Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Lordy! Stick with Monkeyleg's subject or drop out of the thread!
Art
Art
How would you treat a so-called "pro-gun group"...
- Thread starter Monkeyleg
- Start date
- Status
Monkeyleg
Member.
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.
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
member
I’ve 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 you’ve 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, I’m telling you. Sure, it would be fine and dandy to burn them, go ahead, do that too (as in, in addition to).
My point is, until you have the right information, al you’re doing is speculating no matter how good of a job you’re doing at it. Again, you asked how I would deal with a group such as this, I’m telling you. I’d lay off the suspicions until I could prove them. They could be completely true, but that isn’t helping you in the mean time…maybe you think it is, maybe that’s your social/political climate out in the great state of Wisconsin. If so, fine. If not, start thinking.
Now that’s a bad way for ED to operate, but then he wouldn’t care would he? He’d be burning contacts you worked on to introduce the bill, not him. That doesn’t change my opinion that you at least attempt a Vermont CCW bill if you can manage to get one introduced.
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 it’s their money that’s the influence, it will still influence no matter what you manage to dig up unless it puts them/him in jail.
Now, that’s all you asked for, was opinions, so I gave you one. No need to continue to argue, we’ll agree to disagree is all. Like I said, good luck.
Liberal Gun Nut
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 388
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
Member.
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.
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
member
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.
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.
Soros type funding for a non membership group.
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.
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
Member
I don't normally encourage personal attacks, but here goes. LGN, you are spot on!Liberal Gun Nut said:
WGO 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 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.
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
Member
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.
Their "Dear Leader" even keynoted an event for Washington CeaseFire, some of the looniest of gungrabbers.
Liberal Gun Nut
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 388
AHSA's connection with the Brady Campaign etc is beyond any question or doubt.
Btw, thanks for the compliment Ken.
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.
Btw, thanks for the compliment Ken.
Ken said:
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.
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.
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
Member.
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 388
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
Member.
"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.
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
Member.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked