike most who post here, I privately emailed you to get your ok. If it became "un-ok" for you then I don't see how giving me a private eamil to let me know that is hypocrisy.
Instead I spent two days defending myself and the others who believe in this network while being ganged up on 3 to 1.'
Noticed yet that very few others are posting to this? Our virtual slugging match should end now. Call it a draw.

I appreciate that you gave us a chance, and I'm sorry it worked out the way it did.
I harbor no ill-will over this, just disappointment.

Sincerely
Sean


------------------
SameShot, Different day
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top