How would you treat a so-called "pro-gun group"...


PDA






Monkeyleg
October 14, 2006, 02:42 AM
I've got dozens of threads going about a certain gun group in my state, and I'm getting some mixed responses.

So, let's assume that there's a group in your state that calls itself pro-gun. And it's doing the following:

1. Asking its members to call and try to defeat your state's first shall-issue bill.

2. Calling the NRA, your state-level pro-gun organizations, and the volunteers who give their time to such efforts "advocates of gun control."

3. Calling the passage of a shall-issue CCW bill "gun control," when the only people who would be on any sort of list would be those who voluntarily apply for CCW permits.

4. Raising tens of thousands of dollars to defeat your shall-issue bill.

5. Spending thousands of dollars to defeat the single most pro-gun member of your state legislature, at a time when the anti-gunners are seeing a chance to defeat that same legislator as well. Also at a time when the defeat of this legislator, if combined with the defeats of just a few others, could hand control of the state legislature back to the anti-gun crowd.

6. Attacking you personally, the volunteers who have worked with you for over five years, the legislators who have worked with you in crafting one of the best shall-issue CCW bills in the country, the NRA in general, your state's NRA/ILA lobbyist in particular, and anyone else who has worked to get your state into the list of shall-issue states.

Forget about where I or others on THR live. Just imagine that you were fighting for shall-issue in your state, and you had a group such as I've described above working against you.

How would you respond? How hard would you hit back? What would you do?

Don't try to look at it from my perspective. Look at it from yours.

If this was your problem, how would you handle it?

If you enjoyed reading about "How would you treat a so-called "pro-gun group"..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Chipperman
October 14, 2006, 09:08 AM
This appears to be a new tactic of the anti's, They come up with a group, claiming to be Pro gun, in order to divide opinion among gun owners. There are several websites out there now which area clearly anti if you read between the lines. They are targeting "Sportsmen" who they feel they can lure away from the "Hard core" violent Militia men that we all are here. :rolleyes:

DesertShooter
October 14, 2006, 09:29 AM
How would I deal with them? I'd look upon them as part of the "axis of evil", and post their web sites in THR, TFL and other TRUE pro-gun forum boards! If they were to be inundated with e-mails and new, PRO-gun members that spoke their peace, they'd either have to shut down or "conform"....and you know that they wouldn't conform!

The "wacko's" in various agenda-driven groups have resorted to hardcore deceit over the past few years, figuring that if they repeat something enough times, there will be people who think that it must be true. They've been able to get the liberal news media on their side. I absolutely hate it when a "news" account is reported as factual, coming from a "high-placed and reliable source", but that "source" doesn't wish to be named!

HMM! Sort of like John Kerry, who continually repeated, "I have a plan!", yet NEVER explained what it was!

langenc
October 14, 2006, 10:36 AM
I would work with local gun clubs and point out their position re $ to defeat 'helpful' legislators etc.and advise them no more $ from me (us). Certianly write to editors pointing out fallicy of position.

They can call themselves whatever they want (note HSUS & PETA) but must remember--

'by their fruits ye shall know them'.

1911 guy
October 14, 2006, 10:49 AM
Call them out load and often for their duplicity in public forums such as this. Make their name and lies known. Post a web address where we can write in and tell them what we think of their tactics and dishonesty. Above all, tell other gunnies what the name is so they don't support this organization without proper research.

Malone LaVeigh
October 14, 2006, 10:56 AM
OK, the suspense is killing me...

Mr White
October 14, 2006, 11:08 AM
Do you mean an organization like this (http://www.huntersandshooters.org/) scam?

Silver Bullet
October 14, 2006, 11:11 AM
This appears to be a new tactic of the anti's, They come up with a group, claiming to be Pro gun, in order to divide opinion among gun owners. There are several websites out there now which area clearly anti if you read between the lines. They are targeting "Sportsmen" who they feel they can lure away from the "Hard core" violent Militia men that we all are here
You're probably right.

Silver Bullet
October 14, 2006, 11:13 AM
I'd look upon them as part of the "axis of evil", and post their web sites in THR, TFL and other TRUE pro-gun forum boards.
We're halfway there. Monkeyleg, who is this organization ?

Zundfolge
October 14, 2006, 11:14 AM
Sounds like a lot of THR posters if you ask me.

Too many "ideological purists" who believe that CCW is a violation of the 2A (because by rights we should have national "Vermont Style" carry). And until the NRA goes to Washington and demands EVERY SINGLE GUN LAW be reversed they are nothing but a "tool of the antis".


Is this pro-gun group maybe in Wisconsin?



As for what to do, I honestly don't know. Its clearly one of those "with friends like these who needs enemies" situations ... if you can get a bunch of pro CCW folk together and create an organization to counter them that would be great, but that's neither easy nor cheap.

BigO01
October 14, 2006, 11:33 AM
Simple divide and conquer tactics , bad news is there are many gun owners dumb enough to fall for all of it .

I can clearly recall an article in a local paper about the AW Ban years ago , they managed to find a moron at a range "Pictures included" who went on and on how he was in complete agreement with the thing , funny thing was the retard was into competitive target shooting with rifles and had his target tuned AR15 in his hands as he talked to them and posed for pics .

The NRA at one time had a very strong wing that was into historical and rare gun collection and strongly disagreed with the then new 70's political movement and involvement to protect the RKBA for the so called common guns and uses of such because they thought they shouldn't soil themselves with such things . Instead all they were worried about were laws that effected collectors of "Fine" arms .

What was it PT Barnum said about a fool being born every minute ?

Silver Bullet
October 14, 2006, 11:49 AM
BigO01, I think there are plenty of folks out there with low self-esteem who are desperate to be with the "cool" people, since to not be with them is to not be "cool".

ETXhiker
October 14, 2006, 12:27 PM
Do you mean an organization like this scam?

Thanks MrWhite. Wow, I never heard of AHSA before, but this kind of stealth anti-gun club is scary. Probably will sucker a lot of people who haven't given it enough thought. Bummer.

Autolycus
October 14, 2006, 01:49 PM
That AHSA did not look that bad initially. Could you guys post a link to the anti-2a stuff cause I didnt really see it? I am being 100% serious but I couldnt see anything that bad in a few cursory glances.

SomeKid
October 14, 2006, 02:05 PM
He isn't talking about AHSA. He is talking about a group in WI, but he wants ideas on what we would do. That said...

If I had the ability, I would look into first and foremost and illegal/corrupt activities taken. Left-wingers are strong believers in the rule of law for us, and only for us. Odds are the enemy has broken a few laws and you should see if you can get them reamed for it.

Secondly, use them to your advantage. Paint yourself as the common sense middle of the road moderates, between the anti gun people (Doyle) who would strip all rights from you, and those whack-jobs who want anyone to carry minus background checks/safety classes etc. (I am a purist, and I personally support permitless carry, but in WI, the landscape is different.) SO, to the hunters you are less extreme, and therefore you can approach them easier. Maybe. It isn't the best thing in the world, but it helps being able to claim the middle ground.

progunner1957
October 14, 2006, 02:45 PM
6. Attacking you personally
What would I do? File a multimillion dollar lawsuit for slander and/or libel, and donate all the proceeds to the NRA and GOA. There's nothing like beating them with their own stick!:D

Mr.V.
October 14, 2006, 03:22 PM
That AHSA did not look that bad initially. Could you guys post a link to the anti-2a stuff cause I didnt really see it? I am being 100% serious but I couldnt see anything that bad in a few cursory glances.
you gotta dig a bit...but all the evil is there...
http://www.huntersandshooters.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=98&Itemid=39
They believe "that firearms are for self-protection" but do everything they can to point out that "you're just going to shoot your eye out, kid"

here's the worst...
http://www.huntersandshooters.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=126&Itemid=32

"Since the passage of the NFA in 1934, crimes committed with machine guns are almost nonexistent. Because of the potential for criminal misuse, the immense “fire power” and the potential for terrorist use, AHSA believes the .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles should be regulated in the same manner as the federal government regulates machine guns under the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934."
Which is a complete lie. Gangs use fully automatic weapons rather frequently...the stat they're quoting is that registered users of full-auto weapons haven't comitted any crimes since then...because as it turns out...if you're a law abiding citizen, you probably aren't going to shoot up your 'hood...

I think the majority of antis are simply afraid of & misguided about firearms...but these guys are, in the words of Rainier Wolfcastle, commie-nazis...

Malone LaVeigh
October 14, 2006, 03:35 PM
these guys are, in the words of Rainier Wolfcastle, commie-nazis...

Or, maybe they just disagree with you (and me) on those particular issues. I believe it's possible for someone to be generally pro-RKBA without believing that those rights are absolute. So what if they agree on most gun ownership rights, but disagree on full-auto or .50 bmg? Then, ally with them when you can and oppose where you must. I hope the RKBA community can fit under a little bit bigger tent than the population of THR.

ETXhiker
October 14, 2006, 03:35 PM
AHSA also talks about being sure manufacturers make "safe" guns and warns against keeping a gun in the house for self-defense. Even voices the "43 times more likely" lie. If you dig in and read you will see that the org is a front for an attempt to separate hunters and politically naive shooters from the 2A.

Mr.V.
October 14, 2006, 05:22 PM
Malone--

ordinarily, I'd say you're point was perfectly right. However, in this particular case, if we look to the founders of it, we see the makings of a more sinister agenda...

John E. Rosenthal is the current president AND the president of "Stop Handgun Violence"
http://www.stophandgunviolence.com/

Bob Ricker...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ricker
He's famous for accusing gun manufacturers of being neglegent for not installing retinal scans in the guns before you can use one...

Also the formation of the organization in general is distateful. It wasn't an organization of hunters and shooters first which later became politically active with their supposed "common-sense" approach. They earned no street-cred first. They wrote all their articles at once and threw them together in one fell-swoop.

I'd go so far as to say it was a conspiracy if they weren't so completely overt about it. I don't know. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but the American Hunters and Shooters Association deserves little doubt about their true agenda.

Autolycus
October 15, 2006, 07:43 AM
Thanks for showing me what I could not see MR. V.

Did you all know that .50 caliber sniper rifles are the chosen weapons of terrorists such as Al Queada and the IRA? Did you know that street gangs and motorcylce gangs also consider .50 cals to be their chosen weapon?:uhoh:

Barbara
October 15, 2006, 08:07 AM
Either find a way to work with them, or ignore them, I guess.

Michigan's gun rights have been a mess for a few years with the one group that could function being taken over by a corrupt trade union and now campaigning for anti-gunners, and several other groups (including at least two that are for-profit..what the heck is that about??) splintering off, and some of the others acting like pro-gunners are the enemy and squabbling amongst themselves. All you can do it try to rise above it and carry on doing what you know is right. Personally, I just ignore the politics of gunnies and try to concentrate on the politics of gun rights.

I hear you on the frustration thing, though..I had one out of state person right to tell me that they would not at all be interested in participating in our Kids Day event because we were affiliated with the NRA. Sheesh, dude. :)

Good luck, Dick. Have confidence in yourself. You're doing a good thing and no amount of bs from that crew is going to change that. :)

Malone LaVeigh
October 15, 2006, 03:28 PM
Well, I did say "maybe." :p

But I think it's probably good for us to tone down some of our rhetoric around here. There are fence-sitters and others out there that generally support our rights, without necessarily being absolute. I find them in the most unexpected places, if I establish myself as a reasonable guy before giving my position on RKBA.

I'm still dying to know what group Monkeyleg is writing about. From the examples he gives, it doesn't sound like a covert gun-grabber group, it sounds like some loose-cannon gunnies.

Monkeyleg
October 15, 2006, 03:44 PM
Malone LaVeigh, the group is Wisconsin Gun Owners. I've written many posts about them, the most recent of which is at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=227324

If a group tries to kill pro-gun legislation by claiming to be pro-gun, there's little difference between that group and an anti-gun group. Both have the same goals.

mons meg
October 15, 2006, 03:44 PM
Just do a quick "more posts by Monkeyleg" and the answer will come up soon enough. I won't "out" them in this thread as Mr. Leg has refrained from doing so.

It's quite an entertaining story.

SoCalShooter
October 15, 2006, 03:52 PM
Classic wolf in sheeps clothing here by the anti's, divide and conquer with a cleverly planned rouge. I would not give my vote to any canidate from this party.

Silver Bullet
October 15, 2006, 06:49 PM
I find them in the most unexpected places, if I establish myself as a reasonable guy before giving my position on RKBA.
Spoken like a man who is more interested in winning over the fence-sitters than in bludgeoning the opposition.

I'm going to try and be more patient and learn from your example.

Waitone
October 15, 2006, 07:02 PM
In all thing political, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

You can bet any advocacy group will not stray far from its funding. So as first pass I'd go to school and get a good picture of the group's funding sources. They I's spend what ever time necessary to get a picture of the funders. At that point you will then have a picture of your opposition. Until then you are arm-waving in your counter activities.

NineseveN
October 15, 2006, 08:06 PM
So what are the "gun control" measures in the bill we're talking about? It's hard to say what I would do really, because I don't know what's in the bill. Just because you get to CCW with a permit, if there's a whole bunch of other crap thrown in to the detriment to gun owners, then the CCW is useless. You can't take one step forward and two steps back and call it progress.

I agree that CCW permits are ridiculous, and if it weren't for the NRA and other so-called pro-gun groups here in PA, we might have gotten Vermont CCW some time ago. I've called the NRA on their advocacy of certain gun control measures in order to remain visibly reasonable, I've seen where they've actually opposed Vermont carry and supported a permit system with all kinds of ridiculous inclusions to the detriment of gun owners, so it can happen.

But again, I don't know the specifics on the WI issue. Monkeyleg, would you characterize the CCW bill in question as a clean bill with no restrictions that only allows CCW via permit, or are there other things amended and included that aren't so tasty?

Monkeyleg
October 15, 2006, 11:03 PM
NineseveN, if we could have passed our CCW bill as originally written in 2005, it would be one of the best shall-issue bills in the country:

1. Reasonable training requirements.
2. Carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.
3. Carry in public buildings, unless said buildings have metal detectors installed at every enterance, and lockers for permit-holders' guns.
4. The ability for private property owners to post "no guns" signs, while at the same time providing for lawsuits against business owners/private property owners if someone licensed to carry but prohibited by the business/property owners is shot by a criminal on the premises.

And more.

"You can't take one step forward and two steps back and call it progress."

In Wisconsin, nobody other than police officers and sheriffs deputies can carry concealed. How is giving the rest of us the ability to do so "gun control?"

We've had a total prohibition on CCW here in Wisconsin since 1873, and groups like the one I've mentioned have called any effort to change that law "gun control."

Waitone: "In all thing political, FOLLOW THE MONEY."

If you read the thread that I provided a link to, you'll have seen that the money trail is very well hidden. Richard Nixon should have had these people working for him.

antsi
October 15, 2006, 11:16 PM
It's not an easy dilemma you have there Monkeyleg, but I would try to keep clear of that other group as much as you can.

If you spend serious time and resources fighting this other group, you will be serving their mission and Doyle and the Anti's will just be sitting back and laughing.

Soldier on with your real mission: getting a ccw law passed in WI. Stay focused on that goal and don't let yourself be distracted by the village idiot drooling and spluttering in the corner.

You may at times have to correct the record when they have broadcast a distortion. But whatever you do, don't let yourself get dragged down to their level and don't waste your time fighting with these clowns.

antsi
October 15, 2006, 11:27 PM
--quote-----
I've seen where they've actually opposed Vermont carry
------------

Evidence, please?

I have seen where the NRA supports a less-than-perfect carry law when the alternative is no carry law at all. I have never seen a situation where the NRA has supported a restricted carry law when the alternative was an unrestricted carry law.

This is the situation in WI. There are major liberal anti-gun forces in WI. There is no realistic prospect of passing Vermont style carry at this point in time. It is far better to get SOME KIND of carry in WI, then work on improving it, than holding one's breath waiting for the perfect scenario that never happens. This is precisely what happened in Alaska.

Your "one step forward two steps back" analogy is a total mischaracterization in this case. Right now, there is no citizen carry in WI whatsoever. If Monkeyleg and his supporters can achieve a restricted carry law, how is that a setback from where they are right now?

NineseveN
October 15, 2006, 11:57 PM
NineseveN, if we could have passed our CCW bill as originally written in 2005, it would be one of the best shall-issue bills in the country:

1. Reasonable training requirements.
2. Carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.
3. Carry in public buildings, unless said buildings have metal detectors installed at every enterance, and lockers for permit-holders' guns.
4. The ability for private property owners to post "no guns" signs, while at the same time providing for lawsuits against business owners/private property owners if someone licensed to carry but prohibited by the business/property owners is shot by a criminal on the premises.

And more.

"You can't take one step forward and two steps back and call it progress."

In Wisconsin, nobody other than police officers and sheriffs deputies can carry concealed. How is giving the rest of us the ability to do so "gun control?"

We've had a total prohibition on CCW here in Wisconsin since 1873, and groups like the one I've mentioned have called any effort to change that law "gun control."

Waitone: "In all thing political, FOLLOW THE MONEY."

If you read the thread that I provided a link to, you'll have seen that the money trail is very well hidden. Richard Nixon should have had these people working for him.

Okay, it says on their website that they support both SB 403 and AB 763 pending the removal of some anti-gun language. Where's the problem? They're citizens of Wisconsin as well, they and their members would have to live under the laws if they're passed, so if they disagree with any portion of a bill, where's the issue? You don't like their take on it, they don't like yours.

They appear to be against the inclusion of registration lists, I'd agree. No good can come from them, none, nada, zip, zilch.

They're against the $75.00 permit fees and mandatory training (which costs more $$). I'd agree.

They're against an additional background check for the permit. I don't see what the big issue with that is (other than it's $8.00 worth of the permit fee as I understand it).

They're against no-carry zones. This I'm having a hard time swallowing because I didn't find anything about no-carry zones that would violate someone's 2A rights. Private property, the owners get to make the rules. Jails, police stations, government buildings...they get to make the rules.

They're against CCW permit info being available to police officers during a traffic stop. I'd agree, there's really no need for that. LEO's in PA don't have that capability, it hasn't been a negative thing here. My rule is if it does no good, its no good. This does nothing good.

They have something about further empowering the NICS check, I didn't see what that was about really.

They're against mandatory re-qualifications and background checks at renewal time. The background check thing is probably no big deal unless we can remove the checks when buying guns. The re-qualification is bad on principle alone, as I don't support mandatory training requirements for CCW at all.


So that's the anti-gun stuff they're talking about. On some points, I agree, on others I think they're off base. The problem with these kinds of things being added to pro-CCW bills is that they can be used against gun owners in the future, so I can certainly appreciate the desire to keep them out.

Like I said, they're citizens of Wisconsin as well, they and their members would have to live under the laws if they're passed, so if they disagree with any portion of a bill, where's the issue? You don't like their take on it, they don't like yours.


What would I do? I'd do whatever I felt was right, but you cannot expect them to roll over dead and just agree to your ideas because you have your own thoughts and reasons any more than they could expect that from you. You could try bridging the gap between your group and theirs, but that would require some kind of compromises, and I don't think either party seems willing to do so for their respective reasons.

NineseveN
October 16, 2006, 12:40 AM
Evidence, please?

I have seen where the NRA supports a less-than-perfect carry law when the alternative is no carry law at all. I have never seen a situation where the NRA has supported a restricted carry law when the alternative was an unrestricted carry law.


Sir, understand that was back in 1989, I was still in school back then and I donít hold a torch for dismantling the NRA or anything like that, but the NRA AND many of our local sportsmenís groups actually spoke out against unrestricted concealed carry (and supported a few other terribly anti-gun things in this state to boot). We did end up with a decent carry law, but not exactly unrestricted. I'll look around and see if I have anything reported or written, the only things I could find in my handy dandy file so far were about Section 302 and rifle registrations in PA.


Some interesting links, take them as you will:

NRA and Vermont Carry
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970515-03.html
http://www.rmgo.org/CCWsummary.html



Sorry for the thread drift...just answering a question.

Monkeyleg
October 16, 2006, 12:50 AM
antsi: "...but I would try to keep clear of that other group as much as you can."

There's no way. That "other group" has been calling for a showdown. They've been trying to kill our CCW bill at every turn. Go read every post on THR I've made about them. If the case I've laid out doesn't speak for itself, then nothing does.

As for Doyle sitting back and laughing, it may well be that he is, given that this group is doing his work for him. I won't back down from Doyle, nor will I back down from this group.

NineseveN: you're fortunate to live in PA, where concealed carry has been a reality for decades.

I live in Wisconsin. Our fight for shall-issue is no less than the fights that have gone on in Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, and Missouri.

In each of these states, it's been an eye-gouging, knee-to-the-groin fight against the anti's to get these bills passed. And, even after that, every pro-gun group in these states has had to go to court to fight challenges against their newly-enacted laws.

Again, you have the comfort of living in PA. And I mean no disrespect to you when I say that you undoubtedly haven't had to get into the ugly mix.

The group in question doesn't have to get into that mix. Why? Because that group--or at least its leader, who seems to be the group itself--doesn't have to do anything other than demand EVERYTHING.

Everything or nothing.

If it were not for the large amounts of money that are flowing in, I'd ascribe that position to political naievete, or 2A purism, or whatever you care to call it.

As mentioned in another thread, though, I'm no longer of the belief that this group is just trying to get true 2A rights.

In a few more weeks, I'll have additional financial data on this group. And I'm willing to bet that the scent on the "follow the money" trail will grow even stronger.

NineseveN
October 16, 2006, 01:21 AM
NineseveN: you're fortunate to live in PA, where concealed carry has been a reality for decades.

I live in Wisconsin. Our fight for shall-issue is no less than the fights that have gone on in Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, and Missouri.

In each of these states, it's been an eye-gouging, knee-to-the-groin fight against the anti's to get these bills passed. And, even after that, every pro-gun group in these states has had to go to court to fight challenges against their newly-enacted laws.

Again, you have the comfort of living in PA. And I mean no disrespect to you when I say that you undoubtedly haven't had to get into the ugly mix.

The group in question doesn't have to get into that mix. Why? Because that group--or at least its leader, who seems to be the group itself--doesn't have to do anything other than demand EVERYTHING.

Everything or nothing.

If it were not for the large amounts of money that are flowing in, I'd ascribe that position to political naievete, or 2A purism, or whatever you care to call it.

As mentioned in another thread, though, I'm no longer of the belief that this group is just trying to get true 2A rights.

In a few more weeks, I'll have additional financial data on this group. And I'm willing to bet that the scent on the "follow the money" trail will grow even stronger.

I certainly understand your position and the amount of frustrtion that you're feeling, but I'm hesistant to subscribe to the allegations or implications you're making simply because a competing group had a different set of ideals than you do.

I'm readng through their newsletters as I can, they're making similar accusations towards those on your end of the stick as well.

I can appreciate both sides of the argument, I hate the compromises that your side is willing to make, and if there was a proven example of where CCW could be passed and then revamped in the future to remove such restrictions, I'd think that your play was by far the best; but that isn't the reality as I see it.

So one on hand, no carry, citizens are at risk in the hands of the criminals on the street; on the other hand there's carry with restrcitions which puts gunowners at the mercy of the legislature. Not the most enviable battle to be in.

So what comes first, what's right, or what's good enough to get by (even if the latter can't or won't be improved in the future)?

GadsdenMan50
October 16, 2006, 03:15 AM
We have had some success in Virginia at removing or relaxing some of the restrictions on concealed carry as the bill was originally passed.

One which affected me personally was an exception to the no carry on school property. Itís legal now to carry when you are dropping off or picking up your kids, as long as the gun stays in the vehicle.

The 5 year renewal is scheduled to become a lifetime permit as of next year. While we havenít managed it yet, the restriction on CC in restaurants that serve alcohol will likely be legislated away, eventually. Thereís been a bill introduced in the legislature every year for the past few years to eliminate it, and it seems to get a little closer to passage every time. Interestingly, in Virginia, open carry in a bar is legal already.

Thus it would seem worthwhile to squeeze through the best bill you can at present, and then work to ease the restrictions as it becomes obvious that the anti-gunnerís ĎWild WestĒ predictions of violence in the streets are just so much bull manure.

Liberal Gun Nut
October 16, 2006, 03:24 AM
I would hit back aggressively. I know exactly who you are talking about. It's crazy. The guy is either truly crazy, or a tool of the VPC (etc), or both. You need to expose him and call him for what he is. Can you dig up any connections between him and the Brady Campaign (etc)? Is he being supported by some Democratic PAC? If you can find any of this stuff expose it. This guy should NOT be ignored. Maybe you could get a combined statement from a broad range of groups, including some real no-compromise groups? I'm thinking a joint statement of the NRA, GOA, JPFO, etc, etc?

Definitely fight this guy. He is causing real harm to what you have worked so hard for. It would be very sad if the effort ended because of him. WI is so so so close, as you know. If Doyle loses (let us hope) then you will have shall-issue very soon I assume. If you can win one more seat in the assembly, I assume that would also give shall-issue. And if WI goes shall-issue it is that much harder for anyone else to argue against it.

We still have fights in CA, NY, HI and a few others. WI joining the winning side gives us yet another winning point. I think eventually CCWs should be treated like drivers licenses: honored in every state.

Fight this guy, he is an insane idiot. I hope he falls off a roof.

Edit: he is not talking about AHSA. AHSA is a gun-control group but they're not as vile as this one particular idiot is. It's a "group" of one. I think he posts here as Executive Director or something like that.

If a group tries to kill pro-gun legislation by claiming to be pro-gun, there's little difference between that group and an anti-gun group. Both have the same goals.

There's nothing pro-gun about that guy. He's as anti-gun as the Brady Campaign, and even more vile.

In your other thread you bring up the possibility that he's working for some anti-gun Democratic groups. I would bet on that. There's no way a guy like this can do grass-roots fundraising to get that kind of money.

I just now looked at that group's website. They are 501c4. Doesn't that mean they have all kinds of mandatory financial disclosures?

mons meg
October 16, 2006, 07:49 AM
NineseveN:

Oklahoma's SDA (Self Defense Act) has been incrementally improved as late as a couple years back. Some highlights (fellow Oklahomans correct me here)

--age reduced from 23 to 21
--school pickup/dropoff
--license period now 5 years
--reciprocity now includes any CCW from any state, regardless of their reciprocity towards us

Our "stand your ground" bill that goes into effect in a couple weeks is an incremental improvement over our original "make my day" law. The tie-in with the SDA is that it provides civil immunity for legal use of deadly force.

It can happen. Admittedly, Oklahoma is not-so-secretly a lot like Texas when it comes to politics/guns.

As one of my old bosses used to say: Don't let best get in the way of better. I think that sums up Monkeyleg's position in a nutshell.

antsi
October 16, 2006, 08:57 AM
---------quote-------------
if there was a proven example of where CCW could be passed and then revamped in the future to remove such restrictions, I'd think that your play was by far the best; but that isn't the reality as I see it.
---------------------------

How about Alaska? Originally passed a licensed carry law, then later revised it to Vermont-style.

I get a kick out of the "purists" who demand "Alaska style carry now! No compromises! No incremental strategies, because they never work!" It's ironic, because Alaska is a perfect example of a successful incremental strategy.

Okay, now, we have given you examples of states where a restricted carry law was initially passed, and then gradually the restrictions were reduced. Another such state is Tennessee - they have been working to remove restrictions there.

You demanded examples, and got a number of them (including OK and VA as described above).

How about you giving an example? I'd like to know of a state where it was a long protracted fight, tooth and nail, trying and struggling to get some kind of carry law passed, and there was huge opposition to any carry law even with restrictions, and then they switched to a "purist" no restrictions strategy and were suddenly able to get the law passed.

NineseveN
October 16, 2006, 10:59 AM
You demanded examples, and got a number of them (including OK and VA as described above).

How about you giving an example? I'd like to know of a state where it was a long protracted fight, tooth and nail, trying and struggling to get some kind of carry law passed, and there was huge opposition to any carry law even with restrictions, and then they switched to a "purist" no restrictions strategy and were suddenly able to get the law passed.

Whoah, easy buck, I didn't demand anything. I was merely making a statement from my point of view. I was truly hoping folks would chime in and give examples, because that's the argument folks like Monekyleg need to be using in this debate. Forget all that horse crap speculation about a group disagreeing with you being a part of the VPC or whatever, that just makes you look like defensive, paranoid idiots (no offense). Saying it before you can prove it is not helping your image, even if some form of proof vindicates what youíve been saying, it hurts. I find myself just as turned off to your message as I am to theirs because it all reads like a family feud.


Now, if you come around and maybe get the word out about how the smart play is to get a good bill in and then improve it, like has been done in Nevada and Florida addition to any other states that you care to use as an example, that's a different story. That's the argument you need to be making. That's the word you need to get out.


Nevada:
July 7, 1995, Senate Bill 299 was signed into law and then in 1999, Assembly Bill 166 improved upon the existing law by expanding the paces that one could legally carry. This is an issue that WGO has with the current proposal.

Florida:
The Right To Carry improvement bill, or SB-1582, breezed the Senate 40 to
zip and did well in the House at 116-3 in June of 1995 IIRC. This basically reduced a number of the fees associated with the CCW permit system. This is an issue that WGO has with the current proposal.


Now, granted, there are examples of states that got worse in some ways, (Colorado) that could have been no permit in the first place (perfect CCW), but that should be the debate, not all of this mudslinging and snarling about.


But you do as you please, both sets of concerns are valid; incrimentalism and compromise have done good and bad, that's a reality that you're going to have to reconcile with...and the first one that does and starts getting the right message out will be the winner in this particular battle.


Good luck.

antsi
October 16, 2006, 11:14 AM
I never said the WGO was part of the VPC, I just said they are working to divide and defeat the pro-carry movement in a way that the VPC would be proud of. They might be traitors and the might be fools; I didn't speculate about which.

You did, above, seem to say that you don't believe an incremental strategy can work.
-----quote--------
if there was a proven example of where CCW could be passed and then revamped in the future to remove such restrictions, I'd think that your play was by far the best; but that isn't the reality as I see it.
------------------

You were doubting that the incremental strategy can ever work. Several examples were provided where it did work.

Again, you seem to be advocating a "perfection all at once" strategy. Can you provide an example where the "perfection all at once" strategy was effective and resulted in a Vermont-style carry bill being enacted in a heavily contested battleground state?

One point you make I do agree with: it is not helpful to have the appearance of a family feud going on. It is very encouraging to the opposition, and it is discouraging to one's allies. That's why I was suggesting above to Monkeyleg if there is any way he can work positively toward his goals while simply ignoring WGO, that might be the way to go. Let them do all the squabbling while you move on and get something accomplished.

NineseveN
October 16, 2006, 12:50 PM
never said the WGO was part of the VPC
That was a general statement based on the number of such accusations in this thread thus far.


To be honest, antsi, I don't know a nicer way to say this, but apparently the subtle tactic of making one's own argument for them by poorly representing yourself as the opposition seems to have went over your head. My point is pretty clear I would think, but maybe you're still stuck on the method that I used to make it.

I never once, not ever in this thread said that an incremental strategy cannot work, in fact, if you actually read what I posted, you'll see the following:

incrementalism and compromise have done good and bad - so it can work sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't.

I also said;

if there was a proven example of where CCW could be passed and then revamped in the future to remove such restrictions, I'd think that your play was by far the best; but that isn't the reality as I see it.

The meaning of these words is not that incremental strategies don't work, just that if there is a lack of proof that bad, gun controlish aspects of CCW laws can be removed in the future, I don't think that such a strategy overall is by far, the best...hence why I used those words specifically. if I wanted to say that incremental strategies do not work, not at all, not ever, I would have said; strategies do not work, not at all, not ever. Understand?

Again, you seem to be advocating a "perfection all at once" strategy. Can you provide an example where the "perfection all at once" strategy was effective and resulted in a Vermont-style carry bill being enacted in a heavily contested battleground state?


I never, not once, not ever in this thread said I that I insist on perfection all at once. I advocate people making the right arguments, not running around mudslinging and being buffoons about it. I purposely gave myself up as the sacrificial lamb to be slaughtered so that others could make the argument that CCW can be improved if you get a good enough law in place first, because that's the important argument here, not whether or not WGO is anti-gun or funded by liberals or that the moon really is made of green cheese.

However, since you're stuck on this argument, can you provide me an example where Vermont-style carry was fought for in a heavily contested battleground state? If it hasn't been done, how do you know it doesn't work? Because you seem to be so sure that it doesn't and it won't. I'm not interested in your opinion any more than you're interested in mine, you demand factual examples of me, I'll ask for the same from you.

Carl N. Brown
October 16, 2006, 01:22 PM
Wisconsin and Illinois are the only two states left without
some kind of concealed carry: Alaska and Vermont are
un restricted; 28 are shall-issue permit and the rest are
discretionary permit ("if they like your looks").
Joyce Foundation is pouring $$$$$ into WI and IL to
block right to carry and it would be nice to know if this
group is funded by Joyce.

antsi
October 16, 2006, 01:24 PM
"If there was a proven example... but that isn't reality as I see it"

It sure sounds like you are casting doubt on whether there ever has been such an example, and you're saying that it isn't reality. Providing actual reality-based examples is an appropriate response to such a statement.

You ask for examples where, in battleground states, there has been a serious effort to get a Vermont-style carry law passed. "If it hasn't been done, how do you know it doesn't work?" Similarly, I don't know of any serious well-financed attempt to catapult a cow over the moon, but since it's never been tried, I guess I have no right to be skeptical of someone proposing such a project.

Vermont-style carry is generally a more ambitious, more difficult goal to achieve politically. It is more strongly opposed by the anti's. It is more difficult to convince the fence-sitters, and like it or not, winning a political goal is usually about getting some of the fence-sitters to tip over to your side.

Not everything has to be tried in actual experiment to know if it will work or not. For example, I know I can run 3 miles in 28 minutes. That is just at the limit of my performance. I've never tried to run 3 miles in 7 minutes. I don't have to try, because I know that 3 miles in 28 minutes is right at the limits of feasibility, and anything substantially more difficult than that isn't achieveable at this time. I will continue to work incrementally to improve my performance, but I don't have to try a quantum leap to know I can't do it.

Besides, I'm not so sure you can say it hasn't been tried. WGO certainly is an organization in WI that is working the "quantum leap to perfection" strategy, and they aren't showing any signs of progress that I can see. There are plenty of other "purist, no compromise" gun rights organizations out there, and I've never known of any one of them to get a major piece of legislation passed in a heavily contested state.

People following Monkeyleg's stategy have a proven track record of success, and the strategy makes logical political sense. Monkeyleg himself has been whisker-close to success more than once, and his organization is clearly getting closer and closer every time they try. That's why I choose to support him and people like him.

At this point, I am bowing out of this discussion. Frankly, you're not showing signs of being able to disagree in civil way. You've already started insinuating that I'm too dense to understand your subtly brilliant arguments, calling people buffoons, etc. If I have misunderstood something you've written, it is perfectly possible to politely reply "you seem to have misunderstood me; let me try again." Instead, you choose to insinuate that I'm simply too stupid to understand you. I've seen these things go sour often enough to know when it's time to get off. Good day to you, sir.

Liberal Gun Nut
October 16, 2006, 01:33 PM
I said that the WGO might be part of the VPC, or funded by some anti-gun Democratic PACs, etc. I believe it. They are just as anti-gun as the VPC or the Brady Campaign. If you think that shall-issue is not an improvement over no-issue, you should stay out of the fight. Maybe (from your point of view) shall-issue isn't better, but it isn't worse, either, right? You could take a neutral position on it. If that's the case, you represent about 0.1% of gun owners.

Anyone who has some real perspective on this will know that it's all about incremental gains. If a place like WI holds out for VT-style carry, it will never happen. Never. If they get shall-issue, and the people find out that having people carry guns is not such a big deal, then it might be time to go for VT-style. It takes some education and cultural change. That kind of thing can't happen overnight and it's best done incrementally. Anyone who can't see that should move to Alaska or Vermont and leave the rest of us alone.

NineseveN
October 16, 2006, 02:43 PM
"If there was a proven example... but that isn't reality as I see it"

It sure sounds like you are casting doubt on whether there ever has been such an example, and you're saying that it isn't reality. Providing actual reality-based examples is an appropriate response to such a statement.

Selective editing and misquoting doesn't really make your point very well. It's cheap, let's focus on what I said, not what you want it to look like I've said. Again, I'll restate in another way it in case I was unclear earlier.

For the better part of this thread, the majority of the gripe session was about whether or not WGO was a sham, a fraud, a collection of fools, one fool or a plant of the VPC/HCI/Liberals/Brady Bunch/whatever and how bad they are. In my opinion, that's all irrelevant in regards to progress. If they are, so what? If they're not, so what? They have their own ideas, (whatever the source is) they're not going to change them. If they're plants, then their ideas come from a paycheck at best or idealism at worst, neither are going to change simply due to someone like Monkeyleg calling them on it. If they're genuine, and they just see things the way they do because of their beliefs, then accusing them a being frauds won't change their minds one bit (though I welcome examples to the contrary). I understand that due to the amount of frustration in dealing with the WGO and the like, some personal satisfaction may be gained by exposing them, but that's all you're likely to get. Anyone that can read and do a search on this forum knows what kind of a person Executive Director is, read his posts for crying out loud. Some of his points are generally not without merit, but he sullies them with his rhetoric and attacks...some folks on the other side are coming dangerously close to that line as well, and that sullies their message just like it does the WGO's. It doesn't matter if it's justified or deserved, either one is concerned with winning or they're concerned with feeling good and getting personal satisfaction.

The argument you folks need to be making is that even if the bill isn't perfect, it can be changed and amended to improve in the future just like [insert a number of states and specifics here]. That's the effective message, that's the one that will bring people around. If you expose WGO as a sham, it means people may leave them, it does not mean that they'll suddenly have an epiphany and join your side of the fence because you haven't changed their minds, only their opinion of the WGO specifically. When another WGO comes along, they'll likely join them, not you. And if WGO is an army of one funded by some anti-gun force, then whose minds are you changing? They don't have any members, so there's no one to leave them and cut their membership funds.



I am assuming that you're doing this (misquoting and misrepresenting what I am writing) on purpose. If you cannot refrain from using such a tactic, I don't think we can discuss things here. For further clarification, see the bold and blue. Now, I'm telling you exactly what I meant, which is pretty clear to me based on what I wrote. If I was unclear earlier, all apologies, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to make it out that I am saying something I am not, I have clarified it a number of times now.

"If there was a proven example of where CCW could be passed and then revamped in the future to remove such restrictions, I'd think that your play was by far the best; but that [i.e. your play is by far the best] isn't the reality as I see it."

The reason I chose to offer a weak counter argument is, as I stated, to steer the discussion away from what the WGO is and is not and towards what the argument should be; that even if the bill isn't perfect, it can be changed and amended to improve in the future just like [insert a number of states and specifics here].


You ask for examples where, in battleground states, there has been a serious effort to get a Vermont-style carry law passed. "If it hasn't been done, how do you know it doesn't work?" Similarly, I don't know of any serious well-financed attempt to catapult a cow over the moon, but since it's never been tried, I guess I have no right to be skeptical of someone proposing such a project.

Your examples are totally unrelated, we're talking near physical impossibilities in regards to the cow and catapult and political chances in another. It doesn't make the argument. We could look at similar political or social examples and make comparisons and still be valid, cows and catapults don't cut it though. We have the gay rights issue, a largely in your face, up front, take no prisoners strategy that has worked for the most part. That's a good example where coming from an almost all or nothing standpoint can work. There are others out there that can be used as examples where baby steps and a strategy of political chess works as well; like I said, incremental strategies can be both good and bad. Now, these example won't be totally related to gun rights due to the players, issues and laws involved, but we can perhaps make some healthy comparisons anyway.

Now, it's real easy for one to say something won't work when it hasn't been attempted, and it's just as easy to say it will. There's no point in arguing that, but until it's actually tried and done well, we won't know what the possibilities are really. In certain political climates, it seems like an impossible task to force the Vermont Carry issue (like in California for instance), but then again, the highly unlikelihood of a victory didn't stop Larry Flint from ramming his First Amendment = pornography and harsh satire of religious and political figures ideals through the courts. I remember the commentary from reading a book or two on the matter, most thought there was not a snowball's chance in Arizona that his tactics or his legal strategy would work. Larry Flint is a billionaire by now no doubt, still peddling his pornography and being as racy as ever. Sometimes it only looks dark outside because your curtains are closed.


Vermont-style carry is generally a more ambitious, more difficult goal to achieve politically. It is more strongly opposed by the anti's. It is more difficult to convince the fence-sitters, and like it or not, winning a political goal is usually about getting some of the fence-sitters to tip over to your side.

Not everything has to be tried in actual experiment to know if it will work or not. For example, I know I can run 3 miles in 28 minutes. That is just at the limit of my performance. I've never tried to run 3 miles in 7 minutes. I don't have to try, because I know that 3 miles in 28 minutes is right at the limits of feasibility, and anything substantially more difficult than that isn't achieveable at this time. I will continue to work incrementally to improve my performance, but I don't have to try a quantum leap to know I can't do it.

Again you're comparing measurable physical limitations with political strategy, apples to oranges and I don't see where a valid comparison can be made. I can say that incremental changes don't work, because if I have Cancer, only removing a portion of the tumor at a time won't get rid of the Cancer, in fact, it will allow it to spread and I'll die before the Cancer is removed completely, so obviously incremental gun rights won't work. It's a silly argument and makes no good comparisons at all.




People following Monkeyleg's stategy have a proven track record of success, and the strategy makes logical political sense. Monkeyleg himself has been whisker-close to success more than once, and his organization is clearly getting closer and closer every time they try. That's why I choose to support him and people like him.

And I'm not supporting WGO, nor am I against Monkeyleg. I'm trying to steer the discussion away from arguments and tactics that don't work and make this out to be a pissing match between competeing groups. Again, if you just focus on showing that incremental changes have worked, and give those examples and get that word out, the WGO's message is shut down. If you just say, "they're tools of the anti's, I'm getting their tax records and I'll expose them and we're right because this is the way things are", you haven't really convinced any of those fence sitters like you have posted about that are so important, have you? Telling us how your opponent is wrong or bad doesn't tell anyone why you're a better alternative.


At this point, I am bowing out of this discussion. Frankly, you're not showing signs of being able to disagree in civil way. You've already started insinuating that I'm too dense to understand your subtly brilliant arguments, calling people buffoons, etc. If I have misunderstood something you've written, it is perfectly possible to politely reply "you seem to have misunderstood me; let me try again." Instead, you choose to insinuate that I'm simply too stupid to understand you. I've seen these things go sour often enough to know when it's time to get off. Good day to you, sir.

You repeatedly (and seemingly intentionally) misrepresent what I've stated, ignore any clarification I give on the matter and directly misquote me, and I'm showing signs that I can't agree to disagree? We're not even really disagreeing on anything except that you're posting that I am saying something I clearly have not. We agree, getting a good bill is better than no bill, but not as good as a perfect bill (the specifics on what defines a good bill and a great bill may differ slightly I'd guess). My point has nothing to do with that; tell everyone why it can and will work and give examples of how it has already in similar situations if you want them to change their minds and support you, don't spend so much time trying to tear down the competition, no matter how trashy they are. I'm glad you're bowing out here, I was going to anyway, I have no tolerance for people that put words into my mouth or directly misquote or misrepresent what I post in order to make their point. Enjoy your day, no hard feelings.






Anyway, for what its worth, good luck Monekyleg. I strongly urge you to fight this with why your approach is preferable and where it has been successful than to spend time tearing down a supposed paper tiger like WGO. But you do what you want, I don't live in Wisconsin, maybe folks respond positively to things like that up there, I wouldn't know.

Liberal Gun Nut
October 16, 2006, 02:52 PM
Oh, NineseveN, you don't even live in WI? You live in a shall-issue state?

If you are no-compromise, then you don't have a CCW, do you? You just cary without a permit, and if you ever get arrested for that you'll use the Second Amend as the basis of your defense? Do you also own an unregistered machinegun? You have a right to, and if you ever got charged with that you could use the Second Amend as your legal defense also, right? Wait, let me guess: you don't carry without a license and you don't own an unregistered MG because you have to live your life within reality so you compromise a little bit on your values so that you can survive in the real world.

Which is exactly what Monkeyleg here has worked on for YEARS. And WGO is messing that up. If WI waits for VT-style carry it will never happen. WI citizens would first need to get comfortable with FL-style and THEN they could think about VT-style.

Politics is about what is possible, not about what we fantasize about.

NineseveN
October 16, 2006, 03:15 PM
Oh, NineseveN, you don't even live in WI? You live in a shall-issue state?

If you are no-compromise, then you don't have a CCW, do you? You just cary without a permit, and if you ever get arrested for that you'll use the Second Amend as the basis of your defense? Do you also own an unregistered machinegun? You have a right to, and if you ever got charged with that you could use the Second Amend as your legal defense also, right? Wait, let me guess: you don't carry without a license and you don't own an unregistered MG because you have to live your life within reality so you compromise a little bit on your values so that you can survive in the real world.

Which is exactly what Monkeyleg here has worked on for YEARS. And WGO is messing that up. If WI waits for VT-style carry it will never happen. WI citizens would first need to get comfortable with FL-style and THEN they could think about VT-style.

Politics is about what is possible, not about what we fantasize about.

For the love of Pete, what is it with you people? Where did I say I was absolutely no compromise? Point it out to me so I can clarify whatever it is that makes you think I am.

I am against compromise when it is not needed (like what appears to have been the situation in Colorado or the some of the PA gun control examples), I am also against never trying to get absolute freedom simply because compromise has been utilized in the past out of necessity and been something of a success when compared to the alternative of no positive movement whatsoever. Once again, for the nth time, incremental steps can be both good and bad.

Being able to carry due to a good but not perfect bill is better than no bill at all. I think Iíve already said that. Is an imperfect bill the best solution by far? Only if you can prove that imperfect CCW laws can be improved in the future by providing examples of where this has been the case and that no compromise is definitely impossible, which is where I was trying to steer the argument. If you can only prove one of the two, then imperfect solutions are likely still better, but there may be other options. Why are you so hung up on what you think I mean and not what I actually write? Whatís the point of conversing with you if what I say pales in comparison to what you want me to have said?

Never mind, I donít know whatís gotten into some of you, but apparently thereís a defensiveness going on here leading to folks wanting to lash out on others and make wild accusations and misrepresentations. If you think that makes your argument compelling to others, no wonder CCW in WI is as of yet, a failed venture. Good luck.

Liberal Gun Nut
October 16, 2006, 03:26 PM
The reason why we are defensive is because this WGO has played some part (perhaps a small part, perhaps a large part, I don't know) in derailing WI from going shall-issue, and talking about strategy etc is frustrating and upsetting. WI was a hairs-breadth away from going shall-issue, and VT-carry wasn't on the table AT ALL so to even debate about VT-style vs. FL-style is stupid and frustrating and upsetting to all the people who worked so hard to get to FL-style.

Your points about "show me examples of incremental progress vs. shooting for the moon" are meaningless. Most of the states that have gone FL-style have made incremental improvements. FL not long ago sealed permit records. Many states are increasing reciprocity. They are making permit validity longer, expanding the places where people can carry, etc. This is happening all over the place and has been for years! Meanwhile, one state went from shall-issue to VT-carry, and that state is Alaska. VT-style is rare. It exists in only two states, both of which are quite rural. It is very hard to make an argument about why something that works in Alaska and Vermont would also work in a big urban state like WI. It is easy to make an argument that something that works in NB would also work in WI.

All this fine debating just makes people angry because whatever you want in a perfect world is irrelevant; the only thing on the table in WI is FL-style. I want a million dollars, and a pony and a golden toilet bowl, but I don't waste time discussing those things.

If there were two competing bills in the WI legislature, both with reasonable chances of passing, and one was VT-style and the other FL-style then that would be a good time to debate this. But that isn't reality! We will just barely be able to get FL-style in WI if we fight really hard. AFAIK NO ONE has even introduced a VT-style bill there.

Art Eatman
October 16, 2006, 03:37 PM
Lordy! Stick with Monkeyleg's subject or drop out of the thread!

Art

Monkeyleg
October 16, 2006, 05:46 PM
Thanks for stepping in, Art.

Folks, let's calm down.

NineseveN, WGO is correct in saying that there were provisions of the bill that we accepted this year that were ugly. And there was a good reason why we accepted them: we looked at the distinct possibility that Doyle could be re-elected (which still may happen), and decided to grab what we could.

But, that isn't all that WGO objects to. They talk about "registering" firearms. The bill wouldn't have done that. The only people who would be on any type of list would be those who applied for permits. Every state that issues permits has a list of the permitees at some level of government.

Inserting the provision allowing police to run a plate and find out if the person had a permit was necessary to get the State Troopers Association to endorse the bill. Previously, the group had lobbied heavily against our bill. What's more, the bill provides criminal penalties for any officer who would run plates without justifiable cause.

My statement that WGO might be funded by anti-gun groups isn't paranoia. It's a distinct possibility, given their behavior. When I say "they," I'm referring specifically to the Executive Director of the group, as I have yet to enounter anyone who is a member. In fact, nobody I know has so far encountered someone who is a member.

And that's another suspicious sign: WGO has far, far more money to play with than all of the other statewide gun groups combined. Tens and tens of thousands of dollars. If nobody has even encountered a member, where is that money coming from? I'm finding bits and pieces of the money trail, but the majority of the picture is hidden.

Regarding Vermont-style bills: I had a long discussion with Executive Director last year, before he began engaging in personal attacks. He said that he would back a shall-issue bill if we first tried to get a Vermont-style bill introduced. I told him that I doubted that there was one legislator who would sponsor such a bill, but that I would ask around, which I did.

Here's the kicker, though: in that conversation, Executive Director said that if we could get such a bill introduced, then he could "sit back and take names."

That to me meant that WGO would attack any legislator who voted against a Vermont-style bill. The effect of that would be to kill any chance for a shall-issue bill, as legislators would have felt burned.

You and a few others seem to think that, by trying to confront this group, I'm somehow diverting attention or resources from the fight, or doing something else counterproductive.

But the fact is that WGO has spent more money and, if they do indeed have members, turned more people away from our shall-issue bills than the anti-gun groups have. From where I sit, WGO looks, walks and talks like an anti-gun group.

As for what is to be gained by my going after them: the more I can expose what they're doing, the less support they'll get. Doing that is critical, as the damage Executive Director is doing is serious.

State Senator Dave Zien is the most pro-gun member of the senate, bar none. And he's in a very tight race against an anti-gun candidate.

And Executive Director is going after Zien in this election. There are rumors that WGO will spend $10,000 to $20,000 on radio ads to defeat Zien.

Does that sound like a pro-gun group to you?

What's worse, all the Democrats need is a net change of three seats in the Senate to take control. If that happens, no pro-gun bill of any kind will ever get a floor vote, even if Mark Green beats Jim Doyle for governor.

If someone here cares to explain why a group calling itself pro-gun would be assisting anti-gun Democrats in taking control of the state senate, I'm all ears.

NineseveN
October 16, 2006, 06:03 PM
NineseveN, WGO is correct in saying that there were provisions of the bill that we accepted this year that were ugly. And there was a good reason why we accepted them: we looked at the distinct possibility that Doyle could be re-elected (which still may happen), and decided to grab what we could.

Iíve got no problem with that, but some folks do. I maintain, in order to steer them into your side of the yard, professing what the bill does and does not do (which I think youíve done) as well as giving examples of how imperfect CCW bills can be improved over time in similar situations will go a lot further than worrying about burning the WGO. You asked how I would deal with them, Iím telling you. Sure, it would be fine and dandy to burn them, go ahead, do that too (as in, in addition to).



My statement that WGO might be funded by anti-gun groups isn't paranoia. It's a distinct possibility, given their behavior. When I say "they," I'm referring specifically to the Executive Director of the group, as I have yet to enounter anyone who is a member. In fact, nobody I know has so far encountered someone who is a member.

And that's another suspicious sign: WGO has far, far more money to play with than all of the other statewide gun groups combined. Tens and tens of thousands of dollars. If nobody has even encountered a member, where is that money coming from? I'm finding bits and pieces of the money trail, but the majority of the picture is hidden.

My point is, until you have the right information, al youíre doing is speculating no matter how good of a job youíre doing at it. Again, you asked how I would deal with a group such as this, Iím telling you. Iíd lay off the suspicions until I could prove them. They could be completely true, but that isnít helping you in the mean timeÖmaybe you think it is, maybe thatís your social/political climate out in the great state of Wisconsin. If so, fine. If not, start thinking.


Regarding Vermont-style bills: I had a long discussion with Executive Director last year, before he began engaging in personal attacks. He said that he would back a shall-issue bill if we first tried to get a Vermont-style bill introduced. I told him that I doubted that there was one legislator who would sponsor such a bill, but that I would ask around, which I did.

Here's the kicker, though: in that conversation, Executive Director said that if we could get such a bill introduced, then he could "sit back and take names."

That to me meant that WGO would attack any legislator who voted against a Vermont-style bill. The effect of that would be to kill any chance for a shall-issue bill, as legislators would have felt burned.

Now thatís a bad way for ED to operate, but then he wouldnít care would he? Heíd be burning contacts you worked on to introduce the bill, not him. That doesnít change my opinion that you at least attempt a Vermont CCW bill if you can manage to get one introduced.


You and a few others seem to think that, by trying to confront this group, I'm somehow diverting attention or resources from the fight, or doing something else counterproductive.

I simply think your energy could be better spent educating folks than playing Perry Mason and making accusations is all. If they have no members, then who are you trying to enlighten by showing their true colors? If itís their money thatís the influence, it will still influence no matter what you manage to dig up unless it puts them/him in jail.

Now, thatís all you asked for, was opinions, so I gave you one. No need to continue to argue, weíll agree to disagree is all. Like I said, good luck.

Liberal Gun Nut
October 16, 2006, 06:32 PM
That doesn’t change my opinion that you at least attempt a Vermont CCW bill if you can manage to get one introduced.

I normally don't engage in personal attacks, but here goes: You're crazy. No, not in the sense of being mentally ill, just in the sense of being totally out of touch with reality and with what is achievable. A very very moderate shall-issue bill was narrowly defeated. Do you think a VT-style bill will do better? If they can't find anyone to even introduce the bill, why do you think it will succeed? Is there some big public outcry in WI for such a bill? What will we get from introducing a bill which is absolutely doomed? In a more general sense, what does one achieve from knowingly going into a fight, expending resources (political capital, time, etc) on it, knowing all along that defeat is 100% certain?

Monkeyleg
October 16, 2006, 06:36 PM
NineseveN, thanks for the reply. Your opinions really aren't far from where I'm at.

The political atmosphere in Wisconsin is extremely combative, moreso than in other states. For example, when I look at how Nebraska managed to get their bill passed, I'm amazed at how the two parties actually worked together.

We don't have that here. It's open warfare, but without guns.

In that kind of climate, nobody is above suspicion. And it's hard to tell which side the players are on.

Here's an example: there's an anti-gun group here that's been fighting our bill. I've gotten to know the head of that group fairly well over the past several years.

After the Assembly vote on the veto override, I was walking to the elevators, and saw her.

"Congratulations, Jeri," I said.

She just had this pained expression on her face.

"What's the matter, Jeri?" I asked. "You won."

She replied, "yeah, and that means I'm going to have to come back here next year and do this all over again."

She wanted us to win. She's tired. We're tired. And she knows that eventually we will win.

If I can prove what I believe to be true, NineseveN, I'll post it here on THR, and will look forward to your comments.

NineseveN
October 16, 2006, 07:03 PM
I have no doubt that you have more info than you can share right now that leads you to believe as you do, and I'm not calling the validity of your thoughts into question. It would be interesting to see what the real scoop is though.

I guessing that you feel if you can expose them, they'll have to go away? That might work, but what happens if it doesn't? That's where my whole positive message rant comes in I think, at least in my perspective.

txgho1911
October 16, 2006, 09:11 PM
The majority of people in these 50 states wear blinders.
Most people operate throughout life in the white and never experience harm or meyhem in any personal matter.
The blinders in the state legislature may be the bigger fight. Sounds like the WGO funding question needs to be answered and exposed to the legislature.
Best of luck in both jobs.

kengrubb
October 17, 2006, 01:17 AM
I normally don't engage in personal attacks, but here goes: You're crazy. No, not in the sense of being mentally ill, just in the sense of being totally out of touch with reality and with what is achievable.
I don't normally encourage personal attacks, but here goes. LGN, you are spot on!

WGO (http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/main.cfm) cites Larry Pratt of GOA. GOA used to have a Just Say No attitude on Shall Issue in the 1990s. At the start of 1987, there were just 10 Right To Carry states. Come January, when legislation in Kansas goes into effect, there will be 40 RTC states. That's the addition of 30 RTC states in 19 years, one every 7 and a half months, from October 1987 to January 2007.

Not one state has truly gone Vermont. Every single one has been the result of Shall Issue legislative reform, almost every single one has required a willing governor to sign the bill, and it has cost at least one governor, Anne Richards of Texas, her re-election.

Vermont went Vermont in 1903 when State v. Rosenthal (http://www.guncite.com/court/state/55a610.html) was argued before the Supreme Court of Vermont. There really is no such thing as Vermont style legislation because Vermont carry is the result of a judicial finding from correctly reading the Vermont State Constitution (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm).

It seems quite unlikely in this day and age that ANY court, federal or state, at any level, would render such a finding. For too many years, lawyers, judges, legislators and ordinary folks have been indoctrinated with rhetoric about the supremacy of the government over the people--not the other way around.

Alaska went Shall Issue in 1995, but it wasn't until 2003 that Alaska adopted it's current law of no license required unless you want one for reciprocity travel purposes.

Diamondback6
October 17, 2006, 02:50 AM
Tecumseh, re AHSA, there are proven links between their leadership and the Brady-crowd. Do a search around here...

Their "Dear Leader" even keynoted an event for Washington CeaseFire, some of the looniest of gungrabbers.

Liberal Gun Nut
October 17, 2006, 02:56 AM
AHSA's connection with the Brady Campaign etc is beyond any question or doubt.

Btw, thanks for the compliment Ken.

Alaska went Shall Issue in 1995, but it wasn't until 2003 that Alaska adopted it's current law of no license required unless you want one for reciprocity travel purposes.

So, let me see. We have one state (VT) which went VT-carry due to a court case over a hundred years ago. We have another state which went VT-carry, and that state is ALASKA, the most sparsely-populated state in the country, with many areas accessible only by small airplanes. Alaska is its own little planet in its own orbit. People there worry about defending themselves from bears. It's barely possible for anyone to enforce any laws at all because there's probably one cop per big chunks of area.

So we have one state that's an example of "going Vermont", and that state is the most pro-freedom, unpopulated, isolated, libertarian, weird, whatever state in the US. And that proves it's possible in Wisconsin, right?

Even among gun owners, many support mandatory training and BG checks.

Before we should even care about "going Vermont", we should:

1. Get every state to shall-issue. We are a LONG way away from winning states like NY, IL and NJ.

2. Get every state to have national reciprocity. We're not so far from that, among the shall-issue states.

3. Convince CCW holders that "going Vermont" is the right thing to do. That may not be easy to do.

4. We have been fighting for shall-issue for twenty years and we're not done yet, so give another twenty years AFTER we achieve nation-wide shall-issue to "go Vermont".

This is crazy. Let's work on getting people to CCW in WI first. Then let's get shall-issue going in the other holdout states. That's plenty of work.

Aquaholic
October 19, 2006, 01:16 AM
Dick,

I want to thank YOU for your tireless (and I'm certain often thankless) efforts in getting carry legislation passed. I read with anger your posts regarding what the WGO is doing to defeat Zien, and it may be that which has finally pushed me to open my pocketbook the little I can after being unemployed the greater part of the last 1 1/2 years. If it brings you any comfort, they ARE making a difference. They have made some guy in Minnesota contribute to a political campaign (in Wisconsin, no less) for the first time in his 45 year life. Maybe you (or Dave) should send "Executive Director" a copy of this post with a thank you note.

A check was sent to you today made out to Friends Of Dave Zien. Thanks for making it easy.

I actually had the opportunity to meet Dave Zien this past Sunday at a fundraiser for "Leach for Sheriff" at the Pioneer grill in Menomonie. To be honest, I went because I heard Dave would be there, and wanted to meet him and thank him personally for his efforts on the carry bill. I was so impressed by this man. I can't believe, after all he's done for gun owners in that state, that he'd be having trouble being re-elected. We talked for a good 20 minutes. He's truly one of US.

Monkeyleg
October 19, 2006, 03:10 AM
Yes, Aquaholic, Dave Zien is most definitely "one of us." Probably even more than most in WI know. The guy has an underground shooting range, and the walkway is paved with spent brass.

So, having said that, what does that make WGO and its director, Executive Director? One of us, or an anti-gunner? Or just somebody on the outside looking in?

If for no other reason than courtesy, let's say that the latter is true, and that ED doesn't have the access to legislators.

That situation is by his own design, though. He had plenty of opportunities to establish contacts, build bridges, and help sherherd his ideas through the legislature.

But he didn't do that. Instead, he made an enemy of pretty much every legislator I know of.

There's a restroom within 100 feet of any legislators' offices. And there's soap, and paper towels.

Rather than avail himself of the soap and paper towels, ED chose to pee on himself, and then ask for handshakes.

I'm speaking figuratively here, not literally. I don't follow ED around in restrooms. ;)

But, if he wanted to, ED could have been a force in where our bill was going to go, and also be a force in where our new bill will be going.

Instead, he's shut himself out by his own behavior, and then has been railing at being shut out.

Again, though, I believe there's much, much more money to be made by sitting on the sidelines and throwing stones than actually doing the work.

Liberal Gun Nut
October 19, 2006, 03:28 AM
I think you are being too charitable to Mr. Executive Director. The guy is a vile loser. At least with the Brady Campaign, they are open about who they are and what they are doing. This guy is is either nuts, or he is being paid by the VPC crew, or both. Either way he is repulsive and should be shunned.

Monkeyleg
October 19, 2006, 04:08 AM
"I think you are being too charitable to Mr. Executive Director. The guy is a vile loser. At least with the Brady Campaign, they are open about who they are and what they are doing. This guy is is either nuts, or he is being paid by the VPC crew, or both. Either way he is repulsive and should be shunned."

Liberal Gun Nut, if I'm being too "charitable," it's only because of the rules of THR. If I were posting on another forum (which I will), my language will not be so mild.

I can think of 100 reasons why ED might be selfishly or covertly doing what he is in the name of "gun rights." But I can only think of maybe two why he would be doing what he is in the name of real gun rights.

It's easy to be an anti-gunner. If you pick the right organization, and get yourself known to the right folks in the media, it's a lucrative position, and doesn't require much work.

Another shooting? "We need to tighten up Wisconsin's lax gun laws." Soundbite, and you're outta there. Good money, though.

How much different is the money-grubbing anti-gunner's situation than ED's, though?

From my perspective, the only difference is that the head of the anti-gun group admits that she's anti-gun.

As for ED, he's covered the money trail very well.

Isn't it interesting that I can go online and find out how much Jeri Bonavia from the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort is paid in salary, car allowance, health insurance, travel expenses, pension, and every other conceivable benefit? It's all there, available for public display.

As for ED and the WGO? It's black-water territory.

Monkeyleg
October 19, 2006, 04:18 AM
No disrespect intended, Medula Oblongata.

WGO has been discussed on many threads, and posters on those threads have referred to him as "ED," rather than typing his official name, Executive Director.

ilbob
October 19, 2006, 08:48 AM
I have read elsewhere of ED's antics. They make no sense to me, and seem completely counterproductive. The stated goal of ED is laudable - VT style carry. No permit, no prints, its your right.

The legislature just is not going to go for it. You go for what you can get. The reality of politics is that if Doyle gets booted, the best you can expect is shall issue, no prints, minimal or no training. Something like NH maybe. IMO, some training will end up in the bill if Doyle leaves office. It makes it a lot more palatable for many legislators. A lot of the provisions in the last bill were only put in to get the support of some of the legislators that were not willing to support it without those provisions. Most of those provisions will not be in a bill that actually gets signed (if Doyle is gone). You can't change the law unless you have 51% of the legislators willing to vote for the change.

None of this means anything unless either Doyle or a few of the fence sitters in the legislature get booted. Really if five fence sitters in the WI house got replaced with solid pro-gun types, a veto would not be sustained and a NH style bill w/o some of the more unpleasant features the last bill had would pass, be vetoed, and the veto overturned.

WI - the future of CC in your state is going to be decided in a couple of weeks. If you choose to sit on the sidelines and let others decide for you, then you deserve what you get.

If you enjoyed reading about "How would you treat a so-called "pro-gun group"..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!