cornered rat
Moderator
http://www.guntruths.com/Monk/back_to_basics.htm please take a look: this rant looks like a good starting point for the ad...at least to me. Comments?
Firearms Owners Unification Project (WAS USA TODAY)
- Thread starter Rob Pincus
- Start date
- Status
Daren Thompson
New member
I will be attending Knob Creek machine gun shoot in about a month. what about trying to raise money/members at the shoot?
Later
Daren
Later
Daren
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Good news about the ad approval.
I am new to TFL so I realize that I have little or no say in this discussion. I heard about this site from John/az2. I have some concerns about how this project is going. Please hear me out.
When John told me of this project this weekend I got on and read all I could about it. I went to bed thinking how it would be received by our common foes in the media and the like. I think this is just what they would want us to say. Basically I see it as a statement of defiance, confrontation, and implied threat. (Just you try to come and get my guns) I think this language will play into “their” hands and we will be branded as “extremists” and all the other adjectives that are placed on our lot. It will be received as a “See I told you how these people are.”
I suggest we come up with a supportive statement that “they” will have a hard time attacking. For example I was reading articles on www.worldnetdaily.com , www.frontpage.com or www.newsmax.com and came across an article about a program the NRA is pushing in Miami. If someone else read the article I would appreciate you posting it so everyone can read it himself or herself. I have looked for it tonight but can’t locate it. The article (I am paraphrasing) told of a program in Miami where police are checking up on felons to see if they have guns. If the felon is found with a gun the felon goes back to jail. The basic premise was we know who the bad guys are and if they have guns they to back to jail. What if every felon in America knew there may be a random search of his/her home for firearms? The article stated the program was a success but that the federal government would not hear of it. Their agenda is to get all guns off the street, not go after bad guys.
I guess it is my humble opinion that we should come up with something positive we are all for not what we are all against. I want people to read this statement and say I agree with that and want to get involved.
This is the same thinking that brought Q into the limelight on another thread this week. So she is liberal! I don’t care what her personal values, beliefs, or station in life is. I care about what binds her and I, what we share in common. From there we can start communicating and understanding one another. In the end we may disagree but we still have respect for one another because we started from a point of common purpose and respect.
Let me sum up. Lest find language that will be more of a support statement than a defiance statement. We will be taken more seriously.
Bring on the flames.
arizona
------------------
[This message has been edited by arizona (edited March 09, 1999).]
When John told me of this project this weekend I got on and read all I could about it. I went to bed thinking how it would be received by our common foes in the media and the like. I think this is just what they would want us to say. Basically I see it as a statement of defiance, confrontation, and implied threat. (Just you try to come and get my guns) I think this language will play into “their” hands and we will be branded as “extremists” and all the other adjectives that are placed on our lot. It will be received as a “See I told you how these people are.”
I suggest we come up with a supportive statement that “they” will have a hard time attacking. For example I was reading articles on www.worldnetdaily.com , www.frontpage.com or www.newsmax.com and came across an article about a program the NRA is pushing in Miami. If someone else read the article I would appreciate you posting it so everyone can read it himself or herself. I have looked for it tonight but can’t locate it. The article (I am paraphrasing) told of a program in Miami where police are checking up on felons to see if they have guns. If the felon is found with a gun the felon goes back to jail. The basic premise was we know who the bad guys are and if they have guns they to back to jail. What if every felon in America knew there may be a random search of his/her home for firearms? The article stated the program was a success but that the federal government would not hear of it. Their agenda is to get all guns off the street, not go after bad guys.
I guess it is my humble opinion that we should come up with something positive we are all for not what we are all against. I want people to read this statement and say I agree with that and want to get involved.
This is the same thinking that brought Q into the limelight on another thread this week. So she is liberal! I don’t care what her personal values, beliefs, or station in life is. I care about what binds her and I, what we share in common. From there we can start communicating and understanding one another. In the end we may disagree but we still have respect for one another because we started from a point of common purpose and respect.
Let me sum up. Lest find language that will be more of a support statement than a defiance statement. We will be taken more seriously.
Bring on the flames.
arizona
------------------
[This message has been edited by arizona (edited March 09, 1999).]
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
arizona,
Yes, it is somewhat confrontational. So what? It is a demand for redress of grievances. It is not a call for armed resistance. In case you haven't looked recently, HCI is raising the stakes. Felons are not good enough anymore. They want misdemeanors to disqualify you from owning firearms. I don't know about Arizona but in Georgia-running a stop sign is a misdemeanor. The NRA has tried being reasonable with these people for thirty years. Look where it got us.
I don't care what HCI's reaction is. I hope it gets their bloomers all in a wad. I am sure that prior to the unveiling of the Declaration of Independence there were detractors who believed, "Boy, this is sure going to upset George."
A comment on the felon with firearms scenario you mentioned. I have a friend who was attacked by two teenagers armed with large frame revolvers on his own property. He was unarmed. He sent both of them to trauma surgery. Because he would not let them leave after he rendered them harmless-he was charged with kidnapping. Because he continued to control them after removing their means to murder him-he was charged with assault. The teenagers were not charged with anything-poor little misguided souls. So my friend, now a felon, should not own firearms and should go to prison if he owns one? Sweet.
Yes, it is somewhat confrontational. So what? It is a demand for redress of grievances. It is not a call for armed resistance. In case you haven't looked recently, HCI is raising the stakes. Felons are not good enough anymore. They want misdemeanors to disqualify you from owning firearms. I don't know about Arizona but in Georgia-running a stop sign is a misdemeanor. The NRA has tried being reasonable with these people for thirty years. Look where it got us.
I don't care what HCI's reaction is. I hope it gets their bloomers all in a wad. I am sure that prior to the unveiling of the Declaration of Independence there were detractors who believed, "Boy, this is sure going to upset George."
A comment on the felon with firearms scenario you mentioned. I have a friend who was attacked by two teenagers armed with large frame revolvers on his own property. He was unarmed. He sent both of them to trauma surgery. Because he would not let them leave after he rendered them harmless-he was charged with kidnapping. Because he continued to control them after removing their means to murder him-he was charged with assault. The teenagers were not charged with anything-poor little misguided souls. So my friend, now a felon, should not own firearms and should go to prison if he owns one? Sweet.
Sez arizona:
The article (I am paraphrasing) told of a program in Miami where police are checking up on felons to see if they have guns. If the felon is found with a gun the felon goes back to jail.
Virginia has a similar program called Project Exile. It has one important difference to what you're talking about:
If a felon uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, he gets an automatic 5 years in a federal pen.
The program has been responsible for some fantastically high rate of decline in violent crime. Of course, Comrade Bill sez the decline is in *spite* of Project Exile.
Do you see the difference? I have no problem with felons owning guns. I do have a problem with felons using guns to hurt others.
------------------
Bullets and primers and hot brass a-flying;
Goblins in my house all screaming and crying;
Nineteen-elevens and scope-mounting rings;
These are a few of my favorite things...
The article (I am paraphrasing) told of a program in Miami where police are checking up on felons to see if they have guns. If the felon is found with a gun the felon goes back to jail.
Virginia has a similar program called Project Exile. It has one important difference to what you're talking about:
If a felon uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, he gets an automatic 5 years in a federal pen.
The program has been responsible for some fantastically high rate of decline in violent crime. Of course, Comrade Bill sez the decline is in *spite* of Project Exile.
Do you see the difference? I have no problem with felons owning guns. I do have a problem with felons using guns to hurt others.
------------------
Bullets and primers and hot brass a-flying;
Goblins in my house all screaming and crying;
Nineteen-elevens and scope-mounting rings;
These are a few of my favorite things...
Arizona..
Spartacus hit it dead on...they are increasing the infractions that prohibit ownership, non-violent misdemenors! With the ridiculous number of laws on the books concerning everything, there is a very real and good chance that everyone commits one or 2 misdemenors per week.
I have a farm and am required by the State of California Dept Food and Ag to fill out monthly chemical use reports (whether I used any or not). I have to fill out a separate report for each chemical. Failure to fill out and send said reports is technically a misdemenor and I can be fined. At anytime they can, at there discretion choose to enforce said violation.
As well, there are pending bills in the state legislature increasing the number of "crimes" that render a person unfit to own a firearm. Already even a non-violent domestic dispute resulting in one participant being taken away disqualifies one from firearm ownership.
My point is that perhaps some month next year I forget to send a chemical use form and they decide to fine me, they could also deem me unfit to own firearms. If, in fact, there was a plan to prohibit ownership, they wouldn't even have to fine me...just "punish" me by taking my guns.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Spartacus hit it dead on...they are increasing the infractions that prohibit ownership, non-violent misdemenors! With the ridiculous number of laws on the books concerning everything, there is a very real and good chance that everyone commits one or 2 misdemenors per week.
I have a farm and am required by the State of California Dept Food and Ag to fill out monthly chemical use reports (whether I used any or not). I have to fill out a separate report for each chemical. Failure to fill out and send said reports is technically a misdemenor and I can be fined. At anytime they can, at there discretion choose to enforce said violation.
As well, there are pending bills in the state legislature increasing the number of "crimes" that render a person unfit to own a firearm. Already even a non-violent domestic dispute resulting in one participant being taken away disqualifies one from firearm ownership.
My point is that perhaps some month next year I forget to send a chemical use form and they decide to fine me, they could also deem me unfit to own firearms. If, in fact, there was a plan to prohibit ownership, they wouldn't even have to fine me...just "punish" me by taking my guns.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
I don't have time to read many books, so I try to get them on tape and listen to them as I drive. (Keeps me calmer at rush-hour.)
I am "re-listening" to "My American Journey" by Gen. Colin Powell. In reference to the struggle for racial equality, he notes his discomfort with H. Rap Brown, Malcolm X, and other "loud" activists. He explains he, as a black man, was treated equally in the Army so he felt the loud voices hurt more than helped.
That is similar to our discussion here, so Gen. Powell's conclusion is worth consideration.
Simply put, he said, "A movement requires many different voices" (that is NOT an exact quote, but as close as I can remember).
IMHO, there is room for all of us to express our views in different words and different forums. If we are too strong, some people will be offended. If we are too weak, we will be ignored. USA Today will have room for more ads (and probably be happy to take our money!).
Whatever we decide to do, let's get on with it. I'll back Rob on this one. If somebody writes a different version, I may back that one as well.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 09, 1999).]
I am "re-listening" to "My American Journey" by Gen. Colin Powell. In reference to the struggle for racial equality, he notes his discomfort with H. Rap Brown, Malcolm X, and other "loud" activists. He explains he, as a black man, was treated equally in the Army so he felt the loud voices hurt more than helped.
That is similar to our discussion here, so Gen. Powell's conclusion is worth consideration.
Simply put, he said, "A movement requires many different voices" (that is NOT an exact quote, but as close as I can remember).
IMHO, there is room for all of us to express our views in different words and different forums. If we are too strong, some people will be offended. If we are too weak, we will be ignored. USA Today will have room for more ads (and probably be happy to take our money!).
Whatever we decide to do, let's get on with it. I'll back Rob on this one. If somebody writes a different version, I may back that one as well.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 09, 1999).]
I would like to point out that the proposed
ad copy claims self-defense and RKBA as
Constitutional rights. More correctly, it
is a Constitutionally protected right, the
right existed before the ratification of
the Constitution, as do all rights. The
Constitution merely attempts to prevent the
Federal government from infringing on a
pre-existing right. Worked fine for almost
a couple hundred years, but not anymore.
ad copy claims self-defense and RKBA as
Constitutional rights. More correctly, it
is a Constitutionally protected right, the
right existed before the ratification of
the Constitution, as do all rights. The
Constitution merely attempts to prevent the
Federal government from infringing on a
pre-existing right. Worked fine for almost
a couple hundred years, but not anymore.
Rob Pincus
New member
Arizona,
Your concerns have been well met by other supporters of the project. In any case, the ad copy has been approved by USA TODAY and is meeting with much support/enthusiasm by gun owners from all across the spectrum. I hope you decdide to be one of teh supporters.
Everyone,
I've been AFK all day, but I'll be around this evening. Nothing much has changed, but Ihad a long talk with our CPA and I believe that things wil be ready to go in about two weeks. this is not as soon as I would have liked, but this is what it takes to have all our ducks in a row. We should also have secured a lawyer to review the project and act as general counsel by that time.
I was at Glock, Inc. today and I gave soem people there at look at the project and they were very supportive and some will be contributors.
Your concerns have been well met by other supporters of the project. In any case, the ad copy has been approved by USA TODAY and is meeting with much support/enthusiasm by gun owners from all across the spectrum. I hope you decdide to be one of teh supporters.
Everyone,
I've been AFK all day, but I'll be around this evening. Nothing much has changed, but Ihad a long talk with our CPA and I believe that things wil be ready to go in about two weeks. this is not as soon as I would have liked, but this is what it takes to have all our ducks in a row. We should also have secured a lawyer to review the project and act as general counsel by that time.
I was at Glock, Inc. today and I gave soem people there at look at the project and they were very supportive and some will be contributors.
Be careful Spartacus…So what? It is a demand for redress of grievances. Redress of Grievance is what some blacks want for slavery in the form of money, affirmative action, and set-asides. When we start looking like victims we loose our self-respect. I agree with you that we have been unfairly treated but all we want is our rights back. Right?
On your second issue if your friend continued to “assault” these two thugs I understand the police in arresting him. It is human nature to retaliate but if, and I realize this is a big if, he continued to assault these thugs he would have not been in his right because the threat against his life was no longer there. I don’t know enough about the case to make a judgment so I will leave it at that. I do hope the guy gets off and he may if it goes to a jury.
Coinneach…Project Exile…Yes, thank you. I still have not located the article but I think you have it. This is the kind of movement we should be supporting. I agree with you that if you commit a lesser crime, and I have although I was not arrested, you should not have the right to own a gun taken from you. This is the type of program we should be supporting, not trying to pick a fight.
DC…Understand what you are going through and I agree with you that the government is in to many aspects of our lives.
Dennis… Appreciated your words. I don’t think I am that far away from all of the positions presented in this forum. I think the more heads we can get together the better.
Arizona
On your second issue if your friend continued to “assault” these two thugs I understand the police in arresting him. It is human nature to retaliate but if, and I realize this is a big if, he continued to assault these thugs he would have not been in his right because the threat against his life was no longer there. I don’t know enough about the case to make a judgment so I will leave it at that. I do hope the guy gets off and he may if it goes to a jury.
Coinneach…Project Exile…Yes, thank you. I still have not located the article but I think you have it. This is the kind of movement we should be supporting. I agree with you that if you commit a lesser crime, and I have although I was not arrested, you should not have the right to own a gun taken from you. This is the type of program we should be supporting, not trying to pick a fight.
DC…Understand what you are going through and I agree with you that the government is in to many aspects of our lives.
Dennis… Appreciated your words. I don’t think I am that far away from all of the positions presented in this forum. I think the more heads we can get together the better.
Arizona
Jeff Thomas
New member
arizona, I had the same concern as you. However, I would respectfully suggest that you are not clearly seeing the points raised by Spartacus and DC. Their particular situations and examples are only examples - the specifics are irrelevant.
HCI and their ilk, including their allies in Congress, are constantly expanding their attacks upon the RKBA. Consider - bills to ban 9mm, .25, .32 ammunition (Moynihan), bills to ban the transfer of full capacity (aka high capacity) magazines (Feinstein), moves to include misdemeanors in the list of prohibited persons for ownership / purchase of firearms ... And the list goes on and on.
The latter proposal is the most damning. Consider very, very carefully what this really means. Cute strategy. They won't ban guns. They'll just restrict the qualified pool of owners so greatly that it is no longer relevant. Then they'll carve out exceptions for military and LEO and ... voila! An unarmed citizenry. See, that wasn't so difficult was it?
Fits very nicely with the trend in the U.S. for more and more laws at the local and federal level. (check out 'The Death of Common Sense' by Phillip Howard) Laws that intrude into nearly every facet of peoples' lives. And eventually, everyone has at least one misdemeanor on their record. If you don't think this is possible, do a little research into what a misdemeanor is. I know that in AZ it is a criminal offense to exceed the speed limit by over 20 mph. Ever done that? Just once? Do you now feel dangerous with a firearm?
Yes, the statement is confrontational. However, it also looks the anti-self defense scum in the eye and says 'We're through. And, we're done compromising with unreasonable liars.' Individual anti-self defense people may honestly offer the whining, weak excuse that 'I don't want to outlaw all guns!'. They are usually ignorant, and more often disingenuous.
Compromise has not and wlll not work with these people.
Let's not stop the incrementalism in 'gun control' ... let's just reverse direction!
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited March 11, 1999).]
HCI and their ilk, including their allies in Congress, are constantly expanding their attacks upon the RKBA. Consider - bills to ban 9mm, .25, .32 ammunition (Moynihan), bills to ban the transfer of full capacity (aka high capacity) magazines (Feinstein), moves to include misdemeanors in the list of prohibited persons for ownership / purchase of firearms ... And the list goes on and on.
The latter proposal is the most damning. Consider very, very carefully what this really means. Cute strategy. They won't ban guns. They'll just restrict the qualified pool of owners so greatly that it is no longer relevant. Then they'll carve out exceptions for military and LEO and ... voila! An unarmed citizenry. See, that wasn't so difficult was it?
Fits very nicely with the trend in the U.S. for more and more laws at the local and federal level. (check out 'The Death of Common Sense' by Phillip Howard) Laws that intrude into nearly every facet of peoples' lives. And eventually, everyone has at least one misdemeanor on their record. If you don't think this is possible, do a little research into what a misdemeanor is. I know that in AZ it is a criminal offense to exceed the speed limit by over 20 mph. Ever done that? Just once? Do you now feel dangerous with a firearm?
Yes, the statement is confrontational. However, it also looks the anti-self defense scum in the eye and says 'We're through. And, we're done compromising with unreasonable liars.' Individual anti-self defense people may honestly offer the whining, weak excuse that 'I don't want to outlaw all guns!'. They are usually ignorant, and more often disingenuous.
Compromise has not and wlll not work with these people.
Let's not stop the incrementalism in 'gun control' ... let's just reverse direction!
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited March 11, 1999).]
Arizona...
Following up Jeff's post:
A local radio station has an hour show wherein they talk about a specific topic, issue, community project, etc each day. They have a relevent guest and they field phone calls from listeners. Prior to last November's election a candidate for the local Senate (state) race was on and he is pretty much a serious pro-gun control.
This man had a significant anti-gun message in his campaign (realize that this senate district is one of the lowest in the state for gun violence) and he was discussing this new "Assault weapons" bill my other thread refers to. Anyway there was a lot of discussion and listener calls and the point of increasing the "rules" of ownership qualification came up, and he is in favor of it.
Paraphrasing him: 'Owning a gun is a grave responsibility and only the most responsible and law abiding people should have access to them....' Now this sounds pretty logical on its face, and it is hard to argue with correct?......(him again)....' people who break the law, any law, have proven that they don't respect the laws and are not responsible and therefore aren't fit to own a firearm'
Understand, he was not talking about major felonies, crimes of violence....this was a blanket statement covering ALL laws period. Taken to the extreme, by his criteria only children under 5 yrs old are qualified as they are incapable of breaking any law.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Following up Jeff's post:
A local radio station has an hour show wherein they talk about a specific topic, issue, community project, etc each day. They have a relevent guest and they field phone calls from listeners. Prior to last November's election a candidate for the local Senate (state) race was on and he is pretty much a serious pro-gun control.
This man had a significant anti-gun message in his campaign (realize that this senate district is one of the lowest in the state for gun violence) and he was discussing this new "Assault weapons" bill my other thread refers to. Anyway there was a lot of discussion and listener calls and the point of increasing the "rules" of ownership qualification came up, and he is in favor of it.
Paraphrasing him: 'Owning a gun is a grave responsibility and only the most responsible and law abiding people should have access to them....' Now this sounds pretty logical on its face, and it is hard to argue with correct?......(him again)....' people who break the law, any law, have proven that they don't respect the laws and are not responsible and therefore aren't fit to own a firearm'
Understand, he was not talking about major felonies, crimes of violence....this was a blanket statement covering ALL laws period. Taken to the extreme, by his criteria only children under 5 yrs old are qualified as they are incapable of breaking any law.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
The assault that my friend was accused (and convicted) of consisted of attempting to make the perpetrators lie prone on the ground to await the arrival of police. He had two attackers on the ground both clothed in such a manner that he could not tell at a glance if they had backup weapons. When they would attempt to move he would apply force to dissuade them and also to prevent further attack. He was supposed to just let run into the bushes and then open fire with backup weapons from cover? He got into these charges by being merciful. If he had killed them when they first attacked it would have been justified. The DA twisted what had happened. There are many people labeled as felons where this has occurred. I know another man who was attacked four times while fleeing his attacker. Attacked with a knife.
On the fourth attack he grappled with his attacker. The attacker died from her own knife. The man was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Do you think he should be barred from firearms ownership? He is.
Obtain a list of the felonies that exist today. Compare it with a list from 1900. It might surprise you. If we released from prison those felons who committed only felonies enacted since 1900 we would not release one violent felon. We would also have prisons standing empty. Over 40% of the entire United States Code was enacted in the last thirty years.
On the fourth attack he grappled with his attacker. The attacker died from her own knife. The man was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Do you think he should be barred from firearms ownership? He is.
Obtain a list of the felonies that exist today. Compare it with a list from 1900. It might surprise you. If we released from prison those felons who committed only felonies enacted since 1900 we would not release one violent felon. We would also have prisons standing empty. Over 40% of the entire United States Code was enacted in the last thirty years.
Jeff Thomas
New member
arizona, do you see what gives so many of us pause?
The members of this board are LEO's, civilians, military personnel ... older and younger ... award-winning, experienced shooters and competitors, and some just starting out ... sometimes with vast personal and work experience, sometimes with degrees, professional certifications and other letters after our names. Those of us in this thread, and certainly I, cannot speak for members posting on TFL. However, I do believe that many of us are gravely concerned about our executive, judicial and legislative system.
And, the misuse of that system to deprive us of the rights of self-defense and other firearms rights causes us great dismay. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited March 12, 1999).]
The members of this board are LEO's, civilians, military personnel ... older and younger ... award-winning, experienced shooters and competitors, and some just starting out ... sometimes with vast personal and work experience, sometimes with degrees, professional certifications and other letters after our names. Those of us in this thread, and certainly I, cannot speak for members posting on TFL. However, I do believe that many of us are gravely concerned about our executive, judicial and legislative system.
And, the misuse of that system to deprive us of the rights of self-defense and other firearms rights causes us great dismay. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited March 12, 1999).]
- Status