2nd Amendment lost in CT today

Ouch.

Jorg said:

..
..
..
By the way, Big 5, the place you so proudly supported by buying this rifle, is based out of California. You know, that place with far more restrictive laws than Connecticut. I suppose your declaration of, "Buying from companies located in Conn. is supporting the very laws that they passed. I can't do that" doesn't apply to California?

I'll make the donation regardless of your actions.

Click to expand...

Its called "selective application".

"I cant support CT" "Boycott CT" "Move out of CT because youre just supporting anti 2A laws"


And then there is these 2 gems.

Originally Posted by Queen_of_Thunder
Presently own:

Glock 20

Rock Island

S&W model 610

On the purchase list.

Kimber
Colt
Remington
Conversion of the Glock 20 to a long slide.

Click to expand...

Colt = CT

Queen_of_Thunder said:

Well Conn. is a good 2,000 miles from me so garbing a few fellow gun owners to go up and protest is rather difficult. Outside of letters there is not much I can do.
.

Click to expand...

danez71 said:

None of your examples had anything to do with Rights except for the ones you listed that MULTIPLE ENTIRE COUNTRIES boycotted (economic sanctions) a poor country.

Thats a far cry from a segment of a population boycotting rich states like CA and NY. (Edit to Add: keep in mind CA's economy is about 8th in the entire world. South Africa is ranked around 74).

I asked for example(s) of, In the US, when did running away ever gain/regained a Right. You have about 230 years of history to look at and realize it has never happened.


People seem to not realize that the US was founded when we ran away, but the Constitution came to be because We stood up and Fought.

Click to expand...

The problem here is you refuse to admit to the success that a boycott can produce. You instead are trying to undermine a good tool that can produce the desirable results we all want. If you don't use the tools available to you you are doomed to failure.

danez71 said:

Wait.. what..?!?!??

You're saying its "too difficult" to make a road trip and think writing letters is about all you can do....


And yet you think that everyone in those states and companies in those states to move out and relocate to another state.


That's rich right there.

Click to expand...

What's rich was about 2 years ago I lost the freedom to just pick up and go somewhere overnight. Due to medical reasons and the logistics required for even a short overnight stay I no longer have that freedom. While I can travel the logistics of it limits my choices. With a brother losing a lung to cancer and another brother whose health is not that good either I have to save those few days I'm allowed to travel for them. Therefore trips to Conn. would be nice are out of the question. My family comes first.


If you don't like it that's your problem not mine.

goon said:

I'm not disparaging your one-on-one efforts, but the fact is that distance or not, Colt has already done more to fight the anti-gun legislation in Connecticut than you have. And as you've pointed out, you're thousands of miles away and no one in CT is going to care what a Texan has to say anyhow.

Yet you want to cut the legs off manufacturers who are still in a position to oppose these laws in court. Point of fact, I'm pretty sure that to have standing in court, those manufacturers have to have a presence in the state.

You just admitted that you can't do anything in CT... does it make sense to attack those who can?

Click to expand...

Of course you are. Your condescending remarks are quite obvious.

A boycott in this situation may win a small battle now, but it would not bode well for the war.
Taking a presence out of a state that actively fights for pro gun legislation and against the anti gun movement would be a huge detriment to our fight in the long run. If we kept doing this before you knew it we would be confined to a few states and the entire rest of the country would be against us because we gave up on it and cut and ran.

Queen_of_Thunder said:

The problem here is you refuse to admit to the success that a boycott can produce. You instead are trying to undermine a good tool that can produce the desirable results we all want. If you don't use the tools available to you you are doomed to failure.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you're unable to cite any examples that actually apply to my question that would remotely justify your position.

I asked:

When has it ever been a successful strategy in this country to gain or regain a Right by people moving?

Click to expand...

You have approx. 235 yrs worth of history to look at.


I also said:

When only a few states allowed women to vote, they didn't all move to those states. What they did was fight for it in their own states and the result was positive on a national scale.

When only a few states were giving rights to African Americans, they didn't all move to those states. What they did was fight for it in their own states and the result was positive on a national scale.

Click to expand...

I think Paul has rational thoughts about this.

Arkansas Paul said:

Actually supporting the gun/ammo/accessories companies in the state will likely do some good in the fight for our rights. I'm sure they donate and fight for the 2A in the state and donate to pro gun political campaigns.
Boycotting a business who is not responsible at all for the actions of the legislators in the state is misguided and does more harm than good.

The fact of the matter is, businesses have enough to worry about anyway these days just to keep the doors open. Most aren't capable of pulling up stakes and going to a different state when they lose business. Most just lay off all their employees and shut the doors. Causing that isn't something I want to be a part of.

Click to expand...

I think Jorg has a valid question that you havn't been able to, or refuse to, answer.

Jorg said:

How is it a winning strategy to take money out of the war coffers of those fighting this law just as things are ramping up?

Click to expand...

You never replied to goons point/question:

goon said:

I'm not disparaging your one-on-one efforts, but the fact is that distance or not, Colt has already done more to fight the anti-gun legislation in Connecticut than you have. And as you've pointed out, you're thousands of miles away and no one in CT is going to care what a Texan has to say anyhow.

Yet you want to cut the legs off manufacturers who are still in a position to oppose these laws in court. Point of fact, I'm pretty sure that to have standing in court, those manufacturers have to have a presence in the state.

You just admitted that you can't do anything in CT... does it make sense to attack those who can?

Click to expand...

More words of wisdom from Paul that you haven't been able to effectively form a rational counter to:

Arkansas Paul said:

A boycott in this situation may win a small battle now, but it would not bode well for the war.
Taking a presence out of a state that actively fights for pro gun legislation and against the anti gun movement would be a huge detriment to our fight in the long run. If we kept doing this before you knew it we would be confined to a few states and the entire rest of the country would be against us because we gave up on it and cut and ran.

Click to expand...

And even though you want everyone else to boycott/move out, you continue to buy from anti states even after your comments as noted earlier showing that you don't even follow your own ides.

Some folks are picking each other apart here. Reminds me of Statler and Waldorf, those two old guys on the balcony in The Muppets Show.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpYEJx7PkWE

Click to expand...

Jorg said:

You can imagine my disappointment, not only when I saw this, but when I saw that you happened to buy a Mosin Nagant while out looking for .22lr ammo and then want to purchase so much ammo for it as to be concerned about UPS's weight limit.


I was considering one large ammo purchase given what has happened over the last year and the less than stable political environment with its possible impact on imported ammo available. So I thought I would ask here if anyone knew how UPS or FEDEX handled large shipments. I didn't buy the ammo since I'm moving later in the year and don't want to move it.








You can certainly spend your money as you see fit, just as you can actively attack those who are fighting for the 2A in their home states. I just think it's a shame that you claimed to not have the money when you turn around and buy a surplus rifle on a whim, plus a huge pile of ammunition and then state you're now in the market for a .338 Lapua(a chambering not known for cheap rifles nor cheap ammo).


Why thank you for allowing me to spend my money as I please. That is so gracious of you. Now I have a budget for my government works such as paying for Open Records Request, meetings and donations. I also have a budget for my entertainment which means guns and ammo and the accounts are not commingled and I'm shocked you don't understand budgeting of ones resources.
Now when it comes to purchasing weapons I have certain standards one of which is I don't buy a firearm that I cannot examine first which means if it's not at my local gun shop,gun show or personal friend I don't buy it. The Mosin I bought was one of opportunity. It's not like 1930, Tula,Hex Reciever, very low serial numbered Mosin's come up in my area. One lesson I've learned is when a hard to find item becomes available one doesn't wait as it will be gone in a flash. So I pulled the trigger on the purchase. A purchase you have no right to question but in your continued self admission of mocking me you feel like you have that right. You don't!







By the way, Big 5, the place you so proudly supported by buying this rifle, is based out of California. You know, that place with far more restrictive laws than Connecticut. I suppose your declaration of, "Buying from companies located in Conn. is supporting the very laws that they passed. I can't do that" doesn't apply to California?


It's a used gun. It's not made in California therefore I'm not supporting a gun manufacturer in California. It's a stretch I guess you are willing to make.

I'll make the donation regardless of your actions.

You are free to do with your money as you see fit without my imput which is contrary to the position you are holding me too.

As to the .338 Lapua it's on my list just like a lot of other firearms like a S&W model 16-4 and other hard to find and expensive firearms. They are on the list but it always comes down to cost and if I have the cash and if I'm willing to part with it.

Click to expand...

See response in red.

And how did I attack people in Conn. Using boycotts to to force changes in laws is not an attack. It's a tool that must be used as it is the only tool that can force lawmakers to change their minds when faced with constitutents who may be losing their jobs or are having to move. This is a fight not a card game. Rights are at stake and the masses for the most part don't want interruptions in their day to day activities or interference in their TV shows. Boycotts put the issue front and center. Their impacts cannot be ignored. People will wake up because they become personally impacted.

*yawn* More excuses and hand-waving...

There have been over 4,000 views and no one else has chimed in saying that boycotting manufacturers in CT is a good idea. My biggest concern was that someone else might actually latch on to this ill-conceived idea, but it appears the good folks here know a bad idea when they see it.

It is kind of sad that you claim that every tool must be used and there's nothing else you can do, but when provided with a straight-forward way to support those fighting this case, you practically trip over yourself listing all the reasons you can't do it.

There's really nothing more to add and, as such, I'm done with this thread.



Good luck in to you folks in CT.

Queen of Thunder said:

Of course you are. Your condescending remarks are quite obvious.

Click to expand...

Whether you like hearing it or not, the companies you wish to boycott are the very organizations in a position to do something that you cannot do yourself. I can't help it if you don't like reading that.

Queen of Thunder said:

What's rich was about 2 years ago I lost the freedom to just pick up and go somewhere overnight. Due to medical reasons and the logistics required for even a short overnight stay I no longer have that freedom. While I can travel the logistics of it limits my choices. With a brother losing a lung to cancer and another brother whose health is not that good either I have to save those few days I'm allowed to travel for them. Therefore trips to Conn. would be nice are out of the question. My family comes first.


If you don't like it that's your problem not mine.

Click to expand...

I'm not attacking you for your circumstances, but there are people in every town in every state with similar concerns. There are people in Connecticut with problems just like yours. They also cannot pick up and move. I'd argue that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights should still apply to them in spite of what their elite masters have decided. We should support them in any way we can.

And the gun companies that are still there are providing backing for court cases that will determine to what extent those people have their rights stripped away. Their money and lawyers could make more of a difference for the RKBA than any donation I can afford to send.


We've all said about all that we can say and this entire discussion is starting to take a turn for the nasty.
You're probably a decent person who just has a different point of view. I wish you the best.

Using boycotts to to force changes in laws is not an attack.

Click to expand...

Whether or not you call it an attack doesn't change the effect it has on the people who live there. If enough people boycott them and they leave the state, so does the money they spend to fight for the people's rights. So whatever you call it, the people are going to be negatively effected.

Their impacts cannot be ignored.

Click to expand...

They certainly can't. And in this instance, the impact would be taking dollars away from the pro 2A lobby in those states.

This isn't boycotting the local store because they discriminated against someone.

I'll be sure and make a point to spend extra money with businesses in those states to try and do my part to offset the misguided people who think they are helping.

You know, I don't mean to be rude here, but I fail to see how any of this bickering is actually helping the matter at all. There is a lot of time and energy wasted here. Sometimes its best just to do something, anything at all is better than wasting resources bickering back and forth. Just my .02 cents. This is precisely why we have a hard time combating this kind of nonsense legislations. We cannot even all agree on a proper form of fighting all of this. If we fail to mobilize then we have already lost the battle.

Queen_of_Thunder said:

Using boycotts to to force changes in laws is not an attack. It's a tool that must be used as it is the only tool that can force lawmakers to change their minds when faced with constitutents who may be losing their jobs or are having to move..

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

If its the "only tool" where are all your examples? Ive asked several times now.

I'm open minded enough to change my mind if you could provide good relevant examples but you havnt been able to.

Jorg said:

It is kind of sad that you claim that every tool must be used and there's nothing else you can do, but when provided with a straight-forward way to support those fighting this case, you practically trip over yourself listing all the reasons you can't do it.

.

Click to expand...

Now its changed from "every tool" to "the only tool".

But whatever.... I'll take that as its supposedly the most effective.

Queen_of_Thunder said:

Back to the subject at hand. I've been a self funded government watchdog in my community for nearly 20 years and I've seen the power that as few as 10 people have. I've seen small groups completely derail needed projects. Ten people, just regular folks showing up at a city council meeting in opposition to a project and getting their way. I know the power of participation and I've seen it first hand. Its more powerful than money or influence and it works.
.

Click to expand...

You said this in this very thread.


This is where it gets interesting.

Is boycotting/moving "the only tool" as you've now said or even the most effective tool as you've suggested...?

Or....

Are people getting involved and going to city council type meeting "more powerful than money or influence" as you've also said?




Think about it Queen... if they're force to move because of the boycotts that you suggest, they wont be able to go to the city council type meetings which you also suggested and said are "more powerful than money or influence".




.

anything at all is better than wasting resources bickering back and forth.

Click to expand...

Ummmm.....................no.
Doing the wrong thing has negative consequences. Hurting the cause just so you "do anything at all" is not better than doing nothing.

Can we perhaps agree that a focused boycott is better than a statewide boycott. The entire state of Connecticut is not the enemy. Bloomberg is the enemy, then there are his minions, MAIG, and those companies that support MAIG, Bloomberg, and his minions.

So what if when it comes to Connecticut we organize those groups who are Pro-2A so we know to support them. And then organize those groups who we know are anti-2A and boycott them. Simply driving jobs out of state for the sake of driving jobs out of the state doesn't make much sense.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud Beretta's expansion in Tennessee and its refusal to expand in Maryland due to the anti-American gun laws that Maryland touts. But we have to start getting smart and organized or we are doomed to failure.

Are there employers in Connecticut that support the 2A and fought the good fight against these laws. If there are can we patronize them so that they can continue the good fight. Maybe it's a coffee house, or laundromat, or a deli, I don't know. That's why we need to get organized. I can afford to set aside five bucks from my monthly budget to buy goods from those Pro-2A employers that fought the good fight and are continuing to fight the good fight. But we don't know who they are or if they really are supporting the 2A.

Not everyone can drive to Connecticut, hell I live in Florida and sure won't. That's why I'd be willing to front $5 a month for the effort, which doesn't seem like a lot but when you add it up a hundred thousand times, you then got $500,000 going to changing things in Connecticut every month and that's big money in a political or legal fight.

We all don't have a lot of money or even time for that matter. But we have to start looking at how we can change the way things are done. We have to become a true grass roots movement.

Jorg said:

*yawn* More excuses and hand-waving...

There have been over 4,000 views and no one else has chimed in saying that boycotting manufacturers in CT is a good idea. My biggest concern was that someone else might actually latch on to this ill-conceived idea, but it appears the good folks here know a bad idea when they see it.

It is kind of sad that you claim that every tool must be used and there's nothing else you can do, but when provided with a straight-forward way to support those fighting this case, you practically trip over yourself listing all the reasons you can't do it.

There's really nothing more to add and, as such, I'm done with this thread.



Good luck in to you folks in CT.

Click to expand...

Lets be honest here. The lawsuit basically does nothing. The restrictions are in place and will continue in place for years. Even with a SCOTUS decision which are always very narrow in scope and do not prevent legislators from writing additional laws that continue the restrictions. The status quo of firearm restrictions will continue as each law is litigated through the Court System only to do a rinse and repeat time and again without doing away with the firearm restrictions. If you want to put an end to these firearm restrictions you have to get the lawmakers attention and court cases don't do that. If the case goes against them they just rewrite the laws to keep the restrictions in place. Yes you may challenge the new law but this is a never ending circle your stuck in.

Job losses though demand and get the immediate attention of lawmakers. These lawmakers know very well that this is an issue that disrupts their job security whereas a court case does not. So if you really want to do away with these firearm restrictions then you have to bring out the big gun and thats a boycott. Its the only path that provides lasting change.

Of course if you wish to spend another 50-100 years in court, fighting the same thing over and over again and not making any progress then go ahead and make the donation.Take that "feel good" action but understand you won't see any change as thats a never ending circle of new laws in response to court decisions that then are challenged again with new laws in response to court decisions passed and on and on and on. Its a loop you get stuck in with no change. So if you want to break that loop and make change then its a boycott as its the only path that can force change.

danez71 said:

(emphasis added)

If its the "only tool" where are all your examples? Ive asked several times now.

I'm open minded enough to change my mind if you could provide good relevant examples but you havnt been able to.



Now its changed from "every tool" to "the only tool".

But whatever.... I'll take that as its supposedly the most effective.




You said this in this very thread.


This is where it gets interesting.

Is boycotting/moving "the only tool" as you've now said or even the most effective tool as you've suggested...?

Or....

Are people getting involved and going to city council type meeting "more powerful than money or influence" as you've also said?




Think about it Queen... if they're force to move because of the boycotts that you suggest, they wont be able to go to the city council type meetings which you also suggested and said are "more powerful than money or influence".




.

Click to expand...

What I do at the local level is preventive in nature whereas a boycott is the game changer thats needed in Conn. or any other state that passes similar measures and have large manufacturing bases involved in the firearms business.. Its the only action that will get a lawmakers attention.

As for states without a firearm manufacturing base then you are going to have to become involved in the process. You are going to have to become active and by active I mean speaking with your local officials, supporting people for office that believe as you, working elections for those candidates or even running for office. It's hard work but if ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amendment are important to you then you will get involved.

Most people write checks to say they have done something. Its a way to sooth their own conscience for their failure to become personally involved. I'll say this, your physical presence is vastly more important than your donation. I'm not saying money is not needed but the impact of your presence is so much greater. Checks don't vote. People vote.

Checks don't vote. People vote.

Click to expand...

Please, convince Bloombooger of this.

You need both to change legislation.
Money talks, BS walks is the old saying.

Queen_of_Thunder said:

What I do at the local level is preventive in nature whereas a boycott is the game changer thats needed in Conn. or any other state that passes similar measures and have large manufacturing bases involved in the firearms business.. Its the only action that will get a lawmakers attention.

As for states without a firearm manufacturing base then you are going to have to become involved in the process. You are going to have to become active and by active I mean speaking with your local officials, supporting people for office that believe as you, working elections for those candidates or even running for office. It's hard work but if ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amendment are important to you then you will get involved.

Most people write checks to say they have done something. Its a way to sooth their own conscience for their failure to become personally involved. I'll say this, your physical presence is vastly more important than your donation. I'm not saying money is not needed but the impact of your presence is so much greater. Checks don't vote. People vote.

Click to expand...

Pretty much everything you just wrote was either a contradiction to other statements you've made in this thread or, again, proven false just today.

In CA, the majority of voters have voted for anti-2A laws. It almost certainly needed a court victory.

How did that court victory come to be? Money coming from with-in and going INTO CA to fight the laws; It DID NOT happen because of boycotts or because people moving out or loss of jobs.


I suggest you read this thread. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=743849


And read this quote from one of the lawyers involved.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=13431300&postcount=146

Originally Posted by Californio View Post
Good Job!!

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by CMonfort

While I appreciate it, the weight of the thanks on this one goes to my colleagues Sean Brady, Anna Barvir, Glenn McRoberts, and of course Chuck Michel. As well as Paul Clement for arguing masterfully before the Ninth Circuit.


But above all, the credit goes to the NRA for funding our litigation efforts.

For those interested in donating to support cases like this, information is posted in this thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=845492

Click to expand...

I'd also like to thank you when you bought your MN from Big 5; which contradicted your "boycott the anti states" position.

As pointed out before, Big 5 is a CA based company and contributes to the NRA and in the fight helps fight against anti-2A laws.

Again, money coming from with-in and going INTO CA, and people staying and willing to stand up a fight for their Rights is what won this case; It DID NOT happen because of boycotts or because people moving out or loss of jobs.

.