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

[SoCalShooter]

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

 

[Silver Bullet]

I find them in the most unexpected places, if I establish myself as a reasonable guy before giving my position on RKBA.

Spoken like a man who is more interested in winning over the fence-sitters than in bludgeoning the opposition.

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

 

[Waitone]

In all thing political, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

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

 

[NineseveN]

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

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

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

 

[Monkeyleg]

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

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

And more.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[antsi]

Try to take the High Road

It's not an easy dilemma you have there Monkeyleg, but I would try to keep clear of that other group as much as you can.

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

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

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

 

[antsi]

--quote-----
I've seen where they've actually opposed Vermont carry
------------

Evidence, please?

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

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

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

 

[NineseveN]

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

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

And more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

 

[NineseveN]

Evidence, please?

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

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


Some interesting links, take them as you will:

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



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

 

[Monkeyleg]

antsi: "...but I would try to keep clear of that other group as much as you can."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything or nothing.

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

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

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

 

[NineseveN]

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

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

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

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

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

Everything or nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GadsdenMan50]

Whittling away at ccw restrictions

We have had some success in Virginia at removing or relaxing some of the restrictions on concealed carry as the bill was originally passed.

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

The 5 year renewal is scheduled to become a lifetime permit as of next year. While we haven’t managed it yet, the restriction on CC in restaurants that serve alcohol will likely be legislated away, eventually. There’s been a bill introduced in the legislature every year for the past few years to eliminate it, and it seems to get a little closer to passage every time. Interestingly, in Virginia, open carry in a bar is legal already.

Thus it would seem worthwhile to squeeze through the best bill you can at present, and then work to ease the restrictions as it becomes obvious that the anti-gunner’s ‘Wild West” predictions of violence in the streets are just so much bull manure.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mons meg]

NineseveN:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[antsi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NineseveN]

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


Good luck.

 

[antsi]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NineseveN]

never said the WGO was part of the VPC

That was a general statement based on the number of such accusations in this thread thus far.


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

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

incrementalism and compromise have done good and bad

- so it can work sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't.

I also said;

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Carl N. Brown]

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

 

[antsi]

"If there was a proven example... but that isn't reality as I see it"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

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

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

 

[NineseveN]

"If there was a proven example... but that isn't reality as I see it"

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

Oh, NineseveN, you don't even live in WI? You live in a shall-issue state?

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

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

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

 

[NineseveN]

Oh, NineseveN, you don't even live in WI? You live in a shall-issue state?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never mind, I don’t know what’s gotten into some of you, but apparently there’s a defensiveness going on here leading to folks wanting to lash out on others and make wild accusations and misrepresentations. If you think that makes your argument compelling to others, no wonder CCW in WI is as of yet, a failed venture. Good luck.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

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

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

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

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