Refusing to help out... from another state.


February 19, 2013, 02:45 PM
I just wanted to ask you guys what your take was on this...

Due to the recent attacks on gun owners' rights here in Colorado, I reached out to family in four states to help bombard the Colorado legislature with requests to kill the new legislation we've seen move.

One of my very libertarian and pro-gun family members was receiving my emails along with everyone else, but he flat out refuses to get involved. Here's his view...

I've seen a disturbing trend in recent emails and a recent facebook post that I now feel obligated to speak out against.

I should probably start off with a history lesson. Virginia declared its independence from Great Britain on June 12 1776, nearly a month prior to the other 12 colonies following suit. The the new federation of sovereign states was formed in 1789, each state kept its own government thus retaining in each state the right to govern themselves. As states have joined the federation or union, the trend has followed.

When people of one state ask residents of other states to write their legislative body to try to sway public opinion regarding an issue, it is a violation of that right of self government. It is not our place as Texans, Missourians, Coloradoans or Michiganders to involve ourselves in the live of each other when it comes to state politics. Many of ills of the federal government can be traced to this interstate interfering.

Let me be perfectly clear: I will not participate in the act of lobbying the state legislature of a state in which I do not reside because I believe the people of that state can govern themselves. I will not use my supposed "tourist" dollars as political bribery to sway public opinion either. Also, I will not beseech those of other states to contact my state officials to influence their legislative vote in any way.

If you do not agree with something I said, good for you. I do not want to be apart of any further discussion regarding this topic.
Should we not be asking fellow gun owners in other states to give us a little assistance?

I know he ends the email childishly, saying that he doesn't want anyone to challenge his opinion on the matter, but regardless. How would you guys respond?

If you enjoyed reading about "Refusing to help out... from another state." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 19, 2013, 02:51 PM
That's unfortunate. Without question, the "bad guys" in this case are pouring money and support in from other states. Biden was in CO this week on a "ski trip" and just happened to contact several of our state reps. We all have to stand together because they are expecting to use Colorado to expand their anti-gun push into several other states.

If only the Christians had stood up for the Jews when Hitler came along...

February 19, 2013, 02:53 PM
Your family member is still living in the 18th century, when states truly were independent of each other. The Democrats know how to play the political system that we are currently in and unless we can keep up, they will continue to steam-roll over everyone in their path.

February 19, 2013, 02:57 PM
I see what he thinks he's getting at, but he's arguing that the ant shouldn't do what the elephant does. He wants the citizens of one state to stay out of the affairs of the citizens of another state -- which is reasonably laudable -- but he's applying that idea in a world where the federal government has blown that states rights issue all to tiny bits.

February 19, 2013, 03:12 PM
His right to do as he pleases. don't copy him on further emails and keep asking for support from other members of your family

February 19, 2013, 03:14 PM
Just what is the logic of a citizen of one state writing to a legislator in another state either in support or opposition of a measure that in fact does not affect the writer?

I live in Texas. Why would any elected official in Colorado care what I think or have any reason to pay any attention at all to my opinion? Especially when they seem so ready and willing to ignore their own constituents?

February 19, 2013, 03:17 PM
That's not a bad point, of course -- if they're willing to ignore their own constituents -- but letters are letters, and many states do receive quite a bit of revenue from tourism dollars, especially hunting. If you make the pitch that your money will not be coming to his state (and lots of other folks send word that they're going to do the same) that can certainly make him see the light dollar signs.

February 19, 2013, 03:20 PM
State governments would be wise to listen to comments like this one...
No more hunting trips to Colorado for us, we're going else where.....we won't support a state or their economy that doesn't understand "shall not be infringed".
...lest the law makers get the idea that the state operates in a vacuum.

Derek Zeanah
February 19, 2013, 03:23 PM
I think the problem with his argument is this: campaign dollars flow freely across state lines, and the sort of activism you're talking about can help counterbalance it. and Bloomberg are happy to help out with Colorado anti-gun initiatives. They'll spend lots of money now, or by opposing democrats who don't fall in line in the next election.

Citing the way things were done over 200 years ago isn't really useful in today's world. Not if you're interested in outcomes.

February 19, 2013, 03:25 PM
Money talks, 'tis true. I don't travel that much so my tourist dollars aren't much impact. But I guess they don't know that, do they? :scrutiny:

I do contribute to pro 2A lobbying groups who I think have a much better chance than I of being heard.

February 19, 2013, 03:39 PM
How would you guys respond?

I would respond by thanking him for his time, and honoring his right to his own opinion. His point is valid - to him.

An effective out-of-state letter would read "I am in the process of assisting pro-2A companies in relocating to areas that support their rights and appreciate their jobs. Please consider further restricting firearms in your state, and let me know how I may assist you in this effort."

February 19, 2013, 03:46 PM
He can't bear the light of challenge shinning upon him. That's fine.

The most important response I'd like to make is to speak to all the other family who were CC'd to that email.

But giving him a smart jab would be cool too. :evil:

February 19, 2013, 06:24 PM
I am a born and bred New Zealander living in New Zealand. I am a member of the NRA and just sent NRA ILA $20 to help with the fight over there. If I can do it then so should this joker!

February 19, 2013, 06:29 PM
If he never intends to set foot in CO or have anything to do with it the short sighted view is that it is a local matter.

That IS shortsighted because what is happening in CO isn't just a local matter. As pointed out money and influence from outside the state is supporting the Anti side of the issue. What happens in CO becomes another block out of the foundation for the nation and emboldens the Antis to push state by state for changes they don't think they can get on the national level.

This is a prime example of why Franklin's quote, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.", is so important to remember.

February 20, 2013, 10:54 AM
krameranzac, you are an inspiration! You kindle hope for us that can't see through the darkness.

Being a member of a forum with thinking people is a treasure. Thanks guys.

February 20, 2013, 11:30 AM
Warning, I'm in a bit of an ornery mood this morning. It is probably caused by the ignorant PBS gun special that was on last night. Probably should have shut it off after the first five minutes. :fire:

I see his point and I would have to agree to an extent. I don't want a bunch of people from a blue state sticking their nose into a red states business.

The issue right now is that the elected officials in Colorado are being strongly influenced by the Feds. This is what happens when prop up a mediocre candidate for president and you lose elections. Colorado has been blue for a very long time. I really don't see much of a difference between the current Democrat governor and the Rhino before him. You are starting to see the same situation that the Illinois voters have been dealing with for years.

Get organized and go beat the anti-gunners at the polls next year. Then start working to repeal this stuff.

February 20, 2013, 12:02 PM
...the current Democrat governor and the Rhino before him.
Hickenlooper's predecessor Ritter was a leftist Democrat. No RHINO, that's for sure.

February 20, 2013, 12:08 PM
Bill Owens was a RHINO.

February 20, 2013, 12:32 PM
No argument there.

Back to the OP!

February 21, 2013, 08:12 AM
This might be something to show your relatives:

How do you justify standing aside and saying "let the good people of that state sort it out for themselves" when billionaires from places like NYC (and even farther abroad) are actively spending their millions to push agenda-driven politicians into office in places outside their own state or even region of the country?

It may be all well to say, "I'll be the bigger man and resist doing what I think is unethical." Meanwhile, enjoy living with the candidate Michael Bloomberg picked to rule you.

Green Lantern
February 23, 2013, 10:46 AM
This friend of yours, OP, does not live in the world that IS. He lives in the world he thinks SHOULD BE. He needs a reality check, not just for the sake of a united gun owners front, but for his own sake.

Ok, here's how I think I would play it...

It should be easy to find examples of anti-gun types who routinely spit on his reasoning - Mike Bloomberg is a great one, guy who thinks his position as Mayor of one city gives him the right to dictate gun policy to the whole NATION. Or someone like George Soros (not even an American citizen AFAIK!) bankrolling people with the same mindset.

Now, likely your buddy will spout some idealistic line like "using the tactics of the enemy makes us no better than them!"

So you bring up a hypothetical boxer. Boxer is walking down a dark alley in the bad part of town (decent boxer but not too bright). Big Mean Thug pops up, declares he's gonna beat Boxer into a bloody stain on the pavement, and proceeds to try and do just that.

So ask your friend - what's gonna happen to that Boxer if he tries to act like he's in the boxing ring, and is adhering to all the strict rules of boxing while defending himself? IE - no grappling, no low blows, no brass knuckles hidden in your shorts, etc. Trying to fight off a guy who is NOT adhering to boxing or ANY OTHER rules?

"A street fight ISN'T a boxing match, the stakes are much more serious!"

....and the stakes of the gun control battle, even at State levels, AREN'T serious???

If he does not get that, I'd consider flying the white flag and moving on to something more productive. But you may yet tell him to try searching for the term "GLOBAL NORM" in regards to the international gun control debate. Seems to be something that global gun grabbers and UN darlings IANSA love to spout. In a nutshell, the more individual countries (or States) surrender their gun rights, the more pressure there is for other countries (or States!) to do it, so everyone's on "equal footing."

OP, do please keep us updated!

February 25, 2013, 10:13 AM
I'm going to have to get creative to get him to reply to ANY emails. He's been dead quiet ever since. I think he's burning with rage from the emails I sent him (Bloomberg, fight fire with fire, "hang separately"). He gets drunk on debate but he's in a corner on this one and will not respond.
...because I believe the people of that state can govern themselves.
I wonder if this line of his is even true today.

April 2, 2013, 09:16 AM
I don't think any of my efforts to get this family member involved produced any fruit. Not that I know of anyway.

He just sent an email around a small group in the family. My take is that he's just trying to chide, to mock those of us who do take up the call.
It's weird. Connecticut just passed the most draconian gun law and I hear nary a word from the "United as one Nation" crowd. No emails calling for me to hold my "tourism" dollars hostage if their legislators don't capitulate to my every whim. No mass list of every legislator's email address. Surely it's not that the "hang together or hang separately" bunch only cares about what gun control when it affects them directly. Weird... must have missed them all somehow....

April 2, 2013, 09:22 AM
Maybe if I belived that what happens in neighboring states has no effect on any other state, I wouldn't care.

April 2, 2013, 09:35 AM
I believe in state's rights. If you don't like the politics of one state, you can move to another. However, with the current trend, and outside money and influence manipulating public opinion, elections, and public policy, all bets are off. In addition, the Federal Government has caused massive damage to state's rights particularly with regards to the 2A.

I vote with my feet, and my $$$. This isn't restricted to gun rights. I haven't been to Chicago nor IL since they bulldozed Meigs Field. I don't regret it either considering their 2A stance also.

Arkansas Paul
April 2, 2013, 09:41 AM
I believe in state's rights. If you don't like the politics of one state, you can move to another.

The Bill of Rights is NOT a state issue. It's fundamental liberties that apply across the board to protect us from our government. It isn't up for interpretation of the states. Illinois thought that they could ban handguns and a Federal Appeals Court ruled that they could not do so.
I believe in state's rights as well, but states don't have the right to suspend liberties.

And CoRoMo, no offense brother, but your relative is a tool.

April 2, 2013, 10:01 AM
How come I don't see people rising up to help NJ? Or California? Or Mass?

Any time a thread is started about the situation in NJ, which is getting worse by the day, we're flooded with "you get what you deserve" and "you should move to a free state."

We're already hanging separately. I see it right here on this forum every day. It's time we all stopped trying to blame other people and took a good look at ourselves.

Arkansas Paul
April 2, 2013, 10:15 AM
LevelHead, that is a very good point. We seem to think that California, NJ and Illinois are lost causes.

Derek Zeanah
April 2, 2013, 10:24 AM
We're already hanging separately. I see it right here on this forum every day. It's time we all stopped trying to blame other people and took a good look at ourselves.
You're absolutely right.

I think the problem you're running into here is that folks in "flyover country" see the assaults as coming from places like NY (and NJ by association), Massachusetts, and California. We're prone to say they want to disarm the populace, and they can be nebulously defined as "those East Coast Elites" or something similar.

Which can result in a response something like "well, NY is already lost, and it's now a base used for the civilian disarmament movement."

It's not fair, but that seems to be the thinking.

April 2, 2013, 01:03 PM
How come I don't see people rising up to help NJ?
I've offered to help in any way that I can:

Start a thread like the many that I have started and direct us on who to contact and what to say. I do this all the time on THR with regards to Colorado. There are many of us ready to help out, we are just not as intimately familiar with the issues there as you are.
And CoRoMo, no offense brother, but your relative is a tool.
No offense taken. But be careful, he may be watching. :evil:

April 2, 2013, 02:07 PM
There is also, however, a benefit in reinforcing your own state's laws. WY and AZ are now Constitutional Carry, UT will be as soon as we scrap our current governor, and this will help put pressure on CO in the long-term. The more contrast we show between them and surrounding states, the more pointed the opposition to their new laws becomes.

Mike Sr.
April 2, 2013, 02:21 PM
I don't care who you liberfairyN family member is he sounds like HE'S a 'it's my way or the highway' DELETED....

Some time ago I read a story or a poem some thing about or to the effect that:

------>I really don't remember the wording to be even close to being exact and so I am hoping some one here will recall the idea and thus be able to find what I can not <----

First they came to our neighbors looking for books
and they left my house alone..

Then they came to neighbors and looked for any jews...
and they left my house alone...

The idea progresses thru out "then they came..."

In the end it was some what powerful because

Then they came to my house looking for me.....


it seemed to me the moral of the reading was: they came for everyone else, and WE let them do it THEN THEY CAME FOR ME...AND THERE WAS NO ONE TO HELP

Wish I had cut it out and saved it I would post it here and you could send it to that MORON!

April 2, 2013, 04:09 PM
From his last reply, you can tell that I've used some remarks by others in this thread, in emails to him. He chides us as the 'hang together or hang separately bunch', of which I'm proud to say I'm a member!

Some time ago I read a story or a poem some thing about or to the effect...
First they came...

Mike Sr.
April 2, 2013, 04:15 PM
CoROMo....thank you...:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Another longer version is:[citation needed]
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


In the United States, the quotation is more commonly known as:
First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


Yet another version is:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

April 2, 2013, 04:37 PM
I figured it was good enough to send to my family member, thanks for thinking of it. Here's our version...

First they came for the guns in New York,
I remained silent; I was not a New Yorker.

Then they came for the guns in Colorado,
I remained silent; I was not a Coloradoan.

Then they came for the guns in Connecticut,
I remained silent; I was not a Connecticuter.

Then they came for mine,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Mike Sr.
April 2, 2013, 06:32 PM
CoR0Mo.....let's see if your Einstein family member gets the POINT.

April 3, 2013, 05:35 PM
He has lumped you and I in with Bloomberg. I'm sorry guys, but I'm going to have to ask you all to explain his following remarks to me. Mind you, he's heavily sarcastic throughout but he does believe that one citizen who pressures the legislature of another state is as much of a statist/collectivist as Bloomberg himself.
Oh no, I was so stupid for believing that an individual is capable and responsible enough to live their own lives as they see fit.

I have come around to yours and Mayor Michael Bloomberg's point of view that no one knows what's best for me like other people do. In fact you and Mayor Bloomberg are so correct, why don't we take ya'll's theory of government by popular opinion to its natural conclusion?

Let's dissolve state borders so we all get to live under the same rules and no one gets anymore or less freedom than anyone else.

Since we're dissolving state borders, like our founding father Alexander Hamilton wanted, we may as well dissolve the federal senate and house of representatives because they no longer represent exclusive states or constituents. As you, Mayor Bloomberg, and Hamilton want we will instead have a great and powerful ruler to preside over our government and our lives. Gone are the days of electing presidents on a state by state basis and we'll have a perpetual ruler, like you, Bloomberg and our founding father Hamilton so desirously want.

First thing I'm going to do is to beseech our dear ruler to tax the people in the area that used to be Colorado. I used to be a Coloradoan and I know how beneficial it is to have the mountains to look at. Here in Michigan we don't have that luxury so the people of the formerly sovereign state of Colorado should be taxed according to the benefit they receive from living so close to mountains. Since we're all in agreement that EVERYONE in this nation should have a say in the lives of others, we can have a democratic election to institute this law. IF 100% of former Coloradoans turned out to the polls, surely they could mount a decent defense against this law despite the 5 to 310 disadvantage they are currently under. SEE? 310million other Americans know better how you in Colorado should live your lives.

Your form of government is much better than mine where government is small and unobtrusive. I was such an idiot. I see now that the 10 amendments that make up the bill or rights is like the 10 commandments, you just ignore the ones that don't fit your current argument.

How is it that we, as involved and actively participating citizens, violate the Bill of Rights when we choose to speak into the legislature of a state we are not resident of? I supposed more specifically, which of the first 10 Amendments are we not adhering to?

Green Lantern
April 3, 2013, 08:40 PM
:scrutiny: Dad always used tomato juice to try to sober up after a bender, maybe get someone to pour some down his throat and ask him to try again when he's making more sense? :confused:

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be Bloombergs running around trying to buy their nanny-state utopia one City/State at a time, so we wouldn't really need to be countering that. Sadly, we DON'T LIVE in that ideal world.

I hope his feelings of self-righteousness and moral superiority are enough to keep him happy, should we fail and lose even more of the BoR he allegedly holds dear. Should we fail, because people could not be bothered to act, even ones like him who saw the risks and chose to spit in the eye of those asking for his aid.

You sir are a better man than I. If I were in your shoes, I think at some point back my only further communication to him would have been a Homer Simpson-esque "WHY YOU LITTLE....!!!!"

April 3, 2013, 10:13 PM
I can see where he is coming from - as a Libertarian, I understand it and will applaud him for sticking to his hard-core beliefs - even if I do not agree with his view. Where the fault in his logic lies, is in the belief that the states are still as independent as when they were first created and that the Federal Government was as small with no power from that time. Throughout our history, the central government has grown to the point that the only way it can be defeated is by a complete overthrow - and compared to 1776, the states just do not have the power, funds, manpower, or equipment.
Look at how states bend over and cede what are their protected rights in the Constitution in order to get some "Federal funding" .......
Remember 1973? Want highway money, lower your speed limit to a standard that was great and made sense for the congested Northeast but no sense to wide open West.

In short, your relative needs to rethink his battle plans for the 21 century, not the late 18th

River Wraith
April 3, 2013, 10:14 PM
Honestly, I don't think he is intelligent enough to carry on a serious conversation. He makes no logical arguments. In fact, his logic kind of reminds me of my son's when he was three.

April 4, 2013, 01:15 PM
He makes no logical arguments. In fact, his logic kind of reminds me of my son's when he was three.
Interesting. When you tell a child that he cannot run out into the street, he might respond with, "So you just hate me then!".

I have to agree with your post. At the current point in this "discussion" with him, you can see just one example of him jumping over the hyperbole cliff. Other emails that I haven't posted are very similar. He will say something like, "You're right! I'm going to call Texas Governor Rick Perry and demand that he veto the new Connecticut gun control legislation". :confused: That remark is obviously nothing that could have been drawn from a statement I ever made, but what he's trying to do is frame my position upon a slippery slope and distort it into something that it simply is not. He's trying to insinuate that by me asking him to email the Colorado legislature, I'm of the belief that the governor of one state should be able to rule the proceedings in another. It's a distortion of the topic that you often receive from children, or in my professional experience, from someone whose actions/words have painted them into a corner because they've refused to acknowledge that those actions/words were erroneous.

In arguments over firing an employee of mine, I've heard them say something like, "You're firing me because I work harder than anyone else and because I show up on time!". Obviously not, but when they've painted themselves into a corner with the position they've chosen to take to the bitter end, they have nothing else in their arsenal except for hyperbolic distortions of the situation.

You can see this when he says, "I have come around to yours and Mayor Michael Bloomberg's point of view...". Between him and I, I am the one with the longer and purer individualist/Libertarian record. I'm also the ONLY one that has a record of active resistance to a Bloomberg effort. He used to be so confused about constitutional topics that he was simply lost. He's come a long way, due in large part to the education I've given him, but now he's lost again out in this odd wilderness of ultimate libertarianism.

So my honest assessment of his current "ideology" is that he has simply adopted this position and can't bring himself to admit how stupid it is. I handed his butt to him in front of his family and destroyed his argument, but the only result of that was this staunch, reinforced adherence to this position that he can no longer articulate without the hyperbole, attempted insults, and gross distortion of my beliefs.

When you handily lose an argument point by point, but then make it your intent to die on that hill, you will have no other points to make and will ultimately resort to hyperbole and personal attacks. Just look at his statements I quoted in posts 23 and 37. In one email he referred to me as a big-government statist and illiterate troglodyte. It's transparent. It was the only way left for him to continue the argument.

If you enjoyed reading about "Refusing to help out... from another state." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!