Unanimously In Favor Of Saf Lawsuit

[ozwyn]

So to summarize:

1) We won back some rights in California, overturning an unjust law.

2) Meanwhile, on the high road forums, members intent on focusing on individual gun rights groups versus the overall mission uses forum posts to attack each other and their respective orangizations, in a text equivalent of a back alley kidney stabbing session.

reads a lot like everyone is guilty on 2) to me. And sure as heck nobody here is trying to make things better between the organizations.

someone lock this thread, please.

 

[DJAteOhAte]

Really, what is the matter with you?

Stop trying confuse us with all that lawyer-talk mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

What does Larry Pratt have to do with GCO, Hairless?

In case you did not know, GCO operates independently of any other gun organizations, including the NRA and GOA and SAF, although GCO would be happy to work with any of them on Georgia's problems.

That INCLUDES the NRA, by the way!

Most of the members of GCO are also members of the NRA. I cannot say the same about any other organization. I am a member of the NRA, too. I am not a member of GOA, although I probably will join in the near future. I will also probably join GSSA and SCCC (if they accept non-student memberships).

I have no intention of relinquishing my NRA membership anytime soon.

 

[billwiese]

Back to the CA decision/discussion...

This was paid for 90+% by NRA, driven by CA NRA. I know the CA NRA leadership and CA's NRA attorneys. Hell, I'm betting its lawyers at Trutanich-Michel didn't bill for every hour, either.

Other parties may have contributed a bit, fine. But those small contributions would not have affected the outcome, and NRA would have stepped in and added additional funding if & when necessary, or if the other small sources of funding weren't there.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

 

[gtg947h]

No, I now think that your organization is scummier than I had thought it was. I didn't think that was possible.

You're actually proud to say that now, today, this morning, five whole hours ago, your organization finally got around to acknowledging that it had taken the NRA's work product some time ago.

Mr. Hairless, I think it was made quite clear in one of MH's previous posts that GCO has always acknowledged it--and in fact, I remember reading about their use of the NRA's language when the bill was pre-filed back in December (which was when I first heard about it). It seems to me that MH's "five hours ago" statement did not mean "we finally admitted it five hours ago," but rather "we've been saying it all along, but we made a particular point to say it in front of all the media today because we figured more people would hear it this time."

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Mr. Hairless, I think it was made quite clear in one of MH's previous posts that GCO has always acknowledged it--and in fact, I remember reading about their use of the NRA's language when the bill was pre-filed back in December (which was when I first heard about it). It seems to me that MH's "five hours ago" statement did not mean "we finally admitted it five hours ago," but rather "we've been saying it all along, but we made a particular point to say it in front of all the media today because we figured more people would hear it this time."

Actually, we made it clear LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION when we presented it to the NRA, told them it was their own language from Colorado, and asked them to support it. They held onto it for several weeks and said there was no reason they could not support it, in spite of their parking lots bill, but by then it was too late in the session, so it was shelved until THIS year - when we again asked them to support it.

So to summarize:

1) We won back some rights in California, overturning an unjust law.

2) Meanwhile, on the high road forums, members intent on focusing on individual gun rights groups versus the overall mission uses forum posts to attack each other and their respective orangizations, in a text equivalent of a back alley kidney stabbing session.

reads a lot like everyone is guilty on 2) to me. And sure as heck nobody here is trying to make things better between the organizations.

someone lock this thread, please.

I am sorry for hijacking the thread. Hairless just brought out an unprovoked attack on GCO, and GCO members, including me, believed it should be answered.

The moment the NRA endorses HB 915, trust me, GCO will do a press release!

We now return you to your regular programming.

 

[Robert Hairless]

DJAteOhAte took this thread off track with his gratuitous NRA bashing. Snide, nasty, irrelevant. It wouldn't surprise me if the NRA saw what I and others see here, and decided to act cautiously instead of joining in with an off the wall crowd.

By my count, three members of GCO have joined this forum today, homed in on this thread about California and SAF, and posted their first or second message to ask what's wrong with me. That's in addition to the GCO members who have been here for some time. When GCO has a quorum here maybe it will spring for refreshments, or maybe lift them.

It is as if there is a beacon on this thread summoning GCO members to protest little old me. Nothing in this thread's title should signal anything of special interest to GCO members but somehow they come and home in on this thread entitled "Unanimously In Favor Of Saf Lawsuit" to respond to me.

And there's something wrong with me?

 

[Robert Hairless]

billwiese:

Back to the CA decision/discussion...

This was paid for 90+% by NRA, driven by CA NRA. I know the CA NRA leadership and CA's NRA attorneys. Hell, I'm betting its lawyers at Trutanich-Michel didn't bill for every hour, either.

Other parties may have contributed a bit, fine. But those small contributions would not have affected the outcome, and NRA would have stepped in and added additional funding if & when necessary, or if the other small sources of funding weren't there.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Back to the point of this thread indeed. Yes, the NRA support for this victory is--or should be--obvious. What's also obvious is that the NRA, SAF, and other reputable organizations often work together for the good of gun owners. It's the way things should go, and I think do go when there are reputable organizations to partner with each other. Congratulations to you all.

The more I see of SAF the more impressed I am. Your own organization also seems to be on the ball. Good.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

By my count, three members of GCO have joined this forum today

I believe I was a member here before GCO ever existed.

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

I did not join today and I am a NRA member and a member of GCO.

 

[nwilliams]

Great news, any victory for gun ownership anywhere is a great support for gun ownership everywhere!

 

[phaed]

someone forgot their medication this morning. GCO is a stand-up organization that's actually getting things accomplished for their members, and the rest of the gun owners in georgia. i live in Arizona, and still support them. I wish my state had such a good organization.

 

[Boy Racer]

Any member here can click on my user name and see that my first post was in November of 2007 (I had actually been a lurker for quite some time before that post). I did not join THR this week to feed the troll in this thread, but I did feel the need to set the record straight with my second post.

I was unaware I had to have a minimum post count to refute bad information and prove it wrong. By the way, what is that post count?

I'm sorry I sullied your SAF thread.

 

[Crunker1337]

I'm not going to take sides in the GCO vs. NRA war that's going on here, but I have to say that it's pretty unprofessional and counterproductive for THR members to try to duke it out in a thread that's supposed to be about a victory for us-not as GCO, SAF, or NRA members, but as people who support the right to keep and bear arms. Let's try to keep that in mind: we all have the same core beliefs, so there's no point in attacking each other.

 

[Crunker1337]

I'm not going to take sides in the GCO vs. NRA war that's going on here, but I have to say that it's pretty unprofessional and counterproductive for THR members to try to duke it out in a thread that's supposed to be about a victory for us-not as GCO, SAF, or NRA members, but as people who support the right to keep and bear arms. Let's try to keep that in mind: we all have the same core beliefs, so there's no point in attacking each other.

 

[horge]

This foreigner had long been wondering how the United States of America,
with its Second Amendment enshrining the right to keep and bear, could
somehow lose so much of said right.

This thread seems to provide the answer.

 

[tecrsq]

This foreigner had long been wondering how the United States of America,
with its Second Amendment enshrining the right to keep and bear, could
somehow lose so much of said right.

This thread seems to provide the answer.

Well said and I will agree that the disagreements between us can and will keep us from accomplishing our main objectives if we fight among ourselves.

Great news on the Frisco decision, I had hoped common sense would prevail but I am glad the NRA was persistent.

I am following this thread as well and believe that GCO is a very reputable organization that has been working dilligently with the local, state and national groups to forward our cause to exercise our rights as written.

I am very hopeful that the NRA will also back our Georgia HB915 as it will greatly improve our ability to exercise our rights to carry.

FWIW I am also a long time reader of this very informative forum, a current THR member, a NRA EPL member and a GCO member.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

Thread started 10Jan08
Replied to by
.....DJAteOhAte (member since 21 March 2007) GCO Member
.....Boy Racer (member since 07 November 2007) GCO Member
.....Malum Prohibitum (member since 03 March 2006) GCO Member
.....Thorsen (Member since 10 January 2008) Not explicitly stated but we'll claim him as a GCO Member anyway.

Robert Hairless -

"...Hotcha! I am increasing this forum's membership even as we speak. Pretty soon we'll have every member of GCO here bashing the NRA..."

Replied to thereafter by
.....Mafuta54 (Member since 03 August of 2006) GCO Member
.....GTG947H (Member since 27 December 2007) GCO Member

By my count, three members of GCO have joined this forum today

Mr Hairless should be, nay Must Be, congratulated for his efforts in increasing this site's membership thru attracting GCO members. Any man dedicated enough to the cause that he Would Go Back In Time To Recruit Three New Members should be recognized and given the proper honors. May I ask what method you used, Mr Hairless, to transport yourself all the way back to August of 2006? I've got a hunch about who will win the World Series that year that should pay off quite handsomely

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Any man dedicated enough to the cause that he Would Go Back In Time To Recruit Three New Members should be recognized and given the proper honors

 

[Robert Hairless]

Any man dedicated enough to the cause that he Would Go Back In Time To Recruit Three New Members should be recognized and given the proper honors

I'm rather enjoying the fog you folks expend so much energy to generate.

Back in the real world, though, Georgia Carry still has not acknowledged its debt to the NRA in HB 915. The home page of its web site features an appreciation by and for Gun Owners of America ("Gun Owners of America Weighs in on HB 915") but nothing on that site says that the bill draws on the NRA's work product.

That's the point I made after DJAteOhAte introduced the theme into this discussion, that's the point I've been making, and that's the point you all dodge or deny with claims that are laughable on their face.

I agree with those who deplore blatant attempts to fragment gun owners and pit them against each other. Perhaps you folks from Georgia Carry might want to stop doing things like this:

DJAteOhAte:

I got an Email from NRA-ILA about this.

Funny, they never mentioned SAF, LEAA or CAFR...

Who would have thought the NRA would take all the credit?

It's not nice, and it's most unwise, when Georgia Carry does it. Yes, I understand Malum Prohibutum's point that GCO didn't do it and did do it but had reasons for doing it and might not have done it if the world were different. I can read fog. It's also easy to read "I am sorry for hijacking the thread. Hairless just brought out an unprovoked attack on GCO, and GCO members, including me, believed it should be answered." Sounds great but looks duplicitious and, really, rather stupid in the context for my reply to DJAteOhAte. Of course he didn't do it and did do it but if he did do it he had reasons for doing it and might not have done it if he hadn't done it. Got it.

Lots of fun to watch. So you folks are effective in Georgia politics are you?

 

[4thPointOfContact]

So.....you don't deny that you traveled back in time, or you just deny being wrong?

Perhaps I'm mischaracterizing you in my post, would it be more policically correct to say.......

You were mistaken?
You were incorrect?
You can't count past one?
Your figure was erroneous?
Your figure was false?
Your figure was innacurate?
Your arithmatic skills are unsound?
Your figures were not in comformity with fact or truth?
Your account of how many people joined as a result of your brave efforts were overstated?

Now, I'm not claiming to be any sort of genius, hell I barely made it past Sixth grade but I would probably have done either one of two things;
One...I would have ignored this thread and hoped that it would quickly die and not be brought back to the top. You didn't do that, did you?
or
Two...I would have laughed and said "yeah, I overstated it a bit in a fit of pique, hope you fellows will laugh along with me about it." But you didn't do that either, right?

Right; what you did was quote exactly the words that proved the fallacy of your statement and then .........you...hit...the...'Enter'...key to bring this thread back to where everyone would see it. Good job, kudos to you, Sir. Well Done.


(45)

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

Once any organization gets big enough, it stands a good chance of becoming corrupt or selfish, or both. Government, Big Healthcare (Big Insurance), Enron, perhaps, even, special interest lobby groups (maybe the NRA). Maybe fifteen years from now, GCO may fall victim to the trend. Just use them while you can, but the best way to have your voice heard is, well, you to do the voicing. I don't fight the government to keep my rights, day in and day out, only to turn the well-being of my rights over to some private entity who wants to be next-biggest brother.

 

[Robert Hairless]

4thPointofContact:

Now, I'm not claiming to be any sort of genius ...

We agree at last. Ah, is there no end to the power of the Internet to bring people of differing opinions together in agreement on matters of substance. Of course you'll continue to prove the point. And you have friends to help you in this thread about a California accomplishment that somehow has become heavily populated with members of Georgia Carry. Is this a sign of some new migration from Georgia to California?

 

[doc2rn]

I have to say that it's pretty unprofessional and counterproductive for THR members to try to duke it out in a thread that's supposed to be about a victory for us-not as GCO, SAF, or NRA members, but as people who support the right to keep and bear arms. Let's try to keep that in mind

I agree 100%

Robert just wants to stir the pot give him no audience. Soon we will find ways to unify the organizations, I think that would be a better use of our time.

 

[Outlaws]

Bla Bla Bla I am not a nice person and cannot make a valid point.