PDA

View Full Version : Got an interview tomorrow...


Pages : [1] 2 3

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 7:51 AM
Around 8AM on AM 600 KOGO.

Phone in number is 800-600-5646 :)

CARRY ON!

Doheny
07-20-2009, 8:06 AM
I think I can hear them here in Orange County...I'll tune in!

bwiese
07-20-2009, 8:07 AM
This can, 99% likely, only end badly.

Please STFU and don't do this. You've had no media training and are going up against people that do this for a living multiple times every day.

You're eager to appear because they know how to stroke a young guy's ego.

Remember that you're not being interviewed, you're being shown as a specimen.

I can already see the question: "Are you ready to kill babies today with your semiauto?"

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 8:14 AM
This can, 99% likely, only end badly.

Please STFU and don't do this. You've had no media training and are going up against people that do this for a living multiple times every day.

You're eager to appear because they know how to stroke a young guy's ego.

Remember that you're not being interviewed, you're being shown as a specimen.

I can already see the question: "Are you ready to kill babies today with your semiauto?"

Didn't you say that last time?

This is a pretty conservative radio show. Chip Franklin is the guy's name.

yellowfin
07-20-2009, 8:15 AM
Be sure YOU are in control the whole time.

bwiese
07-20-2009, 8:16 AM
Didn't you say that last time?

It only takes one time to really screw us, Junior.

This is a pretty conservative radio show. Chip Franklin is the guy's name.

Talk shows are entertainment. There has to be controversy or it's not worth running a show.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 8:23 AM
It only takes one time to really screw us, Junior.



Talk shows are entertainment. There has to be controversy or it's not worth running a show.

It may take one time but saying that each time is "the time" is kind of like those televangelists that keep updating their end of the world prophecies each time it does not come to fruition... annoying and baseless.

And please, show me where to get this almighty media training. I hear so often about it but where it is I have no idea...

yellowfin
07-20-2009, 8:24 AM
Talk shows are entertainment. There has to be controversy or it's not worth running a show. Wouldn't being totally pro gun be the very controversy they seek?

MiguelS
07-20-2009, 8:25 AM
They stream online.

What are your talking points going to be?

detcord
07-20-2009, 8:27 AM
:popcorn:

sepiid
07-20-2009, 8:28 AM
Pullnshoot,
would you be able to record this? That station doesnt come in for me?

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 8:29 AM
They stream online.

What are your talking points going to be?

They just want to talk about the actual interview with Rosa.

Ha, I am getting interviewed on an interview.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 8:32 AM
Pullnshoot,
would you be able to record this? That station doesnt come in for me?

You can listen in online. The "Listen live!" button is in the upper left hand corner. http://www.kogo.com/main.html

I will try to set up some sort of recording thing ahora.

Legasat
07-20-2009, 8:36 AM
I didn't get to hear it. How did it go?

HowardW56
07-20-2009, 8:40 AM
:popcorn:


:shock:


Can i have some popcorn too?

GP3
07-20-2009, 8:41 AM
I didn't get to hear it. How did it go?

He hasn't done it yet. Tomorrow.

Paladin
07-20-2009, 8:41 AM
The way things are going in this state, I'd have to agree w/Bill.

The wheels of (constitutional) justice are slowly grinding our way, so there is no need to face the risk of this going south. Yeah, I'd LOVE "Shall Issue" and LOC yesterday, but I'm forcing myself to sit on my hands and let the judicial process take its course. If that should fail, I'm sure the NRA has people they've trained internally and externally w/trusted media friends who they will put forward if and when dealing w/CA media is appropriate.

So, while I applaud your enthusiasm, I encourage you to stand down on this one. The possible benefits simply don't ouweigh the significant and real risks.

JMHO.

MiguelS
07-20-2009, 8:59 AM
They just want to talk about the actual interview with Rosa.

Ha, I am getting interviewed on an interview.

I just read that article...good reading.

Decoligny
07-20-2009, 9:07 AM
This can, 99% likely, only end badly.

Please STFU and don't do this. You've had no media training and are going up against people that do this for a living multiple times every day.

You're eager to appear because they know how to stroke a young guy's ego.

Remember that you're not being interviewed, you're being shown as a specimen.

I can already see the question: "Are you ready to kill babies today with your semiauto?"

I have "media training", i.e. media relations, public speaking, marketing, and public affairs as an Air Force recruiter.

I can say with confidence that Pullnshoot25 can handle any question they throw at him and probably turn it around on them.

CalGuns seems to have a lot of cases of ekthetohoplophobia: fear of exposed guns.

hamster
07-20-2009, 9:11 AM
I heard you this morning on my drive to work. From what I gathered from Chip was that he is in agreement with what you're doing. He even said that he'd do it himself but he's afraid of getting shot by the police. It sounds like his angle on your story is testing CA's system to see if we really have the right to defend ourselves. Unless he suddenly changes his angle, I think your interview should go fine.

bwiese
07-20-2009, 9:20 AM
CalGuns seems to have a lot of cases
of ekthetohoplophobia: fear of exposed guns.

For now, for a reason: if one of you UOCers gets shot - and it will happen - it creates a sh*tstorm.

And some of you guys already triggered the increase in school zone radius.

And few or none of you UOC guys have gone thru all CCW application steps so that a bust would have some value.

HunterJim
07-20-2009, 9:24 AM
Nate,

I mentioned Saturday that the San Jose crowd knows everything about San Diego County, or at least think they do.

I do listen to Chip Franklin from time to time, and I expect he will be straight with you. Heck we are all citizens here and can speak for ourselves, that is the theory anyway.

Have fun...jim

.454
07-20-2009, 9:25 AM
Do you have a recording of the interview?
I read your post too late this morning.

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 9:25 AM
No, we have an aversion to unneccessary drama and lone ranger crusaders that fall into the canyon riding after dark.

Has anyone done an honest risk analysis for this? If your target audience is so safe, if the breadth of the interview is so limited does it not reduce or mitigate entirely the usefulness of the interview (leaving the downside that a mainstream outlet could pick up a segment of the interview to spin)?

You sound like someone that can contribute (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2796748&postcount=2) in a very tangible manner. We can use all the help we can get. Let's work together as a team and really get some things done.

I have "media training", i.e. media relations, public speaking, marketing, and public affairs as an Air Force recruiter.

I can say with confidence that Pullnshoot25 can handle any question they throw at him and probably turn it around on them.

CalGuns seems to have a lot of cases of ekthetohoplophobia: fear of exposed guns.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 9:30 AM
For now, for a reason: if one of you UOCers gets shot - and it will happen - it creates a sh*tstorm.

And some of you guys already triggered the increase in school zone radius.

And few or none of you UOC guys have gone thru all CCW application steps so that a bust would have some value.

Well, time to start wearing my bulletproof vest!

It has been triggered? It is on the books? When did that happen?

What sort of "bust" are you talking about? Me getting 626.9'd or the cops getting caught in even more unconstitutional actions?

GP3
07-20-2009, 9:31 AM
Do you have a recording of the interview?
I read your post too late this morning.

The time stamp on this thread is 07-20-2009, 08:51 AM. His subject line says the interview is tomorrow.

That would be 07-21-2009 at 8AM.

bwiese
07-20-2009, 9:35 AM
Well, time to start wearing my bulletproof vest!

It has been triggered? It is on the books? When did that happen?

The fact that the legislation got proposed is due to UOC drama.

And you of course know how easy antigun legislation gets passed. And how hard it is to get off the books even when unconstitutional.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 9:39 AM
No, we have an aversion to unneccessary drama and lone ranger crusaders that fall into the canyon riding after dark.

Has anyone done an honest risk analysis for this? If your target audience is so safe, if the breadth of the interview is so limited does it not reduce or mitigate entirely the usefulness of the interview (leaving the downside that a mainstream outlet could pick up a segment of the interview to spin)?

You sound like someone that can contribute (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2796748&postcount=2) in a very tangible manner. We can use all the help we can get. Let's work together as a team and really get some things done.

With all due respect wildhawker, I feel that I have kept drama to a pretty good minimum. I have guys that I talk to and collaborate with down here that help me out with events, documentation, school zone locations, etc., not to mention the fact that I collaborate with a lot of non-locals over CGN and OCDO. This is not a lone ranger production and I think that I have been, above all, reasonable and thorough in this entire process.

Lancear15
07-20-2009, 9:39 AM
And few or none of you UOC guys have gone thru all CCW application steps so that a bust would have some value.

:thumbsup: Ding! Ding! Ding!

bwiese
07-20-2009, 9:40 AM
I mentioned Saturday that the San Jose crowd knows everything about San Diego County, or at least think they do.

San Diego, sham diego - we're talking about statewide risk.

One bad interview and sound bite from some goon getting You Tubed and quoted sets us back ages.

xxdabroxx
07-20-2009, 9:42 AM
Any recordings? Or is it tomorrow? I'm confused... :scratches head:

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 9:42 AM
The fact that the legislation got proposed is due to UOC drama.

And you of course know how easy antigun legislation gets passed. And how hard it is to get off the books even when unconstitutional.

Lets put it in perspective though... the law is ALREADY on the books and is ALREADY unconstitutional, it is just that TPTB want to extend it out by another 500'. This shouldn't affect any of you guys that already DON'T OC anyways. The guys that have to really worry about it are the ones that do what I am doing.

You can't say that we are losing something that everyone is already too scared to exercise.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 9:43 AM
Any recordings?

It is for tomorrow.

Stan_Humphries
07-20-2009, 9:45 AM
It's cool that you are doing media outreach, but you should take care on your interviews. It would be better to send in a well prepared written statement.

I've seen your youtube how-to's and heard you arguing with a Sherriff candidate. While there is no doubt that you are intelligent, you still come off as a little bit unstable - particularly when someone challenges what you are saying (i.e. yelling to the sheriff candidate "I have cocaine, can you search me? He has cocaine, search him.").

And someone who hosts their own talk show can probably twist your words well enough so that you loose all credibility.

Just look at your Reader article. The writer wrote that your brother "works from home studying 'history and behavioral economics independently and try[ing] to figure out what’s going to happen next before everyone else,'".

Now, from an objective standpoint, his quote makes him look weird. Is he at home preparing for the apocalypse, or is it just a fancy way of saying he is day trader? In a backhanded manner, the writer took your brothers words and presented them in a fashion that leads to reader to question what type of man he is (crazy or sane).

In my listening experience, people come off sounding more stupid/crazy/unstable during live interviews than they do in normal life. Just be prepared to be made the fool if the talk show host so chooses to portray you as one.

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 9:45 AM
I appreciate your response, and would only ask that everyone take an honest look at the risk/benefit of UOC. Can you reach a few gunnies via UOC? Yes. Can you reach far more gunnies and non-gunnies via other vehicles and with far less downside? Yes. From a business perspective, the numbers don't work. The law of unintended consequences prevails here, and all the good intentions in California will continue to pave the road to further regulations and more arrests.

With all due respect wildhawker, I feel that I have kept drama to a pretty good minimum. I have guys that I talk to and collaborate with down here that help me out with events, documentation, school zone locations, etc., not to mention the fact that I collaborate with a lot of non-locals over CGN and OCDO. This is not a lone ranger production and I think that I have been, above all, reasonable and thorough in this entire process.

7x57
07-20-2009, 9:46 AM
You can't say that we are losing something that everyone is already too scared to exercise.

Except you had it explained to you that there are other things you could trigger that would screw just about every gun owner in CA. I know this, because I explained it to you. Think of the school zone extention as a warning sign.

I will be happy when the time comes when this is all moot and we don't have the good guys fighting about this particular issue.

7x57

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 9:47 AM
Lets put it in perspective though... the law is ALREADY on the books and is ALREADY unconstitutional, it is just that TPTB want to extend it out by another 500'. This shouldn't affect any of you guys that already DON'T OC anyways. The guys that have to really worry about it are the ones that do what I am doing.

That's a bit nave.

hamster
07-20-2009, 9:49 AM
http://www.am600kogo.com/pages/chip_ondemand_01.html

I'm at work so I can't listen right now... but download the 8 o'clock hour. I left my house at 8:30 and the partial interview happened during my drive to work.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 9:52 AM
It's cool that you are doing media outreach, but you should take care on your interviews. It would be better to send in a well prepared written statement.

I've seen your youtube how-to's and heard you arguing with a Sherriff candidate. While there is no doubt that you are intelligent, you still come off as a little bit unstable - particularly when someone challenges what you are saying (i.e. yelling to the sheriff candidate "I have cocaine, can you search me? He has cocaine, search him.").

And someone who hosts their own talk show can probably twist your words well enough so that you loose all credibility.

Just look at your Reader article. The writer wrote that your brother " works from home studying 'history and behavioral economics independently and try[ing] to figure out whats going to happen next before everyone else,'".

Now, from an objective standpoint, his quote makes him look weird. Is he at home preparing for the apocalypse, or is it just a fancy way of saying he is day trader? In a backhanded manner, the writer took your brothers words and presented them in a fashion that leads to reader to question what type of man he is (crazy or sane).

In my listening experience, people come off sounding more stupid/crazy/unstable during live interviews than they do in normal life. Just be prepared to be made the fool if the talk show host so chooses to portray you as one.

My term is "economic itinerant" :)

7x57
07-20-2009, 9:53 AM
That's a bit nave.

Considering that it roughly doubles the number of people who are under school zone rules the moment they leave their own property, and probably effectively when they leave their home or fenced yard, naive is being nice.

7x57

lorax3
07-20-2009, 9:56 AM
This shouldn't affect any of you guys that already DON'T OC anyways. The guys that have to really worry about it are the ones that do what I am doing.


Actually anyone who currently lives from one thousand-one to fifteen-hundred feet from a school will no longer be able to carry an unlocked handgun beyond their private place of residence to their vehicle.

dave1947
07-20-2009, 10:00 AM
:thumbsup: Ding! Ding! Ding!

well I did appy and went completely thru the process and was denied for "need". and watched a man at the shooting part who could hardly hit the target and could not clear his gun without help. he may have had the "need" and got his, not sure, but would hate to be anywhere around he was shooting if he had to use it.

Decoligny
07-20-2009, 10:03 AM
http://www.am600kogo.com/pages/chip_ondemand_01.html

I'm at work so I can't listen right now... but download the 8 o'clock hour. I left my house at 8:30 and the partial interview happened during my drive to work.

To misqoute "Annie": Tomorrow, Tomorrow, they do it Tomorrow, It's only a daaaaaaaaay, awaaaaay. :rolleyes:

The interview is going to be on Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 8:00 a.m. pacific standard time.

bigtoe416
07-20-2009, 10:23 AM
Actually anyone who currently lives from one thousand-one to fifteen-hundred feet from a school will no longer be able to carry an unlocked handgun beyond their private place of residence to their vehicle.

Those people would have to be carrying it in a holster to do this. If the handgun was in an unlocked container they'd have a concealed weapon without a permit. I guess they could just openly carry it in their hand, if they want to risk a brandishing charge should they run into anybody on the way to their car.

KCM222
07-20-2009, 10:28 AM
I guess they could just openly carry it in their hand...

You can't open carry in a school zone.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 10:36 AM
Actually anyone who currently lives from one thousand-one to fifteen-hundred feet from a school will no longer be able to carry an unlocked handgun beyond their private place of residence to their vehicle.

...the law hasn't passed yet, if it will at all.

bwiese
07-20-2009, 10:40 AM
...the law hasn't passed yet, if it will at all.

So you want to increase Ed Worley & crew's workload?

I'm sure they thank you. :(

In addition the prospective new law may not have locked container exemption so you'll screw folks over that have to exit house and go to their car on the street.

7x57
07-20-2009, 10:46 AM
So you want to increase Ed Worley & crew's workload?


Just to make the point painfully clear, "increasing workload" doesn't just mean Ed spends less time doing whatever it is he does when he isn't working for us. It also means he isn't "going on the offensive" somewhere on some issue because he has to defend against legislative responses to UOC.

I seem to recall that historically the greatest problem with using cavalry is that they tend to just charge at the first thing in sight and are not there at the point in the battle when they could be decisive. Few generals seem to have really solved that problem. So far as I can tell, the UOCers are determined to be the high-morale but undisciplined cavalry of gun-rights.

And that's the kind of internal disunity and inability to act in coordination that our enemies pray for....

7x57

hamster
07-20-2009, 10:51 AM
To misqoute "Annie": Tomorrow, Tomorrow, they do it Tomorrow, It's only a daaaaaaaaay, awaaaaay. :rolleyes:

The interview is going to be on Tuesday, 21 July 2009, at 8:00 a.m. pacific standard time.

He had a partial interview TODAY!

bwiese
07-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Just to make the point painfully clear, "increasing workload" doesn't just mean Ed spends less time doing whatever it is he does when he isn't working for us. It also means he isn't "going on the offensive" somewhere on some issue because he has to defend against legislative responses to UOC.

Very good way of expressing this!

Efforts required to be exerted in one area just to at best break even do subtract from the offense elsewhere.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 11:03 AM
So you want to increase Ed Worley & crew's workload?

I'm sure they thank you. :(

In addition the prospective new law may not have locked container exemption so you'll screw folks over that have to exit house and go to their car on the street.

Lorax3 had a comprehension error. I merely corrected it. (ETA: I am a dork, Lorax3 had the right idea)

What you're basically saying that I am the SOLE cause of the current legislation? Dude, I don't even live in LA and I will not be held accountable for LA gun owner's actions.

If you guys really REALLY have a problem with it, go whine to Gene about it. I talked with him about this a while ago (as I did 7x57 and others) and while he doesn't OC himself for the same reasons as a lot of you guys he did say that group events, like the ones we have been doing down here in San Diego, are just fine. If he had a change of heart, he would have let me know by any of my 10 routes of communication, not one of which has been utilized.

aileron
07-20-2009, 11:17 AM
If you guys really REALLY have a problem with it, go whine to Gene about it. I talked with him about this a while ago (as I did 7x57 and others) and while he doesn't OC himself for the same reasons as a lot of you guys he did say that group events, like the ones we have been doing down here in San Diego, are just fine. If he had a change of heart, he would have let me know by any of my 10 routes of communication, not one of which has been utilized.

pullnshoot, if you're going to insist on being in the public eye, then you do need to be trained to deal with it. So I suggest you manage to find the training in media relations pronto.

The minute you step into the professional media's arena all bets are off; the best of the best are there with all the up and comers vying for their moment in the spotlight. Dangerous place for an amateur.

Decoligny
07-20-2009, 11:23 AM
Lorax3 had a comprehension error. I merely corrected it.

What you're basically saying that I am the SOLE cause of the current legislation? Dude, I don't even live in LA and I will not be held accountable for LA gun owner's actions.

If you guys really REALLY have a problem with it, go whine to Gene about it. I talked with him about this a while ago (as I did 7x57 and others) and while he doesn't OC himself for the same reasons as a lot of you guys he did say that group events, like the ones we have been doing down here in San Diego, are just fine. If he had a change of heart, he would have let me know by any of my 10 routes of communication, not one of which has been utilized.

+1

My carrying started out as a means of personal self-defense. It remains a means on personal self-defense. The political/public awareness aspect of carrying in California is just something that got added on.

I was LOADED Open Carrying (unincorporated Kern County) before I had even heard of CalGuns.net.

I will continue to LOC wherever I legally can, UOC wherever I can't LOC, and locked container carry in my vehicle when going thru school zones.

CalNRA
07-20-2009, 11:24 AM
That's a bit nave.

to say the least.

Maddog5150
07-20-2009, 11:26 AM
Lorax3 had a comprehension error. I merely corrected it.

What you're basically saying that I am the SOLE cause of the current legislation? Dude, I don't even live in LA and I will not be held accountable for LA gun owner's actions.

If you guys really REALLY have a problem with it, go whine to Gene about it. I talked with him about this a while ago (as I did 7x57 and others) and while he doesn't OC himself for the same reasons as a lot of you guys he did say that group events, like the ones we have been doing down here in San Diego, are just fine. If he had a change of heart, he would have let me know by any of my 10 routes of communication, not one of which has been utilized.

You may not be in Los Angeles but news of your actions travel fast. It makes it out to law enforcement memo up and down the states. The actions of someone at a different location will still have repercussions. If not, then why outside of Hollywood have to deal with assault weapons ban, why did the incident at Columbine effect us also?
You are known by LEO up and down the state as the guy who walks around with an empty gun. Could it cause you to get shot? Its very possible. I can imagine a shooting happening around you and when you go to arrogantly pull out your pamphlet to hand it to him a bad situation happens. Also telling us to go "whine" about it is very mature. If we were following you around like zombie and being ignorant of the subject of either side you would be praising us since it would further your own cause. I hope you dont use that tone on the radio.
As far as that law about the school zones, you know it will most likely and most probably pass as it will have the facade of protecting children. That actually now puts me in that zone. Thanks blue falcon.
Ive been saying that the whole unloaded open carry is useless and trolling. I look at some of your first posts about the interactions and you have nothing but contempt for those who questioned and stooped down to name calling of "mall ninjas" and even bashed the law enforcement officers who questioned you. I in turn get bashed for not giving full on support of your actions. I'm told that "oh if we hide it no one will be educated, we need to force people to acknowledge us instead of hiding it." Yeah, thats always a great idea to force any political issue than to be subtle to it. :rolleyes:
So in a year from now when I come back from deployment, my house will be a school zone. :thumbsup:

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 11:30 AM
If you guys really REALLY have a problem with it, go whine to Gene about it. I talked with him about this a while ago (as I did 7x57 and others) and while he doesn't OC himself for the same reasons as a lot of you guys he did say that group events, like the ones we have been doing down here in San Diego, are just fine. If he had a change of heart, he would have let me know by any of my 10 routes of communication, not one of which has been utilized.

LIVE RADIO is not equivalent to printed interview.

The problem here is that if you slip up in wording at all, you can say something that becomes a beautiful soundbite for the VPC. With Rosa, or any printed journalism, the risk is much lower.

I would not be concerned whatsoever if this were another print interview with a reporter who'd been screened just as well as Rosa was.

This is a totally different matter, however. I have to side with Bill re: radio interviews - keep it to print, unless of course they'd be willing to pre-record the interview and let you scratch things that may be misspoken (NOT going to happen unfortunately).

Hmm, one other thing I just thought of - make SURE it's mentioned (since you seem dead set on doing this) at the beginning, end, and hopefully midpoint to read up thoroughly on open carry before doing it. The last thing we need is some idiot who lives next to a school zone to hear the program and think he's in the clear because he only caught half the program and missed the bit about school zones - or San Diego Municipal Code which prohibits firearms in parks, etc.

7x57
07-20-2009, 11:33 AM
If you guys really REALLY have a problem with it, go whine to Gene about it. I talked with him about this a while ago (as I did 7x57 and others) and while he doesn't OC himself for the same reasons as a lot of you guys he did say that group events, like the ones we have been doing down here in San Diego, are just fine.


So you only UOC at group events? Odd, you told me at Del Mar on Saturday that you UOC whenever possible, every day if you can. (Fun conversation, BTW--I was glad to meet you, and thanks to your newfound fame you were easy to recognize at the booth.) Did Gene suggest that was all just fine too?

The basic problem here is that nobody really wants to say difficult things to people willing to lay it on the line for the 2A, for both practical and principled reasons. That leaves the problem of how to tell you that at this precise moment this precise mode of activism a hindrance. But I don't represent anybody, and nothing breaks if everyone ends up mad at me, so I try.

You did as well as anyone possibly could with your interview with Rosa, and that's impressive--but you don't seem to acknowledge that in a pre-Sykes world at least, even that interview could still hurt us. And that's the problem. I appreciate your efforts to make contact with people before the interview, even calling me (and I don't think I'm on the short list of strategists by any accounting, so I assume that means you did a *lot* of legwork to get that far down the list). But I told you how the best possible outcome could hurt a lot of other people, in a worse way than the school-zone expansion thing. It didn't do much good.

We dodged the worst bullet, but it's clear the legislative will is there if the wrong idea occurs to the wrong legislators. How many times must you spin the cylinder, point the barrel at a buddy's head, and pull the trigger?

The most frustrating thing is that when we do establish a legally enforceable Right to Bear in CA, and especially when we establish that at least one mode of carry must be unregulated and unlicensed, we'll need you guys. But we need you *at the right time* applying pressure *on the right place.* You're warriors, but apparently not soldiers. Being a warrior carries with it a great deal of personal honor--but soldiers beat warriors every time. It is winning that I care about, not fighting gloriously.

Maybe you have to get older and have kids to understand.

It has occurred to me to drive all the way down to SD sometime to one of your group OC events just to show that I don't have any personal objection other than the strategic one, but it's a long way and perhaps wouldn't make for great dinner conversation if the whole issue of strategy came up.

7x57

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 11:37 AM
...the law hasn't passed yet, if it will at all.

Unfortunately, I am just about 100% sure it will pass. The only silver lining on it is that it should be found to be an egregious 2A violation (post-incorporation) due to its literally rendering it illegal to take a handgun home from your car if you live in a school zone, and maybe it'd rip out a little bit more than just strictly what it put in.

And, I don't think you're to blame for the law. However, stepping up the tempo and adding extra bear poking and publicity as we approach "bill passing season" is not exactly conducive to letting it languish and die either.

CalNRA
07-20-2009, 11:42 AM
As far as that law about the school zones, you know it will most likely and most probably pass as it will have the facade of protecting children. That actually now puts me in that zone. Thanks blue falcon.

...
So in a year from now when I come back from deployment, my house will be a school zone. :thumbsup:

under this legislation, my house will come under a school zone as well.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 11:42 AM
So you only UOC at group events? Odd, you told me at Del Mar on Saturday that you UOC whenever possible, every day if you can. (Fun conversation, BTW--I was glad to meet you, and thanks to your newfound fame you were easy to recognize at the booth.) Did Gene suggest that was all just fine too?

Every chance he gets. :p

It has occurred to me to drive all the way down to SD sometime to one of your group OC events just to show that I don't have any personal objection other than the strategic one, but it's a long way and perhaps wouldn't make for great dinner conversation if the whole issue of strategy came up.

Trust me, if Nathan and I can stay friends with all the differences WE have on the subject of strategy, that wouldn't be remotely awkward. :)

BTW, why didnt you drop by the CWS booth at Del Mar and say hello? :p

eflatminor
07-20-2009, 11:43 AM
Well Pullnshoot, after reading all these comments and concerns, I have to say I'm happy to see you hitting the airwaves. Sure, you have to be careful about what you say, remain calm always, and keep to your points. However, I'm glad to see someone here can strap on a pair and do what they think is right.

I won't get into it with those that live in fear of the nanny state liberals. I UOC here in LA all the time with no problems and I'm prepared to deal with the consequences if my rights are violated. Still, they want me to stop...might offend the wrong fascist I suppose. Reminds me of my mother's family, Jews in Germany 80 years ago, that didn't say squat as their neighbors were dragged away by Nazi guards. They didn't want to ruffle feathers either...now they're long dead too. No, I say stand up and speak up for your rights before it's too late.

Good on you!

rynando
07-20-2009, 11:44 AM
And some of you guys already triggered the increase in school zone radius.

The fact that the legislation got proposed is due to UOC drama.

At the muni-level police, council members, city managers, school board members etc have been lobbying for or simply expressing their desire to expand the school zone radius for a long time now, well before the UOC "craze" took root. Is there something in the legislation in the above quote that points to UOC being a factor in the authoring of the legislation?

R

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 11:47 AM
At the muni-level police, council members, city managers, school board members etc have been lobbying for or simply expressing their desire to expand the school zone radius for a long time now, well before the UOC "craze" took root. Is there something in the legislation in the above quote that points to UOC being a factor in the authoring of the legislation?

Interesting - I haven't heard anything about this until recently. Care to give some more specifics? Is it inner cities seeking sentencing enhancements for drug dealers, or what?

Amacias805
07-20-2009, 11:49 AM
I think what Pullnshoot is doing is great.

but i do share some of the same concerns be careful of live interviews. most of them make gun owners look like a bunch of Crazy trigger happy red necks. i honestly believe that you should stick to written interviews at first, and after you get a big enough following then go for the live or recorded ones.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 11:51 AM
I think what Pullnshoot is doing is great.

but i do share some of the same concerns be careful of live interviews. most of them make gun owners look like a bunch of Crazy trigger happy red necks. i honestly believe that you should stick to written interviews at first, and after you get a big enough following then go for the live or recorded ones.

How would a larger following make a difference in the risk level for "live"? Wouldn't it actually be better to practice with a smaller one?

That having been said, the following is already too large to start "practicing" on the air imho.

7x57
07-20-2009, 11:52 AM
Trust me, if Nathan and I can stay friends with all the differences WE have on the subject of strategy, that wouldn't be remotely awkward. :)


Good point. We had a fun time talking at the CG booth, including about OC.


BTW, why didnt you drop by the CWS booth at Del Mar and say hello? :p

You mean besides the insane crowd mobbing it? :D I guess because I spent too much time talking to pullnshoot and Lorax at the CG booth and decided it was time to go home. :rolleyes:

Say, shouldn't pullnshoot's handle be pullnloadnracknshoot? :43:

7x57

Hopi
07-20-2009, 11:52 AM
There is a dangerous difference between the strategic demonstration of rights, and the flaunting of narcissism.

Pullinshoot, I'm with you in theory and principle, but strategically, this is not a smart decision. The Gorski legacy keeps flashing through my mind....

Maddog5150
07-20-2009, 11:55 AM
There is a dangerous difference between the strategic demonstration of rights, and the flaunting of narcissism.


Wow. I've never seen a better hit on the nail than that.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 11:58 AM
So you only UOC at group events? Odd, you told me at Del Mar on Saturday that you UOC whenever possible, every day if you can. (Fun conversation, BTW--I was glad to meet you, and thanks to your newfound fame you were easy to recognize at the booth.) Did Gene suggest that was all just fine too?

The basic problem here is that nobody really wants to say difficult things to people willing to lay it on the line for the 2A, for both practical and principled reasons. That leaves the problem of how to tell you that at this precise moment this precise mode of activism a hindrance. But I don't represent anybody, and nothing breaks if everyone ends up mad at me, so I try.

You did as well as anyone possibly could with your interview with Rosa, and that's impressive--but you don't seem to acknowledge that in a pre-Sykes world at least, even that interview could still hurt us. And that's the problem. I appreciate your efforts to make contact with people before the interview, even calling me (and I don't think I'm on the short list of strategists by any accounting, so I assume that means you did a *lot* of legwork to get that far down the list). But I told you how the best possible outcome could hurt a lot of other people, in a worse way than the school-zone expansion thing. It didn't do much good.

We dodged the worst bullet, but it's clear the legislative will is there if the wrong idea occurs to the wrong legislators. How many times must you spin the cylinder, point the barrel at a buddy's head, and pull the trigger?

The most frustrating thing is that when we do establish a legally enforceable Right to Bear in CA, and especially when we establish that at least one mode of carry must be unregulated and unlicensed, we'll need you guys. But we need you *at the right time* applying pressure *on the right place.* You're warriors, but apparently not soldiers. Being a warrior carries with it a great deal of personal honor--but soldiers beat warriors every time. It is winning that I care about, not fighting gloriously.

Maybe you have to get older and have kids to understand.

It has occurred to me to drive all the way down to SD sometime to one of your group OC events just to show that I don't have any personal objection other than the strategic one, but it's a long way and perhaps wouldn't make for great dinner conversation if the whole issue of strategy came up.

7x57

My personal day-to-day outings, while published, are not what make the big splashes, group events do. The SD Reader article was in direct response to our Feb. 28th outing, not my blog itself.

How could that article hurt us in a pre-Sykes world? How hasn't that article brought more interest into the gun culture, getting more Calguns.net members and getting people to think about this sort of stuff, particularly out-of-state gun owners or rights enthusiasts? Scuttling along the bottom in murky waters hoping to not be noticed certainly hasn't done much in the last 30-40 years (That isn't a stab at CGF or anyone on CGN, I know that those guys are kicking arse and taking names) and I feel that bringing the subject into the open brings about the discussion and support that we need.

You are near the top for advisory purposes, btw. :)

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 11:59 AM
If the 1500' GFSZ bill is passed without locked container exemption as Bill suggested it might that would be AWESOME!!!!

There is going to be a challenge of the law no matter what. That little tidbit will put it way over the top because it would effectively prevent ANYONE within 1500' of a school from having a handgun in their house for personal defense. That would be a direct affront to Heller and would moot the need for proving "sensitive areas" doesn't apply. Also, the 1500' radius in general would only make it easier to attack the "sensitive areas" claim if they do include a locked container clause. I wish they'd get the radius extended to 2 miles. That would pretty much lock up the suit and get to the point of being so ridiculous as to be summary judgment.

Now of course this is all moot on private property so a homeowner who lives where he can move guns to and from his car without entering a "public space" will be unaffected. Plus there is still an exemption for for CCW. So, if Bill is anti open carry the new law will not effect the vast majority of people who do not UOC and for those non-UOCers who are effected (those living in a home/apartment which requires passage of "public space" to move from their car to home) it is Heller all over again and an absolute slam dunk.

As for the interview. Nate is going to do these interviews. You all know that. For whatever reason he feels they are productive and something he wishes to pursue. You can either get the hell out of his way or offer to work with him to help make the interviews more valuable. If that means CGF works with him on talking points and helps getting media training so be it. Don't ask a leopard to not have spots.

boxbro
07-20-2009, 12:08 PM
In addition the prospective new law may not have locked container exemption so you'll screw folks over that have to exit house and go to their car on the street.

Couldn't that possibly help make it easier to prove that the law is unconstitutional ?

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 12:10 PM
If the 1500' GFSZ bill is passed without locked container exemption as Bill suggested it might that would be AWESOME!!!

Actually, all that would happen would be something like Harrott. Instead of slapping down all of the AWB, it simply took away the AK/AR "Series" ban.

In response to the challenge, all that would be likely to happen is an exemption for locked containers being restored. However, it could possibly be that they'd take away a bit more in an unrelated way.

For instance, don't you think it would make for an interesting point that the Sheriff would have to issue you a CCW for all your handguns if you're living within a school zone and would otherwise be deprived of the means to legally carry your guns into your house? Remember, CCW holders are exempt from 626.9 within school zones for their listed handguns... although I think perhaps that may not apply to OC/LOC with a CCW. Not sure.

As for the interview. Nate is going to do these interviews. You all know that. For whatever reason he feels they are productive and something he wishes to pursue. You can either get the hell out of his way or offer to work with him to help make the interviews more valuable. If that means CGF works with him on talking points and helps getting media training so be it. Don't ask a leopard to not have spots.

Getting the hell out of his way and just shutting up is counter-productive. I guarantee you Nathan is learning things to watch out for as a result of reading this (i.e. if he hadn't thought of telling folks REPEATEDLY during the interview not to OC before reading up on it, he's more likely to say it now).

bwiese
07-20-2009, 12:12 PM
Couldn't that possibly help make it easier to prove that the law is unconstitutional ?

Yeah, but that takes time. Why fight a fight we don't need?
Why not fight the fights we already have in front of us?

All pullnshoot needs to run into is a typical 60 Minutes type reporter.

BTW you'll notice Wayne LaPierre and other NRA staff almost invariably will not do interviews unless they're live/unedited/complete - as opposed to edited tape. Too easy to misquote and 'recontext' a statement, they've been burned before.

When smart folks like that are wary, you'll not wonder why we're worried about someone likely readily perceivable as loudmouth college boy talking about something that will only irritate a situation.

UOC in CA is likely only beneficial in certain circumstances where it can force a lead to more rational CCW issuance. It would be nice to be otherwise but we need to deal with realities.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 12:13 PM
There is a dangerous difference between the strategic demonstration of rights, and the flaunting of narcissism.

Pullinshoot, I'm with you in theory and principle, but strategically, this is not a smart decision. The Gorski legacy keeps flashing through my mind....

I would absolutely LOVE to see this strategy. Anyone have a copy?

7x57
07-20-2009, 12:14 PM
If the 1500' GFSZ bill is passed without locked container exemption as Bill suggested it might that would be AWESOME!!!!

There is going to be a challenge of the law no matter what. That little tidbit will put it way over the top because it would effectively prevent ANYONE within 1500' of a school from having a handgun in their house for personal defense.


This is quite possibly true, though I think of it a a silver lining and not a net positive. It depends on how much we need the additional infringement when we get to court, and I'm hoping we don't need it. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.


if Bill is anti open carry the new law will not effect the vast majority of people who do not UOC and for those non-UOCers who are effected (those living in a home/apartment which requires passage of "public space" to move from their car to home) it is Heller all over again and an absolute slam dunk.


What you're missing is that there is a completely different mode of attack than the school zone, and we're totally vulnerable to it right now, and it would hit everybody. Gene is the one who pointed it out (at least to me, I don't know if the insight originated with him), and I don't like to be in the position of just hoping that it doesn't occur to anyone in Sacramento.

Notice that nobody actually posts it here? That's why. And it cripples our ability to point out *why* UOC is problematic.


As for the interview. Nate is going to do these interviews. You all know that. For whatever reason he feels they are productive and something he wishes to pursue. You can either get the hell out of his way or offer to work with him to help make the interviews more valuable.


These conversations usually end up being more for the kibitzers. It would be good if people reading this and thinking about a little UOC of their own decide to wait for a while.

The order to "charge" will come. :43:


Don't ask a leopard to not have spots.

Nonsense. Nate is a free man, in control of and responsible for his actions. It is the antis who say we're leopards who just can't help being evil, potential baby killers (that's what the school zone law is all about--guns and gun owners are baby killers, keep them away from the babies) and the only solution is to take away the opportunity to be bad. If Nate isn't in control of himself, he's a danger to himself and others. But since he is, it's appropriate to argue that he's choosing wrongly, even though with the best of intentions and admirable courage.

7x57

high_lander
07-20-2009, 12:18 PM
While I have stayed out of the political aspect of Cal Guns, I feel the need to stand up and support Nate on his interview. From what I have read on his blog and such, he seems to be a very well spoken guy, and smart. I am a little amiss at the rebuff he has taken for wanting to do this. We should be supporting him. Honestly, I feel like you guys who don't support this are treating him like a little kid. The guy is taking a some initiative and a little intestinal fortitude and doing what he thinks is right. Doesn't CalGuns support educating the public?

Let's look at this from both sides here. I support Nate's 1A right to say what he wants, to whom he wants, whenever he wants.

However, having worked in news orgs before, I would caution you Nate to be on guard. You just never know. Beware and be aware is my motto. Good luck.

My intention is not to poke anyone in the eye here, but let's pull back and get a little perspective. Thanks.

rynando
07-20-2009, 12:21 PM
Interesting - I haven't heard anything about this until recently. Care to give some more specifics? Is it inner cities seeking sentencing enhancements for drug dealers, or what?

If you go to council/board meetings or follow what's being discussed at muni associations (like the League of California Cities for example) you'll see that things like this have been on the minds of elected, appointed and contracted members of our government for a long time now. If you have the chance to talk to a lowly school board member ask them if they've ever heard the subject of the expansion of the safe zone broached at a state-wide or a regional CSBA (for example) meeting. I'd be willing to bet it's come up quite a bit.

R

gun toting monkeyboy
07-20-2009, 12:23 PM
N8, all I can say is be prepared. Make sure you pound home the point that people need to do some research and follow the laws, no matter how repugnant you find them. We DON'T need some half-wit thinking that is is just fine to go pick his kid up at school wearing a gun. For those of you that are worried about him getting ambushed here, you can probably relax. Most of KOGOs hosts are rabidly pro-gun. And several of their advertisers are local gun stores and shooting ranges. This is probably going to be one of the friendlier venues for him to get his message across. If you guys have other concerns, talk to him directly. Don't turn the forum into a pissing contest to see who is the keeper of the "One True Stratagy". Work together, and don't air your differences in public. And Nate, don't screw the pooch tomorrow. Stay calm, stay rational. Don't go off on tangents about how awful or evil the laws are. Come across as a level-headed ambasador for us. Not a tin-foil-hat militia nutball. Don't let any of the callers get to you. It is very important that YOU seem like the reasonable one. Not a reactionary from the lunatic fringe, as some of the callers are likely to be. Good luck.

-Mb

Hopi
07-20-2009, 12:23 PM
I would absolutely LOVE to see this strategy. Anyone have a copy?

The strategy is unfolding on a very fast-moving timeline, you're an intelligent guy and I think you're purposely ignoring the huge movements that are being made in that respect.

I think most peoples' concerns here is that you're not patient enough to wait for the solidification and incorporation of our RKBA. When we actually have the legally recognized right to keep and bear arms, your UOC stands to become LOC and shall-issue CCW. The later options being much more valuable and desirable to the rights you claim to be demonstrating.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 12:25 PM
If you go to council/board meetings or follow what's being discussed at muni associations (like the League of California Cities for example) you'll see that things like this have been on the minds of elected, appointed and contracted members of our government for a long time now. If you have the chance to talk to a lowly school board member ask them if they've ever heard the subject of the expansion of the safe zone broached at a state-wide or a regional CSBA (for example) meeting. I'd be willing to bet it's come up quite a bit.

I don't have kids (and probably won't), thus schools are only on my mind when worrying about 626.9. I'm not inclined to go contact board members, etc.

However, I HAVE been active in the online gun community since '03 or so and Calguns since late '05. I haven't heard anything about expanding school zones prior to this, other than a "gee, I hope they don't go and do that for whatever reason" from us.

So, if this is something you have information and history on, share it - I suspect there are a lot of us who could benefit from this.

Legasat
07-20-2009, 12:28 PM
From everything I have read in my short time here at Calguns, Nate has conducted himself with highest standards of preparedness and self control.

I see no reason to assume he will do otherwise during this interview.

I'm sure you'll do great!

Looking forward to hearing it.

locosway
07-20-2009, 12:33 PM
With so many people against him going on the air I haven't seen ONE person offer an alternative. You can't just tell someone no, it doesn't work. You must offer a valid alternative to their actions.

Perhaps someone with PR experience can teach him the ins and outs of being interviewed in a live environment. Or, if this movement of UOC is getting so large then perhaps there needs to be an official spokes person for events?

I understand some people have fears of the wrong words being said. Pullnshoot25 seems to know what he's doing, and if anyone where to be speaking about this subject it should probably be him. The only thing I can see going awry is his attitude towards law enforcement. Hopefully when speaking publicly he can put his person feelings aside and just speak facts.

Either way, I fully support Pullnshoot25 with his decision to speak publicly, even if it's about a prior interview. We need more people who are willing to stand up for what is right, even if it is controversial.

7x57
07-20-2009, 12:35 PM
From everything I have read in my short time here at Calguns, Nate has conducted himself with highest standards of preparedness and self control.

I see no reason to assume he will do otherwise during this interview.


For Pete's sake. Are people deaf?

Nobody assumes that. But they do know that it doesn't matter how well Nate does, if the interviewer decides it's a hit piece than a hit piece it will be. End of story. If you don't believe it, then you're a babe in the woods as far as what can be done in an interview. The press controls the piece in the end.

Second--suppose it's all perfect, an the interviewer is fair. It still raises the visibility, and right now we don't want that in Sacramento.

7x57

7x57
07-20-2009, 12:36 PM
With so many people against him going on the air I haven't seen ONE person offer an alternative. You can't just tell someone no, it doesn't work. You must offer a valid alternative to their actions.


Nonsense. When I tell my boy not to touch a hot stove, I don't offer him an alternative. I tell him not to do something that can hurt him.

7x57

eighteenninetytwo
07-20-2009, 12:37 PM
Ok here's a thing. Nate will be going on teh air. that;s fine so instead of carpign baout it. why don't we add to this thread EVERY potential question or trap that can be given to him on air that we could envisage - play the devil's advocate. He can go through the thread tonight and figure out replies to just about every scenario thrown at him. THAT is how we'll help the situation. here's a start : "Don't you think that carrying guns around children send them the wrong message and glorifies violence and send the message that it's cool to have a gun?"

locosway
07-20-2009, 12:39 PM
Nonsense. When I tell my boy not to touch a hot stove, I don't offer him an alternative. I tell him not to do something that can hurt him.

7x57

The stove is hot because you're cooking, which is the alternative to him cooking.

I understand the media can spin a story or do what they will with it, but when does the fear stop? When do we stop being afraid to stand up for what is right?

cousinkix1953
07-20-2009, 12:41 PM
This can, 99% likely, only end badly. I can already see the question: "Are you ready to kill babies today with your semiauto?"
That's when I'd pull the plug on the interview. It's a waste of time dealing with looney people, with such a perverted view of real life.
BTW you'll notice Wayne LaPierre and other NRA staff almost invariably will not do interviews unless they're live/unedited/complete - as opposed to edited tape. Too easy to misquote and 'recontext' a statement, they've been burned before.
I don't blame him either. I have already seen ATF bashing speeches (made by Dem. reps. Dingell and Volkmer atributed to LaPierre); because an edited version was published in the NRA magazines. None of those media outlets dared to mention the original source of the "jack booted thug" speeches, even though they aired them as news stories a few weeks before.
Wouldn't being totally pro gun be the very controversy they seek?
Interviews are one thing. Anybody can call those shows and express their opinion on this topic. A food fight with the Brady Bunch is another matter and can go bad really fast.
Didn't you say that last time?
This is a pretty conservative radio show. Chip Franklin is the guy's name.
The word should go out to all of the allied groups if a certain individual or outlet pulls any dishonest BS. They would be better off not being able to get any interviews from pro-2A groups at all. A complete boycott leaves them with nothing but one sided propaganda and they will look unfair and unbalanced, no matter what they say to the contrary...

locosway
07-20-2009, 12:41 PM
Ok here's a thing. Nate will be going on teh air. that;s fine so instead of carpign baout it. why don't we add to this thread EVERY potential question or trap that can be given to him on air that we could envisage - play the devil's advocate. He can go through the thread tonight and figure out replies to just about every scenario thrown at him. THAT is how we'll help the situation. here's a start : "Don't you think that carrying guns around children send them the wrong message and glorifies violence and send the message that it's cool to have a gun?"

This is better, but the argument here is that the media will spin the story, so no matter how he answers they'll edit and re-release it. I understand this fear, but we can't hide in fear from the media. We need an alternative to this. Perhaps raising money for advertising.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 12:46 PM
With so many people against him going on the air I haven't seen ONE person offer an alternative. You can't just tell someone no, it doesn't work. You must offer a valid alternative to their actions.

The alternative is "wait". Nathan has and will probably always reject that alternative.

Perhaps someone with PR experience can teach him the ins and outs of being interviewed in a live environment. Or, if this movement of UOC is getting so large then perhaps there needs to be an official spokes person for events?

Given the media contact and the amplification effect going on, that spokesperson is Nathan. It should probably be Gene or someone like that, but they won't give interesting enough interviews.

I understand some people have fears of the wrong words being said. Pullnshoot25 seems to know what he's doing, and if anyone where to be speaking about this subject it should probably be him. The only thing I can see going awry is his attitude towards law enforcement. Hopefully when speaking publicly he can put his person feelings aside and just speak facts.

Heard of Michael Moore's "interview" with Charlton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine"?

Anyway, I doubt that this guy is likely to lead him, and as long as there aren't any allowed callers, it will probably be more or less ok. My concerns however are:

1. Mis-sayings that can't be edited (perfect sound bites there); this concern goes AWAY if Nathan's allowed to go over and edit it and it isn't presented live.

2. Idiots hearing part of the program and deciding to go strap on their gun and walk out in a school zone... this can be reduced by REPEATEDLY telling folks not to do it unless they read up on it first, and not just on Nathan's blog (no offense but there's not exactly a big reference section on open carry law there... good chronicle of events, but not a reference)

3.This program could make news and get wind from bigger and more aggressive reporters. Although at the current time there's been a good job of screening, once news agencies start getting more interested, it's only a matter of time before they find "the camo guy" and Nathan is no longer the semi-official go-to guy for interviews. They'll find themselves a loon who'll give them all the sound bites they want, in all the interviews they want, even if the reporter's out to do a hatchet piece.

Those are my concerns. Unfortunately, I don't see any easy way out of them.

locosway
07-20-2009, 12:52 PM
Well put, and understandable.

I don't see how the media interviewing some redneck with a gun on his side has anything to do with any of this. If this trend catches on, which it likely will among 2A peeps and people who want to protect themselves, then there really is NOTHING anyone can do. Eventually there WILL be bad press on this subject. The way to counter that is perhaps through pre-emption with marketing of our own. Rent a bill board, hang freeway banners, and beat the street with people and good information.

We can NOT be afraid of the media, even if they're evil. We need a better alternative then hiding and laying low.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 1:03 PM
The alternative is "wait". Nathan has and will probably always reject that alternative.



Given the media contact and the amplification effect going on, that spokesperson is Nathan. It should probably be Gene or someone like that, but they won't give interesting enough interviews.



Heard of Michael Moore's "interview" with Charlton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine"?

Anyway, I doubt that this guy is likely to lead him, and as long as there aren't any allowed callers, it will probably be more or less ok. My concerns however are:

1. Mis-sayings that can't be edited (perfect sound bites there); this concern goes AWAY if Nathan's allowed to go over and edit it and it isn't presented live.
:eek:

3.This program could make news and get wind from bigger and more aggressive reporters. Although at the current time there's been a good job of screening, once news agencies start getting more interested, it's only a matter of time before they find "the camo guy" and Nathan is no longer the semi-official go-to guy for interviews. They'll find themselves a loon who'll give them all the sound bites they want, in all the interviews they want, even if the reporter's out to do a hatchet piece.

Those are my concerns. Unfortunately, I don't see any easy way out of them.

That was the concern with the SD Reader article as well. I also have my concerns for doing anything past local news.

Also, I am not beyond waiting. I stood down on open carry (http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/search?q=standing+down) for a month in '08. If asked again as an official demand from Gene then I would most likely comply with that. I won't be anyone's toy nor pissing post but I am certainly not beyond reason.

berto
07-20-2009, 1:03 PM
Well put, and understandable.

I don't see how the media interviewing some redneck with a gun on his side has anything to do with any of this. If this trend catches on, which it likely will among 2A peeps and people who want to protect themselves, then there really is NOTHING anyone can do. Eventually there WILL be bad press on this subject. The way to counter that is perhaps through pre-emption with marketing of our own. Rent a bill board, hang freeway banners, and beat the street with people and good information.

We can NOT be afraid of the media, even if they're evil. We need a better alternative then hiding and laying low.

The tinfoil and camo redneck the media will find won't limit his discussion to open carry. He'll hit other issues and do it in colorful non-PC terms. That's a step or three backwards for us in winning the minds if not the hearts of the undecided. Part of our fight is breaking through the stereotype so we can make our case.

We need to pick our battles and limit the opportunitiy for bad press. The fight is being pressed in court. Why compromise that fight?

locosway
07-20-2009, 1:11 PM
I agree 100% with that statement. However, we can not control that situation. So what's the best thing to do? Perhaps get our agenda out in the public eye as much as possible to show people it's not what that tin foil hat wearing tard says it is.

I'm just throwing ideas out there, that's all.

berto
07-20-2009, 1:27 PM
I agree 100% with that statement. However, we can not control that situation. So what's the best thing to do? Perhaps get our agenda out in the public eye as much as possible to show people it's not what that tin foil hat wearing tard says it is.

I'm just throwing ideas out there, that's all.

Getting our agenda out involves picking message, messenger, and format. There's a time and place for everything. For many of us the good that might come from Nate's interview is outweighed by the bad that might result.

stuckinhippytown
07-20-2009, 1:36 PM
For now, for a reason: if one of you UOCers gets shot - and it will happen - it creates a sh*tstorm.

And some of you guys already triggered the increase in school zone radius.

And few or none of you UOC guys have gone thru all CCW application steps so that a bust would have some value.

Hey wheres the Proof on this??? Link please

7x57
07-20-2009, 1:38 PM
My personal day-to-day outings, while published, are not what make the big splashes, group events do. The SD Reader article was in direct response to our Feb. 28th outing, not my blog itself.


Well, so far as I can see even the group events don't make any sense and I don't know why Gene was less worried about them. I think they're all a problem at least until the legislative season ends, and perhaps for one or two more depending on how Sykes goes and what happens afterwards. I am not Gene's mouthpiece, and I can't say what his thinking was on that, I can only relay my own.


How could that article hurt us in a pre-Sykes world?


Easily. We have no case law on which to litigate yet--we're trying to build it. That means that there is plenty of unconstitutional stuff we can't get struck down because we don't have the precedent that says it's unconstitutional, and if we provoke more laws like that then it may be some time before we can attack them. And if we have to attack them, that slows down our attacks on other things.

Then there is the problem that it potentially surrenders the strategic initiative. For my lifetime, we have been in reactive mode. In fact, the entire gun rights movement is a reaction. Nobody was organized when the Sullivan law was passed, or when the NFA was passed. When the GCA was passed I believe the message finally got through to the NRA that if it was to carry out its mission to promote civilian marksmanship, it would have to transform itself into an organization that can fight to keep civilian marksmanship legal. So in reaction to half a century of creeping Infringement, people started creating a gun rights movement. But we were always on the strategic defensive (and usually on the tactical defensive too). We reacted to their actions on the battlefield of their choosing. I trust you understand how bad that reality has been for us. But just in case, here (http://vaxxine.com/scon/selfdef.htm) is an article pointing out how it is precisely how the Right to Arms was lost in most of the rest of the English-speaking world. They have no supra-statute legal Right, so they are *always* on the defensive. Until Heller, we were in precisely the same strategic situation.

Right now, because of Heller, we are on the strategic offensive for the first time in my lifetime--and therefore for the first time in the history of the entire movement (I was born a year before the GCA, therefore a few years before the NRA figured out how to transform itself into an effective lobby). The crucial thing about that is that we can pick our battles carefully. That's what CGF is doing--picking the ones that build on each other.

This is precisely what the civil rights lawyers did. Early in the movement, did they want interracial couples kissing on Main Street? You better believe they didn't. Why? Because they believed that miscegenation laws were Constitutional? Because they intended to throw interracial couples under the bus? Hardly. It was because they knew that up to a point, they could not win on those issues, but if they won elsewhere there would come a time when they *could* win on those issues.

UOC in *California* is like interracial couples kissing in segregated Mississippi. As far as guns go, California is still segregated. And it could force us into issues that will screw up everything, including ultimately the Right to Bear. Or, it could just delay things we'd not like to delay on. And, if Gene's scenario becomes fact, that delay could kill people.

What happens when a San Diego representative is deciding whether to vote for the school zone extension in spite of Ed Worley's arm-twisting. Do you think publicity for UOC might just push one or two over the edge? What happens when such an article makes someone think harder about how to well and truly get rid of UOC and figures out how to do it much more effectively than school zone extension? I already told you how that could happen. Will it? I don't know, but I don't like putting the barrel to my head and dropping the hammer to find out.


How hasn't that article brought more interest into the gun culture, getting more Calguns.net members and getting people to think about this sort of stuff, particularly out-of-state gun owners or rights enthusiasts? Scuttling along the bottom in murky waters hoping to not be noticed certainly hasn't done much in the last 30-40 years (That isn't a stab at CGF or anyone on CGN, I know that those guys are kicking arse and taking names) and I feel that bringing the subject into the open brings about the discussion and support that we need.


Then your feelings don't reflect the battlefield reality. You have the vast, and I mean vast, misunderstanding that we have fought the way we have since the GCA because we were trying not to be noticed. Maybe it looks that way in CA, but it ain't true. We did it because we had to stay alive, keep the gun culture intact, and minimize damage. We were fighting a losing war, and so long as the legal situation remained unchanged it was a losing war. We fought anyway, like King Alfred spending a year hiding in the swamps. I suppose people accused him of some kind of cowardice or lack of aggressiveness too. Staying alive was *important*; if gun rights became legally feasible tomorrow in Britain, it wouldn't matter because I think they've lost the gun culture. They cannot get it back, because not enough people know why it is worth fighting for.

In our case, fighting no matter how bad the long-term prospects were, "Scuttling along the bottom in murky waters hoping to not be noticed" as you say, is what allowed us to keep the army in the field and learn some very hard but necessary lessons while the scholarship was being done that proves that we are right about what the 2A says. It is frankly disrespectful to the people who did what it took to make sure that you can legally own a gun and a lot more. They're the ones that fought state-by-state and vote-by-vote for CCW, and CCW is probably the single most important factor in why we're winning the hearts-and-minds war. They fought when it was legally hopeless and won the hearts-and-minds war while keeping the army in being for the time when there would be a legally feasible avenue of attack. They did that for you, those cowards. You owe them thanks, not scorn. We do not criticize the British because they didn't go on the offensive during the Battle of Britain. We marvel that they stayed in the fight and prepared for North Africa, Sicily, and ultimately Normandy.

We're not on the offensive because we got smarter--we're on the offensive because we have Heller and Nordyke. And it's pretty clear that OC--real OC--is on the plate in the future. And at that point, it's rather likely that we'll need people willing to do it when it's dangerous. Like you. At some point, someone will have to OC in SF and LA before those cities have cried uncle. How do we get the police to respond to a "Man with gun" call with a big yawn, as they do in some states? Mostly by habituating them to the reality that it causes no trouble, not just securing a theoretical right. My guess is that that is when we'll need people with the courage and determination to OC as you are doing.

Do you remember that I said that you'd get harassed by the police until there is a downside *for them* in over-reacting, because there are Federal civil rights issues involved? I said we had to put a lawyer on your shoulder and make sure the cops know he is there. We haven't put him there--yet. But I have absolutely no doubt that CGF, the NRA, and CRPA will do everything possible to put him there.

But you have to give them time to line up the balls before trying to put them in the pockets.

And while "gun culture" issues are important, they are not the front line right now. They were the front line when it was the only thing standing between us and far worse laws that the courts would have upheld. And in a few years they may be again, when we have the *right* to carry but still need to convince the public that it's a good idea. OC may even be the best way, at that time. But right now we need to very carefully establish the precedents that will get us there. Right now, the front line is not "spreading the word" or publicity. Right now, it is forcing the states to obey the law. And that's the problem--OC, in California, can get in the way of that.


You are near the top for advisory purposes, btw. :)

While flattery will get you everywhere, and I come cheap on that score, I have to disclaim expertise. I just have a big, big mouth. :chris:

If I ever have the chance to get down there for one of your events, how about if I show up with an empty holster to symbolize my belief that I have the right and it's being infringed, but it isn't quite time yet to fill that holster? ;)

7x57

Turbinator
07-20-2009, 1:43 PM
However, I HAVE been active in the online gun community since '03 or so

Heh - I went back and checked when I first started posting on a public group about firearms.. October 1993.

Turby

Legasat
07-20-2009, 1:59 PM
For Pete's sake. Are people deaf?

Nobody assumes that. But they do know that it doesn't matter how well Nate does, if the interviewer decides it's a hit piece than a hit piece it will be. End of story. If you don't believe it, then you're a babe in the woods as far as what can be done in an interview. The press controls the piece in the end.

Second--suppose it's all perfect, an the interviewer is fair. It still raises the visibility, and right now we don't want that in Sacramento.

7x57

Not we get to the real issue, when you say "we".

Nate doesn't have the right to do what he thinks is the proper course of action for him?

7x57
07-20-2009, 2:07 PM
Not we get to the real issue, when you say "we".

Nate doesn't have the right to do what he thinks is the proper course of action for him?

Jackie Robinson had the right to defend himself if attacked, and to protect himself from indignity. And yet he chose to suffer enormous indignity, and to turn the other cheek. His history shows this was *not* his natural inclination--it was a very disciplined effort.

Why do you think he did that? Was it because he didn't care about his civil rights? I leave the rest of the connections for you to make.

7x57

PS: Jackie Robinson won.

Legasat
07-20-2009, 2:12 PM
I don't disagree with you, my only point is that it's Nate's decision.

locosway
07-20-2009, 2:23 PM
7x57, that was a good read, and I think if people take the time to read it they will see what's going on and understand what you mean. While I would love to OC as a statement, I do not have the money for a lawsuit if I was charged with a crime. At this time I'd limit my OC to private residence and BLM land.

I only have one question. You made a lot of reference to the civil rights movement particularly that of AA's. If people didn't test the waters, would there even have been reform for them? Doesn't it take a showing of will for people to pickup that there is a problem? Perhaps this is where OC is encouraged for those who can afford it, but media attention is frowned upon.

AlexDD
07-20-2009, 2:23 PM
Having firearms is my hobby but here is a some advice from my professional side. Take it for what it is ... One person's opinion.

Having worked as a government official for many years, I can tell you speaking with the media is a delicate affair. I don't like doing it but have to do it when they call. I have been involved in developing strategies for many public related items for different subjects and hired public affairs consultants for controversial projects to help out. I am amazed at how effective a "good" public relations firm can be in delivering a message, training your folks on how to answer questions, etc... I have learned much over my career and haven't even scratched the surface.

Everyone thinks they know how to deliver messages but it takes practice especially when talking to certain elements in the media. The media is there to get an interesting story that boosts whatever is their market share. Don't forget the editor who can take the information from the reporter/newscaster and modify to his or her liking.

It is better when you have developed a relationship with the media person over time. You know what to expect. I have had discussions with some reporters, asked them to repeat back what they were going to quote me and been amazed how they misinterpreted. Furthermore, I have found even later when the article was printed some how it was not what I said.

I realize this is a radio interview. Live interviews are better. Taped interviews are to be avoided. They may take bits and pieces of your answers and jumble them to their perspective.

When interviewed for radio or tv, don't be emotional. Stay calm. Know your talking points and key messages. Go slow. Be ok with awkward silence and don't feel the need to fill the void if you don't have your words ready. Also, there is a whole art of not answering the question but getting your message out in the attempt. Anything you say, will last a lifetime. Choose your words carefully.

Listen to public comment of a council or agency meeting on the web. There are speakers that are well spoken and those, well, I'll save my comments.

Practice with someone knowledgeable. Tape yourself. Show it to others. Get critiqued. Have others listen that don't know the issue. It is probably too late for tomorrow's interview but advice for the future.

My advice to you, you won't want to hear. Don't do the interview.

If you are going to do the interview, good luck and hope my words are of some benefit.

Lastly as an aside, the more exposure an issue gets the more you may have elected officials listen. This is not necessarily a good thing. When you are on an unpopular side of an issue, one of the most dangerous things that can be said by an elected official to staff is "What can we do about this?" You be amazed at what happens when the elected officials get calls from their constituency saying they have to do something. It is better to have the law on the side of the issue in a concrete manner. It narrows the impact of what a well meaning elected official may want to legislate and/or direct staff to change policy. There is something to be said about staying under the radar screen.

That's it. YMMV. I'll go back to enjoying my hobby. Good luck with whatever you choose.

demnogis
07-20-2009, 2:44 PM
Congrats pullnshoot25! There's a lot of opinion on this thread. I still see a large lack of facts. Most of the responses are against OC being in the lime light.

I feel the 2nd A community in CA is as divided as ever on carry. Sadly, it shouldn't be that way. In turn we should be more like WI. It seems their gun 2nd A community is in full support of OC and CC. I think one of the best ways to get fellow gun owners involved in their 2A rights is to make them aware of most all aspects of the exercise of that right. To just push and petition the privilege of CC without the right to carry is a hollow endeavor imho.

Pullnshoot25 can bring more positive light to OC/CC/2A rights in the public arena. I only make one suggestion... Make sure to get a digital copy for yourself! There is a lot of fear of snippets being misused and construed. It sounds like KOGO is a little more conservative. Hopefully they'll open it up to public phone-calls and discussion.

7x57
07-20-2009, 3:12 PM
I only have one question. You made a lot of reference to the civil rights movement particularly that of AA's. If people didn't test the waters, would there even have been reform for them? Doesn't it take a showing of will for people to pickup that there is a problem? Perhaps this is where OC is encouraged for those who can afford it, but media attention is frowned upon.

So far as I can tell, as a casual amateur, the smarter civil rights lawyers were quite careful about how it was done. Remember --segregation was *legal*! So they had to be careful and incremental, because their ultimate goal was to dismantle controlling precedent. That's precisely the case with gun laws, and why the analogy works well.

I seem to recall that the NAACP would discourage lawsuits that they believed in, because it wasn't the right time or the right plaintiff. That's the point I was making. If they had started with interracial marriage, they would at minimum have been set back a long ways. Did they think mixed couples had the right to be left alone? Sure. But they didn't yet have the right situation to challenge such things.

I picked mixed couples simply because that was a cultural hot-button issue that was best avoided when there was lower-hanging fruit available. There were plenty of people who didn't support any other race laws besides that sort. I know that for a fact, for family reasons.

I'm less sure on this detail, but it is the general strategy at least: if a black man can get beat up for going to the polls, then you don't challenge the poll tax. You go to court and argue that your squeaky-clean plaintiff is happy to pay the poll tax, but he's prevented from voting by lawlessness. It's an easier win, and gets more sympathy from fence-sitters. You go after the tax itself only after you first get the more fundamental issue resolved in your favor. Seem like the CGF strategy of going after shall-issue (effectively) for CCW permits instead of the permits themselves? Which would be more satisfying? Challenging permits on the Right to Bear. What are we doing? Telling the court we'd be happy to get the permit, if only we were allowed. Why? Strategy.

But I trust it won't be the end of the story. :43:

I'm going to quit on that civil-rights movement stuff because those are casual and poorly-informed observations and someone here will know a lot better than me how it was done precisely. But I do often compare these things to Jackie Robinson's situation. I seem to recall that as a soldier he was far from a silent sufferer. But to crack baseball, he had to go a different route. He wanted to win even more than he wanted to retaliate. Generally I personally find that inspiring when I'm annoyed with putting up with where we are now. Plus, it's an LA story and seems appropriate.

7x57

eflatminor
07-20-2009, 3:24 PM
Ok here's a thing. Nate will be going on teh air. that;s fine so instead of carpign baout it. why don't we add to this thread EVERY potential question or trap that can be given to him on air that we could envisage - play the devil's advocate. He can go through the thread tonight and figure out replies to just about every scenario thrown at him. THAT is how we'll help the situation. here's a start : "Don't you think that carrying guns around children send them the wrong message and glorifies violence and send the message that it's cool to have a gun?"

Stop with the logic and reason.

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 3:27 PM
This is a pretty underhanded and smart*ss remark from someone who otherwise appears an intelligent human being.

Again I ask to see the cost/benefit analysis you've performed for these actions; so far, all you've done is continue to raise the bar to us proving the negative effects of UOC.

I would absolutely LOVE to see this strategy. Anyone have a copy?

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 3:31 PM
We need a better alternative then hiding and laying low.

It's called teamwork. We have plenty of opportunities right here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2796748&postcount=2). Why can't just half the passion and time of the UOCers be channeled into things that have and will have concrete results?

locosway
07-20-2009, 3:35 PM
7x57, that makes sense. Thanks for the time to explain your views with such detail.

locosway
07-20-2009, 3:36 PM
It's called teamwork. We have plenty of opportunities right here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2796748&postcount=2). Why can't just half the passion and time of the UOCers be channeled into things that have and will have concrete results?

I'm currently unemployed so I've offered to volunteer. I sent a PM to someone who was looking, not sure how that went because I never heard anything back.

I'm in North OC obviously, and I'm willing to put in time weekly at this time.

Flying Bones
07-20-2009, 3:37 PM
Stop with the logic and reason.

+1. It obviously doesn't work.
Dude's playing with fire and gasoline. Despite a general consensus that he has less to gain than we stand to lose he's willing to chance years of hard work and countless amounts of $$ for seconds of air time.

:90:

All of this while he CAPS "EAT IT" on another thread...ugh.

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 3:38 PM
What you're basically saying that I am the SOLE cause of the current legislation? Dude, I don't even live in LA and I will not be held accountable for LA gun owner's actions.

No, every UOCer is responsible for the pushback.

If you guys really REALLY have a problem with it, go whine to Gene about it. I talked with him about this a while ago (as I did 7x57 and others) and while he doesn't OC himself for the same reasons as a lot of you guys he did say that group events, like the ones we have been doing down here in San Diego, are just fine. If he had a change of heart, he would have let me know by any of my 10 routes of communication, not one of which has been utilized.

I *highly* suspect that you're either mischaracterizing Gene's comments, or simply misunderstood him. Regardless, even if UOC had received a Papal blessing and a slap on the ***** by NRA/CGF it wouldn't change the fact that it [currently] has little upside and tons of risk.

Sometimes the most effective method of exercising a right is to practice educated restraint.

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 3:39 PM
I'm currently unemployed so I've offered to volunteer. I sent a PM to someone who was looking, not sure how that went because I never heard anything back.

I'm in North OC obviously, and I'm willing to put in time weekly at this time.

I received your PM on 7/14. I haven't forgotten about you; we'll be mobilizing soon.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 3:42 PM
No, every UOCer is responsible for the pushback.

Assuming facts not in evidence, including some contrary to logic as applied to the history (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=204874).

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 3:45 PM
Assuming facts not in evidence, including some contrary to logic as applied to the history (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=204874).

I said pushback, N6- who is making the assumptions here?

high_lander
07-20-2009, 3:47 PM
There is inherent risk in everything we do. Putting your head in the sand and hoping it will work out in the courts is not the answer. While I applaud the legal efforts of the CGF and the lawyers for our side, I also applaud Nate for having the stones to do what he does. He inspired me to educate myself about OC and when I was ready to do it, Theseus' case came up. I live the same city as him and now think maybe not a good idea. However, he knew the risk and is now paying for it.

Nate, do what YOU think is right. You guys who say no automatically assume he will flub/come off as a loon. If he does, well now we know for sure. But you have to give him that chance. Reserve your judgment for something he said, not what he MIGHT say.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 3:48 PM
This is a pretty underhanded and smart*ss remark from someone who otherwise appears an intelligent human being.

Again I ask to see the cost/benefit analysis you've performed for these actions; so far, all you've done is continue to raise the bar to us proving the negative effects of UOC.

Why is it underhanded and smartass? My very first blog post I stated my intentions and goals so everyone knows where I stand, my plans, etc. All I see on these threads about UOC are that "it isn't strategic" or 'that isn't the strategy" or something related to strategems or whatever but nothing to show "Here, this is what we are shooting for". Even if it were a very loose road map I would be totally set with it, just so that I know what general direction we are going into.

Here is my initial cost/benefit analysis. If it needs tweaking let me know, as I am without parameters.

Cost: My time, my gun, a little frustration at being violated and some time from other collaborative correspondents.
Benefits: Destigmatizing the sociological perception of the common gun owner, changing the way people think about firearms, reaching out to closet gun owners living in an oppressive state, opening communication pathways with curious citizens, informing people of their rights and the law, getting people over to Calguns.net to participate in the vibrant community we have here, getting people over to our booth at the gun show (had a bunch come over asking about the OC story and I won't be surprised if more ask at the other shows in this state), working on getting law enforcement to follow the law, providing evidence for the eventual overturning of 12031 by showing that police officers are actively engaging in repressive activities, fighting the good fight at the front lines and showing the rest of the states that California has at least something left, etc.

So that's what I came up with in 5 minutes. If that isn't what you were looking for, let me know and I will provide it.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 3:52 PM
No, every UOCer is responsible for the pushback.



I *highly* suspect that you're either mischaracterizing Gene's comments, or simply misunderstood him. Regardless, even if UOC had received a Papal blessing and a slap on the ***** by NRA/CGF it wouldn't change the fact that it [currently] has little upside and tons of risk.

Sometimes the most effective method of exercising a right is to practice educated restraint.

He called me and told me his viewpoint on it. I haven't mischaracterized anything. The reason we even have those group events is because he said they were OK and at least educational.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 3:53 PM
I said pushback, N6- who is making the assumptions here?

I think the only assumption I made was that I knew what you meant by pushback.

What actually happened was push-forward, in my view...

In a world... where time machines exist.

Like killing Sarah Connor to prevent John Connor's birth, they started before the UOC movement had even gotten off the ground. In other words, they screwed law-abiding gun owners for screwing law-abiding gun owners' sake, just as they've always done, no push from us needed to push back upon, at all.

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 3:58 PM
Nate, I believe you to be far more intelligent and intuitive than as represented by this post. If you are, why are you playing coy? If you're not, what makes you think you're the appropriate voice for 2A?

Why is it underhanded and smartass? My very first blog post I stated my intentions and goals so everyone knows where I stand, my plans, etc. All I see on these threads about UOC are that "it isn't strategic" or 'that isn't the strategy" or something related to strategems or whatever but nothing to show "Here, this is what we are shooting for". Even if it were a very loose road map I would be totally set with it, just so that I know what general direction we are going into.

Here is my initial cost/benefit analysis. If it needs tweaking let me know, as I am without parameters.

Cost: My time, my gun, a little frustration at being violated and some time from other collaborative correspondents.
Benefits: Destigmatizing the sociological perception of the common gun owner, changing the way people think about firearms, reaching out to closet gun owners living in an oppressive state, opening communication pathways with curious citizens, informing people of their rights and the law, getting people over to Calguns.net to participate in the vibrant community we have here, getting people over to our booth at the gun show (had a bunch come over asking about the OC story and I won't be surprised if more ask at the other shows in this state), working on getting law enforcement to follow the law, providing evidence for the eventual overturning of 12031 by showing that police officers are actively engaging in repressive activities, fighting the good fight at the front lines and showing the rest of the states that California has at least something left, etc.

So that's what I came up with in 5 minutes. If that isn't what you were looking for, let me know and I will provide it.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 4:05 PM
Nate, I believe you to be far more intelligent and intuitive than as represented by this post. If you are, why are you playing coy? If you're not, what makes you think you're the appropriate voice for 2A?

OK, now I am genuinely confused. I just gave you what I thought you wanted, which is my honest opinion of what I think I am doing with my OC activities, and the only thing that you can come up with is that either I am playing dumb or that I am not as intelligent as previously thought.

What is it that you want, exactly?

GuyW
07-20-2009, 4:06 PM
8 am KOGO? I think all of the holst there are pro-gun...

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 4:07 PM
Rick Roberts is KFMB-AM.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 4:10 PM
OK, now I am genuinely confused. I just gave you what I thought you wanted, which is my honest opinion of what I think I am doing with my OC activities, and the only thing that you can come up with is that either I am playing dumb or that I am not as intelligent as previously thought.

What is it that you want, exactly?

The food of your choice to end your life tonight. - Sean Cullen

If a mentally sound veteran of the 2A Cold War, with both successful print and live radio interview experience isn't the appropriate voice for 2A, then NOBODY IS. Or, if you aren't Wayne LaPierre, you're chop suey.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 4:15 PM
OK, now I am genuinely confused. I just gave you what I thought you wanted, which is my honest opinion of what I think I am doing with my OC activities, and the only thing that you can come up with is that either I am playing dumb or that I am not as intelligent as previously thought.

What is it that you want, exactly?

I think in the "Costs" column, I suspect he thinks it's coy that you haven't added in maybe's such as irritating the legislature into new bans, etc. I'm not sure if that's what's bugging him or not, however.

GuyW
07-20-2009, 4:15 PM
Gawd, I love the "I'm the only one here perfeshional enuff that I know to do this..." atmosphere in this thread...

.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 4:21 PM
I think in the "Costs" column, I suspect he thinks it's coy that you haven't added in maybe's such as irritating the legislature into new bans, etc. I'm not sure if that's what's bugging him or not, however.

Clinging to the contentious myth that

every UOCer is responsible for the pushback

can certainly lead some to believe that UOCers, no matter what they say or do, are coy at best, disingenuous and bad 2A representatives at the worst.

Of course this would ignore the actual bad 2A representation we've groaned over so many times in the past.

Still not sure how you can push back against something that hasn't been big enough to notice yet, but I guess that'll happen when you believe time machines are out of our current scientific ability.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 4:28 PM
I think in the "Costs" column, I suspect he thinks it's coy that you haven't added in maybe's such as irritating the legislature into new bans, etc. I'm not sure if that's what's bugging him or not, however.

Going on that tidbit of information.

1) Potentially being an annoyance to the legislature and TPTB and causing them to perhaps pass more laws or modify existing ones.
2) Causing an annoyance to cops.
3) Getting hung up on bogus charges
4) More in-fighting on CGN?

HotRails
07-20-2009, 4:30 PM
I admire your dedication to this cause, but I still think you should consider some of the other posts here. Far from being shy, many of the elder members here have had years of experience that have taught them to fight smarter and choose their battles wisely. Good luck.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 4:33 PM
4) More in-fighting on CGN?

LOL should plead the 5th on that one unless you want to be banned for riot instigation!
:p

st.clouds
07-20-2009, 4:36 PM
Humm well I'm still young, so... best of luck :)

Python2
07-20-2009, 4:46 PM
Well, I am super senior citizen in IPSC match age category:43:.......but....good luck anyway. Just make sure you dont trip:) I will be tuning in tomorrow.

jazman
07-20-2009, 4:48 PM
How are you going to handle the people who have done home work browsing this Forum and come up with questions you don't expect, like, or agree with? With the amount you have posted here in the past some could make you out as some one not the best to be the face of UOC. If they can make you look foolish or worse you lose way more than you can gain.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 4:50 PM
How are you going to handle the people who have done home work browsing this Forum and come up with questions you don't expect, like, or agree with? With the amount you have posted here in the past some could make you out as some one not the best to be the face of UOC. If they can make you look foolish or worse you lose way more than you can gain.

Put anyone under a microscope and you will find flaws.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 4:51 PM
Put anyone under a microscope and you will find flaws.

Err... is there something about Taylor Swift here you're not telling us? Did you try it?

JTecalo
07-20-2009, 4:54 PM
I'll tune in online, good luck on the interview.

7x57
07-20-2009, 4:55 PM
...can certainly lead some to believe that UOCers, no matter what they say or do, are coy at best, disingenuous and bad 2A representatives at the worst.


Who is saying that? The opposite is true--the objections are often muted by the evident fact that UOC takes a great deal of courage and determination. Nobody wants to criticize laying your safety on the line for the 2A. I don't, either.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. C'est de la folie. -- It is magnificent, but it is not war. It is madness.


We must not lose our own light brigade before we have created a weakness in the enemy line for them to exploit. But we must also not drive them away so that they are not ready when the weakness is exploitable. That is a real conundrum, isn't it?

7x57

jazman
07-20-2009, 4:55 PM
Put anyone under a microscope and you will find flaws.

The problem is you are putting yourself under a microscope...and loving it clearly. I don't think you realize what could come up.

7x57
07-20-2009, 5:01 PM
The problem is you are putting yourself under a microscope...and loving it clearly. I don't think you realize what could come up.

I remember an interview on national TV, many years ago, when Ted Koppel gently reminded an interviewee that life wasn't as simple as he thought it was, and that he had no idea what could be done with some work in the cutting room.

But I prefer the immortal words of, I think it was, his Red Eminence: "give me ten words by the most honest man in France, and I will find something to hang him."

7x57

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 5:09 PM
The problem is you are putting yourself under a microscope...and loving it clearly. I don't think you realize what could come up.

No, I am putting myself out there, not under a microscope. There is a difference.

ajaffe
07-20-2009, 5:22 PM
Wouldn't pulling out of an interview that was already committed to cause a bigger hubbub than just going through with it?
The only thing I could recommend is to take a few seconds to review each answer before letting it fly. But in reality, I am sure you will be fine and that far too much weight is being placed on this.
Let me know about the next UOC :).

jazman
07-20-2009, 5:30 PM
No, I am putting myself out there, not under a microscope. There is a difference.

The microscope was your quote. The flaws still remain.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 5:31 PM
Err... is there something about Taylor Swift here you're not telling us? Did you try it?

She has no flaws, actually. In fact, anyone on my Celebrity Hottie List has nothing wrong with them.

hamster
07-20-2009, 5:42 PM
Has anyone actually listened to the host? Seems like lots of you are assuming this guy is anti-gun.... listen to him... he starts talking about the OC article at 12:55 of the 8 o'clock hour of 7-20-09.

http://www.am600kogo.com/pages/chip_ondemand_01.html

Quote from the host:
"I love this idea of testing our system to see if they understand our rights."

Brown Rock
07-20-2009, 5:45 PM
Stan Humphries, former pro quarterback of the San Diego Chargers is a calguns member?

CitaDeL
07-20-2009, 5:52 PM
My, 15 pages. Surely this has instigated a lively debate over 'should he' or 'shouldnt he'?

I won't even enter the debate about open carry.

What would be nice though, is if we refrained from castigating Nate in anticipation of failure. Nothing primes the pumps like a little more pressure from those he would hope to defend, right?

Why dont we listen to Nate being interviewed and give our constructive criticism AFTER it is done?

.454
07-20-2009, 6:01 PM
You guys need to cool down and stop reacting like hysterical women. Nate did great with his Reader interview were Rosa was an unknown factor in the equation. Considering AM 600 is a conservative media outlet who is broadcasting Rush and Hannity (can't get more God, Guns and Country than that) I'm sure Nate will do even better tomorrow on his live radio interview. Relax people, the interview won't be conducted by Rosie O'Donnell and pullnshoot looks like an articulate and intelligent young man who is more than capable to represent responsible gun owners.

Nate, you have my support. Go kill'em buddy!

JTecalo
07-20-2009, 6:02 PM
My, 15 pages. Surely this has instigated a lively debate over 'should he' or 'shouldnt he'?

I won't even enter the debate about open carry.

What would be nice though, is if we refrained from castigating Nate in anticipation of failure. Nothing primes the pumps like a little more pressure from those he would hope to defend, right?

Why dont we listen to Nate being interviewed and give our constructive criticism AFTER it is done?

+1 no need to make him more nervous

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 6:04 PM
You guys need to cool down and stop reacting like hysterical women. Nate did great with his Reader interview were Rosa was an unknown factor in the equation.

Err, Rosa was actually screened a lot more than you give us credit for. She was FAR from an unknown by the time she met us for the Reader article.

Relax people, the interview won't be conducted by Rosie O'Donnell and pullnshoot looks like an articulate and intelligent young man who is more than capable to represent responsible gun owners.

TBH, I don't think anyone is actually worried about the INTERVIEWER on this one. We're more worried about sound bites, idiots blundering into 626.9 (like the guy I just read about on Craigslist rants+raves San Diego who open carried for the first time a few days ago - unaware that a lot of Parkway Plaza is actually within 1000' of a school!), etc.

Edit: I've added the link to the "first timer's" post on Craigslist - but be aware, there are some NWS images on the page at the bottom:

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/rnr/1278591657.html

The biggest problem with OC right now, is that with the media splash coming out, people are jumping into it without doing an adequate amount of research. There was also an org planning an upcoming event (no further details, don't bother asking) which we just found out today was inside a fracking school zone too!

626.9 is NOT a game, and unfortunately the people reading articles and hearing interviews just aren't getting that through their heads just yet. Unfortunately, Nate's going to have to sound like a broken record about researching school zones tomorrow in order to get through some of the number skulls out there...

.454
07-20-2009, 6:17 PM
Err, Rosa was actually screened a lot more than you give us credit for. She was FAR from an unknown by the time she met us for the Reader article.



TBH, I don't think anyone is actually worried about the INTERVIEWER on this one. We're more worried about sound bites, idiots blundering into 626.9 (like the guy I just read about on Craigslist rants+raves San Diego who open carried for the first time a few days ago - unaware that a lot of PP is actually within 1000' of a school!), etc.

Grammaton,

As the Romans said "Alea Jacta Est"
The decision was made already; all the worries, criticism and Cassandra prophecies won't do nothing but put more pressure on his shoulders and cause him to do mistakes he otherwise could easily avoid. Let Nate be Nate and I'm sure he'll do just great promoting our cause.

Nate, there is one advice I hope you will take from me and remember tomorrow: tomorrow don't forget your sense of humor at home. A good joke placed at the right time can make up for ten mistakes.

P.S. Right now I'm listening to Chip's 8AM podcast talking about the Reader article. He seems to be very gun friendly.

GuyW
07-20-2009, 6:18 PM
Edit: I've added the link to the "first timer's" post on Craigslist - but be aware, there are some NWS images on the page at the bottom:
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/rnr/1278591657.html


Wow - some reasoned discourse there on Craigslist....
.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 6:21 PM
Err, Rosa was actually screened a lot more than you give us credit for. She was FAR from an unknown by the time she met us for the Reader article.



TBH, I don't think anyone is actually worried about the INTERVIEWER on this one. We're more worried about sound bites, idiots blundering into 626.9 (like the guy I just read about on Craigslist rants+raves San Diego who open carried for the first time a few days ago - unaware that a lot of Parkway Plaza is actually within 1000' of a school!), etc.

Edit: I've added the link to the "first timer's" post on Craigslist - but be aware, there are some NWS images on the page at the bottom:

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/rnr/1278591657.html

The biggest problem with OC right now, is that with the media splash coming out, people are jumping into it without doing an adequate amount of research. There was also an org planning an upcoming event (no further details, don't bother asking) which we just found out today was inside a fracking school zone too!

626.9 is NOT a game, and unfortunately the people reading articles and hearing interviews just aren't getting that through their heads just yet. Unfortunately, Nate's going to have to sound like a broken record about researching school zones tomorrow in order to get through some of the number skulls out there...

What... what...what...what... what...what...What... what...what...what... what...what...what... what...what...what... what...what...what... what...what...what... what...what...what... what...what...what... what... ;)

I will stress that tomorrow, fret not.

Also, I emailed that guy.

Hopi
07-20-2009, 6:22 PM
That was the concern with the SD Reader article as well. I also have my concerns for doing anything past local news.

Also, I am not beyond waiting. I stood down on open carry (http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/search?q=standing+down) for a month in '08. If asked again as an official demand from Gene then I would most likely comply with that. I won't be anyone's toy nor pissing post but I am certainly not beyond reason.

Not speaking for Gene...I'll let him speak for himself:

Because of property rights, the California legislature had much less manuever room to hurt all of us in response to OLLs. In fact the whole "hope they list" was part of those property rights issues.

With one edit, all open carry will end and life will become much harder for ANYONE trying to go to the range or conceal carry by having their firearm in a locked container.

I ask you not to run that risk over the next 6 months for this reason. If the definition of loaded gets changed before an Incorporation case is final so that no open carry is allowed at all, how do you plan to force CCW reform? I'll paint you the downside picture. People keep widely OCing. The Legislature bans all open carry loaded or not really loaded or not loaded at all before incorporation. We now only really get to challenge the ban on open carry instead of using open carry as a wedge to force CCW reform.

Having no patience for 6 months in California is NOT SMART.

-Gene

Note that the 6 month time frame included the assumption of incorporation....we are close, very close. But not quite there....

Why the impatience? We are possibly days away from incorporation....

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 6:28 PM
Not speaking for Gene...I'll let him speak for himself:



Note that the 6 month time frame included the assumption of incorporation....we are close, very close. But not quite there....

Why the impatience? We are possibly days away from incorporation....

When was that written?

Hopi
07-20-2009, 6:34 PM
When was that written?

A year ago (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=1378656#post1378656), but that is irrelevant. The point behind any timeline was the fruition of incorporation.

No offense intended, but you can't really be this far behind on the real fight to restore the legal recognition of our rights. Can you?

Maestro Pistolero
07-20-2009, 6:34 PM
How not to advocate publicly for Second Amendment rights:

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19
Ironically, I spotted our Racoon as I woke up early thismorning to open the windows and let the cool air in.

He was lumbering across the backyard. He was NOT afraid of me at all. chased him over the fence and watched him go underneath the vacant houses' crawl space.

Q: Do I make a Coon Skin cap? Call animal control? Leave it be?


pullnshoot25:
Are you seriously asking? OF COURSE you shoot the bugger! Its not like you bought your guns/bows for show-and-tell!Shoot the little bastard and have fun!

or

Here is my take: If there is an unwarranted heartbeat in/near/around your koi pond and the heartbeat is not protected by law, then a subsonic .22/arrow shaft/ air rifle pellet to end said heartbeat and a shallow grave to hide it should do the trick.

Isn't pest management fun?
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=203130&page=7
__________________
OPEN CARRY CALIFORNIA!

Sons of Liberty
07-20-2009, 6:39 PM
pullnshoot25, you have my support!!

The solution to keeping the rights our forefathers died for is to exercise them daily and to proclaim them unabashedly!

Go get 'em!

Hopi
07-20-2009, 6:42 PM
PNS-

At best, your demonstration gains us nothing. Upon incorporation, your 'fight' becomes nothing but an insignificant footnote buried in the 'band-aid' file when LOC and shall-issue CCW becomes legally relevant and constitutionally sound.

At worst, well, you are uttered in the same breath as Gorski when gunnies discuss challenges to our fight and the genesis thereof...

Again, the bigger picture calls for patience and educated strategy. If you want glory and recognition, be a part of the solution....if that means your part at the moment is standing down and waiting a few days for incorporation....what is your issue with that? If you truly are fighting for the same end goal, what, besides personal glory and narcissism motivates the impatience?

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 6:42 PM
What... what...what...what... what...what...What... what...what...what... what...what...what... what...what...what... what...what...what... what...what...what... what...what...what... what...what...what... what... ;)

I will stress that tomorrow, fret not.

Also, I emailed that guy.

Cool on all points.

technique
07-20-2009, 6:46 PM
Its been clear to most all of us that UOC is not something we should be doing until told otherwise. It has consequences. I respect that because I would feel like a complete jackarse screwing UOC up for everyone else...that said, I'll be listening tomorrow 8am.

Since you will be doing the interview regardless, have fun with it. If you feel like it's getting spun in anyway against you or feel you are in over your head, then please do STFU...don't over do it.:D

AngelDecoys
07-20-2009, 7:00 PM
I realize this is a radio interview. Live interviews are better. Taped interviews are to be avoided. They may take bits and pieces of your answers and jumble them to their perspective.

When interviewed for radio or tv, don't be emotional. Stay calm. Know your talking points and key messages. Go slow. Be ok with awkward silence and don't feel the need to fill the void if you don't have your words ready. Also, there is a whole art of not answering the question but getting your message out in the attempt. Anything you say, will last a lifetime. Choose your words carefully.

Listen to public comment of a council or agency meeting on the web. There are speakers that are well spoken and those, well, I'll save my comments.

Practice with someone knowledgeable. Tape yourself. Show it to others. Get critiqued. Have others listen that don't know the issue. It is probably too late for tomorrow's interview but advice for the future.

This. ^

If you haven't printed out the interview with Rosa yet and reviewed it, do so. Maybe highlight important sections. Have a printout for any carry legal items you may want to mention. You might get nervous and its good to have a crutch. Practice. Repeat multiple times that knowing the law (and being able to legally defend it) before UOC is very important.

For radio interviews, there will be a delay of a few seconds. You mentioned recording it. Expect not to have the radio on in the same room. If you get nervous when public speaking, find a focal point in the room so you're not distracted. Maybe sitting at your desk looking at your notes.

I'll assume by this point you've already made a list of the most likely questions and have great answers. I can't believe there's 158 comments and nobody has asked what 10 questions you're most expecting.

You've already been given advice not to do it, but since you going to do it anyway, relax, pick your words carefully, breath, and have fun. While I agree with the strategy CGF is taking, i'd prefer you walking into a cave with at least a metaphorical knife. You're not a politician, you're not rich, and your not running for office. You're a young activist educating others, and getting a message across whilst everyone else is focused on the CA budget, (or the national health care fiasco). Good luck.

Sons of Liberty
07-20-2009, 7:01 PM
PNS-

...besides personal glory and narcissism motivates the impatience?

What a sad, personal attack on someone trying to do good...trying to come out of the "closet" (gun closet, that is)...shame! :(

Hopi
07-20-2009, 7:04 PM
What a sad, personal attack on someone trying to do good...trying to come out of the "closet" (gun closet, that is)...shame! :(

You're wading in the deep end noob. Welcome to the forum.

It's important to note that the question has been asked multiple times without an answer besides what was earlier characterized by another member as 'a smartassed remark'. I'm sure you don't know the answer, but PNS sure does.

I'll ask again. With incorporation possibly days away now, what motivates the impatience?

.454
07-20-2009, 7:05 PM
You're wading in the deep end noob. Welcome to the forum.



And you're being rude. As always.

Gunaria
07-20-2009, 7:06 PM
If you sound well spoken and stay away from word-lets such as;

um, ya, like this, like that, hum, err, dude

Also speak in complete sentances and you should do fine.

Have all your facts ready on some note cards.

Bill it doesn't sound like you are going to change P&S mind. Maybe instead of telling him to STFU maybe give him some helpful pointers JMHO.

Hopi
07-20-2009, 7:08 PM
And you're being rude. As always.

You've been awfully quiet lately. Good to see you around.

But, it's clear that the poster above needs to read more about the ongoing fight here in CA before he dismisses something as a personal attack. If I'm off base with my assessment, PNS can correct me. That's exactly what I'm asking for.

technique
07-20-2009, 7:09 PM
What a sad, personal attack on someone trying to do good...trying to come out of the "closet" (gun closet, that is)...shame! :(

Welcome to the forum. It has been advised that we do not screw up UOC by not UOCing until incorporation. This is a major concern. We all support UOC...now is just not the appropriate time as it runs the risk of F'ing it up for everyone in the future....do your homework.

Hopi
07-20-2009, 7:15 PM
Welcome to the forum. It has been advised that we do not screw up UOC by not UOCing until incorporation. This is a major concern. We all support UOC...now is just not the appropriate time as it runs the risk of F'ing it up for everyone in the future....do your homework.

Bingo!

If incorporation hits tomorrow, I will drive to San Diego for the next group UOC demonstration. Mark my words.

Sons of Liberty
07-20-2009, 7:20 PM
You're wading in the deep end noob. Welcome to the forum...

Thanks! It's great to be with such an amicable group of folks!! :rolleyes:

Hopi
07-20-2009, 7:26 PM
Thanks! It's great to be with such an amicable group of folks!! :rolleyes:

You'll find that this site is full of folks who have been a part of winning HUGE over the last 4+ years. Pulling punches and acting on whims has not been part of the formula.

Jeopardizing the hard work of the core group of activists here is not something to be taken lightly.....again, simple questions are often answered simply. What is the motivation for the impatience?

It's fun to be in the spotlight, but when it could place obstacles in front of progress, and that drama could be avoided by waiting a few days, maybe a couple of weeks now....what is the proper assessment there?

Sons of Liberty
07-20-2009, 7:37 PM
Welcome to the forum. It has been advised that we do not screw up UOC by not UOCing until incorporation. This is a major concern. We all support UOC...do your homework.

Thanks for the welcome, I think. (Welcome, don't screw up, and get in line!)

As for doing my homework, I have read the many, many pages on this thread. Is there something else I should be doing before participating?

As for incorporation, if one unintentional bad incident can risk incorporation, then it seems to me that we are building a "house of cards" that will fail eventually. What we need is a "house of bricks" that will not come crashing down at the slightest of misfortunes!

Please excuse my noobieness. :notworthy:

Hopi
07-20-2009, 7:46 PM
Thanks for the welcome, I think. (Welcome, don't screw up, and get in line!)

As for doing my homework, I have read the many, many pages on this thread. Is there something else I should be doing before participating?

As for incorporation, if one unintentional bad incident can risk incorporation, then it seems to me that we are building a "house of cards" that will fail eventually. What we need is a "house of bricks" that will not come crashing down at the slightest of misfortunes!

Please excuse my noobieness. :notworthy:

Incorporation is not at risk here. The consequences of pre-incorporation legislation is the concern. Dismantling laws, even unconstitutional laws, take time, money, and lots of effort...all of which should be spent on dismantling laws currently on the books. Why complicate the fight further for very little potential reward? As wildhawker said earlier in this thread, and has been echoed by many including myself...what is the cost/benefit here and why the impatience?

Said simply, if we wait for incorporation, we can all but ensure that any future legislation will be blocked, instead of having to be fought and removed. The former is the much more desirable option.

technique
07-20-2009, 7:49 PM
Thanks for the welcome, I think. (Welcome, don't screw up, and get in line!)

As for doing my homework, I have read the many, many pages on this thread. Is there something else I should be doing before participating?

As for incorporation, if one unintentional bad incident can risk incorporation, then it seems to me that we are building a "house of cards" that will fail eventually. What we need is a "house of bricks" that will not come crashing down at the slightest of misfortunes!

Please excuse my noobieness. :notworthy:

That was a sincere welcome.:)

You are always encouraged to participate from any point of view. Its actually very rare for me to participate in the 2ndA area on this forum as I feel I need a suite and tie just click and enter:p.

We are close to incorporation. We are close to our goal. It would be a shame to have come this far only to draw attention and have the definition of "loaded" screw up the future of UOC.

There are plenty of folks who know what they are doing fighting for our rights on all playing fields related to 2ndA....We can very well screw up all they have been working for. I for one respect what they do and I respect their request not to UOC...again they have worked hard, who am I to say "screw it, I want it now"?



EDIT* What Hopi said!^^^^:clap:

.454
07-20-2009, 7:59 PM
Thanks for the welcome, I think. (Welcome, don't screw up, and get in line!)

As for doing my homework, I have read the many, many pages on this thread. Is there something else I should be doing before participating?

As for incorporation, if one unintentional bad incident can risk incorporation, then it seems to me that we are building a "house of cards" that will fail eventually. What we need is a "house of bricks" that will not come crashing down at the slightest of misfortunes!

Please excuse my noobieness. :notworthy:

Don't mind these people. They are not the majority here; what you will find supremely ironic is some of these brave and wise defenders of the RKBA pulled the lever for the biggest enemy of our gun rights last November. I assume you know who is the enemy I am talking about.
You are truly welcome and feel free to participate to any discussions. Carry on!

1859sharps
07-20-2009, 7:59 PM
What you're basically saying that I am the SOLE cause of the current legislation? Dude, I don't even live in LA and I will not be held accountable for LA gun owner's actions.



My name isn't Patrick Purdy. I don't live in Stockton. But I am still penalized for what he did.

You actions can effect EVERYONE.

IF the legislator had the time, they would have killed UOC a long time ago.

We have a limited time window to roll back bad law. One bad incident with UOC can close that window for who knows how long in a worst case, best case we have to divert resources to clean up the mess. either way we lose.

UOC is like playing with gasoline in one hand and a match in the other.

otteray
07-20-2009, 8:01 PM
then it seems to me that we are building a "house of cards" that will fail eventually. What we need is a "house of bricks" that will not come crashing down at the slightest of misfortunes!

No, it is neither a house of cards nor of brick; but rather, a not yet completed house; being built over years, with hard work and dedication by Calguns and crew, the NRA and many others dedicated to the 2nd Amendment.
Removing just one temporary brace can bring down a well built wall onto your head!
If you've ever been a carpenter like me, you will know what I mean.:o

.454
07-20-2009, 8:03 PM
http://dsskcorp.com/ibidem/fotographia/misc/panic!at.teh.dsskcorp.gif

Sons of Liberty
07-20-2009, 8:08 PM
...what is the cost/benefit here and why the impatience?

Said simply, if we wait for incorporation, we can all but ensure that any future legislation will be blocked, instead of having to be fought and removed. The former is the much more desirable option.

I'm not sure if UOC'ers see this as a cost/benefit issue. If we are so near incorporation, surely there is no risk of future legislation coming before incorporation. However, if what is being asked of UOC'ers is to wait some indefinite period of time after incorporation, which looks to be possible, then how long? How long do you ask someone who feels a need to protect himself and his family by bearing arms outside the home to suspend that currently legal right?

Impatience comes not when a solution is around the corner, but when people feel that there is no substance to that promise.

That being said, thank you and "technique" for your sincere welcome. That's a sincere thanks. :)

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 8:18 PM
What is this "pre incorporation" people keep talking about. Perhaps they are unaware of the Nordyke case. It is not going en banc. There will be no proclamation by the antis on the court. There is no reason to expect any published documentation that says "we aren't taking this en banc" If anyone can point to other cases where a sua sponte vote was requested and didn't pass but there was a published statement from courts I will happily change my statement.

We HAVE incorporation.

We have incorporation and unless SCOTUS takes Maloney or NRA and that goes sideways we will always have incorporation in CA.

There may well be other arguments to against UOC but incorporation is not one of them at the moment.

Someone brought up Jackie Robinson and it is true that he was patient but the Walgreen's men and Rosa Parks were not, they just wanted to do that which the constitution permitted but local law did not. Hell, Nate isn't even making as big a statement as those people, he is very cautious to obey the state and local laws as written.

If you don't like UOC; help yourself to a seat at the back of the bus where the good folk in Sacramento want you.

1859sharps
07-20-2009, 8:21 PM
The stove is hot because you're cooking, which is the alternative to him cooking.

I understand the media can spin a story or do what they will with it, but when does the fear stop? When do we stop being afraid to stand up for what is right?

it's not fear, it is playing it smart. There are other ways to stand up for what is right.

You mentioned in earlier posts, give him an alternative. he is already doing the alternative. Blogs. this give you time to think out a well written "article" backed with references to solid research and facts.

he is standing up for what is right in a very, very public way.

Bottom line, using traditional media is a wast of time. risk are too high for at best a neutral outcome.

locosway
07-20-2009, 8:24 PM
While being an avid firearms enthusiast for many years I am obviously new the these forums and the idea of UOC. Could someone point me to the thread that explains incorporation and how it pertains to this topic?

Hopi
07-20-2009, 8:24 PM
I'm not sure if UOC'ers see this as a cost/benefit issue. If we are so near incorporation, surely there is no risk of future legislation coming before incorporation. However, if what is being asked of UOC'ers is to wait some indefinite period of time after incorporation, which looks to be possible, then how long? How long do you ask someone who feels a need to protect himself and his family by bearing arms outside the home to suspend that currently legal right?

Impatience comes not when a solution is around the corner, but when people feel that there is no substance to that promise.

That being said, thank you and "technique" for your sincere welcome. That's a sincere thanks. :)


Hey, I really liked your first post here...I've been talking about the part-time legislation for a while now...I think it's a great idea!

Back on topic.....The incorporation news is due any day now in the next 1-2 weeks at worst. I understand your take on the waiting on a promise that fails to fulfill, but is that PNS's motive? If so, that concern would be quelled by the numerous threads on the Nordyke en banc subject and if that info is being ignored, then my earlier assessment hits closer to the target.

technique
07-20-2009, 8:25 PM
Don't mind these people. They are not the majority here; what you will find supremely ironic is some of these brave and wise defenders of the RKBA pulled the lever for the biggest enemy of our gun rights last November. I assume you know who is the enemy I am talking about.
You are truly welcome and feel free to participate to any discussions. Carry on!

Well you quoted a post directed at me, I am going to assume you think I voted for Obama? You are way off there. Nice try though....I guess its just your way of repeatedly bringing up the "O".

Since you feel like making assumptions about me ,I'm going to assume your are in love with him and want him to be you life partner...that must be the reason you constantly mention him.

Hopi
07-20-2009, 8:27 PM
What is this "pre incorporation" people keep talking about. Perhaps they are unaware of the Nordyke case. It is not going en banc. There will be no proclamation by the antis on the court. There is no reason to expect any published documentation that says "we aren't taking this en banc" If anyone can point to other cases where a sua sponte vote was requested and didn't pass but there was a published statement from courts I will happily change my statement.

We HAVE incorporation.

We have incorporation and unless SCOTUS takes Maloney or NRA and that goes sideways we will always have incorporation in CA.

There may well be other arguments to against UOC but incorporation is not one of them at the moment.

Someone brought up Jackie Robinson and it is true that he was patient but the Walgreen's men and Rosa Parks were not, they just wanted to do that which the constitution permitted but local law did not. Hell, Nate isn't even making as big a statement as those people, he is very cautious to obey the state and local laws as written.

If you don't like UOC; help yourself to a seat at the back of the bus where the good folk in Sacramento want you.


I am fully aware of the Nordyke case. I was there, in the courtroom for the arguments. ;) If it goes en banc, then we don't have incorporation. If it does, and we have to wait for Maloney....well, then that gives the legislature more time to squeeze one in....either way, why not wait a few days?

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 8:29 PM
I am fully aware of the Nordyke case. I was there, in the courtroom for the arguments. ;) If it goes en banc, then we don't have incorporation. If it does, and we have to wait for Maloney....well, then that gives the legislature more time to squeeze one in....either way, why not wait a few days?

Up until 6:30 Gene was quite comfortable that it wasn't going to be taken en banc.

a few days can easily become "2 weeks" as shown by your own post quoting Gene 13 months talking about 6 months.

.454
07-20-2009, 8:30 PM
Well you quoted a post directed at me, I am going to assume you think I voted for Obama?

You are assuming wrong.

technique
07-20-2009, 8:35 PM
You are assuming wrong.

I take back what I said about your undying love for Obama then.:)

Hopi
07-20-2009, 8:37 PM
You are assuming wrong.

Then, was that directed at members of CGF, or me?

Hopi
07-20-2009, 8:41 PM
Up until 6:30 Gene was quite comfortable that it wasn't going to be taken en banc.

a few days can easily become "2 weeks" as shown by your own post quoting Gene 13 months talking about 6 months.

Nitpicking, but it has been 12 months :p

I understand what you're saying....but again, are you speaking for PNS here? Are you assuming his motive?

Further, for the 1st time in most of our lives, the light is at the end of the tunnel....in relative terms, even 6 months is a blink of the eye compared to what most of us are accustomed to....

1859sharps
07-20-2009, 8:57 PM
While being an avid firearms enthusiast for many years I am obviously new the these forums and the idea of UOC. Could someone point me to the thread that explains incorporation and how it pertains to this topic?

There are too many threads to point to just one.

in a nut shell....

California does not have a "right to keep bear arms" clause in it's state constitution like almost all the rest of the states do. Hence other state being able to use legal open loaded carry to encourage the passing of CCW laws.

There are two ways California can get full 2nd amendment protection.

1. amend the California state constitution. Not going to happen.

or

2. have the 2nd incorporated by the 14th. which means the 2nd would have to be recognized by the states and we could finally truly challenge laws on 2nd amendment grounds. This problem stems from a successful argument that the bill of rights is a limit only on the Federal Government. This moronic, but that is how constitutional law has played out.

So, the basic argument goes, at this time a single arrest for UOC can not be used to create case law that would cause the legislature to change the law or to have court ordered protections for exercising your 2nd amendment rights.

basically, the UOC crowd is putting the cart before the horse. their day will come, but it's not now. best thing to do is back off and let the solid legal foundation be laid so we can go about restoring lost 2nd amendment rights.

locosway
07-20-2009, 9:06 PM
Thanks for the info, I was doing some searches and was coming to that conclusion but it might have taken me another hour.

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 9:14 PM
Welcome to the forum.

Am I to understand that my lack of support for UOC is to be taken as a lack of meaningful action?

If you don't like UOC; help yourself to a seat at the back of the bus where the good folk in Sacramento want you.

locosway
07-20-2009, 9:14 PM
One further question... How does anyone know that incorporation is only days away? Is it fairly certain that Nordyke will prevail? If so, will that force the state to incorporate?

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 9:18 PM
Welcome to the forum.

Am I to understand that my lack of support for UOC is to be taken as a lack of meaningful action?

No, it means (as far as I can tell) that you are choosing a mechanism that is not overt "in the face" of the antis. Everyone chooses the way they exercise their rights. In the analogy that was initially brought up, Jackie Robinson either stayed in the black hotels or snuck into the white hotels. Rosa Parks and the Walgreen's sit-in folks refused to do so. Not that one is unacceptable just that they are different.

locosway
07-20-2009, 9:19 PM
No, it means (as far as I can tell) that you are choosing a mechanism that is not overt "in the face" of the antis. Everyone chooses the way they exercise their rights. In the analogy that was initially brought up, Jackie Robinson either stayed in the black hotels or snuck into the white hotels. Rosa Parks and the Walgreen's sit-in folks refused to do so. Not that one is unacceptable just that they are different.

I think what you're missing is there is a time and place. The time has not yet come, and if we're on the brink of said time coming, what's the harm in waiting a week or month?

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 9:28 PM
I think what you're missing is there is a time and place. The time has not yet come, and if we're on the brink of said time coming, what's the harm in waiting a week or month?

I am not saying I have the end all answer. Just that Nate has decided to take a more active route. You, Bill, Brandon nor I will talk him out of it anymore than a more plodding civil rights activist was going to talk Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus one more day.

Gunaria
07-20-2009, 9:29 PM
5bCbOrvs5go

locosway
07-20-2009, 9:31 PM
I support PNS and his decisions. I will never tell someone how to live their life, I'm simply in agreement with others that perhaps more discretion could be used on the subject if indeed we're so close to incorporation.

My first exposure to UOC was through PNS and his posts and videos. I admire that everyday he can go out and do what others wish they could do. I do feel that tomorrow he'll be fine, and there's obviously no backing out now no matter what anyone else says.

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 9:33 PM
I support PNS and his decisions. I will never tell someone how to live their life, I'm simply in agreement with others that perhaps more discretion could be used on the subject if indeed we're so close to incorporation.

We have incorporation. NOTHING Nate does has or will make any difference on the incorporation issue.

7x57
07-20-2009, 9:38 PM
We have incorporation. NOTHING Nate does has or will make any difference on the incorporation issue.

Well, we don't quite--it seems we still can't be certain the 9th won't take it en banc.

But whatever happens, it has nothing to do with Nate unless a 9th circuit judge opens up his SD Reader over breakfast, reads the piece, and says "Jumpin' Jehosaphat, those gun-nuts are crazy, I'd better change my vote to a "yes" on en banc review!" and that judge happens to be the one vote needed.

Yah, not so likely. The worries aren't about Incorporation--they are about post-Incorporation strategy.

7x57

technique
07-20-2009, 9:39 PM
We have incorporation. NOTHING Nate does has or will make any difference on the incorporation issue.

It's my understanding incorporation is not 100%. Can you inform me why you feel we do have incorporation.

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 9:43 PM
No, it means (as far as I can tell) that you are choosing a mechanism that is not overt "in the face" of the antis. Everyone chooses the way they exercise their rights. In the analogy that was initially brought up, Jackie Robinson either stayed in the black hotels or snuck into the white hotels. Rosa Parks and the Walgreen's sit-in folks refused to do so. Not that one is unacceptable just that they are different.

And you know that how?

w/r/t UOC, I have yet to see any real upside quantified so far. It may be useful in the future but is overwhelmingly irrational (and dangerous) at this time.

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 9:46 PM
We have incorporation. NOTHING Nate does has or will make any difference on the incorporation issue.

And you know that how?

w/r/t UOC, I have yet to see any real upside quantified so far. It may be useful in the future but is overwhelmingly irrational (and dangerous) at this time.

(as far as I can tell) I know you support the CGF and the booth events. That's great, I would never denigrate those efforts. If you are more "in the face" of the antis then I am happy to retract what I said. I posted "as far as I know" to include the possibility that you also do things of which I am unaware.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 9:52 PM
And the quote levels go crazy...

Clinging to the contentious myth that

every UOCer is responsible for the pushback

can certainly lead some to believe that UOCers, no matter what they say or do, are coy at best, disingenuous and bad 2A representatives at the worst.

Who is saying that? The opposite is true--the objections are often muted by the evident fact that UOC takes a great deal of courage and determination. Nobody wants to criticize laying your safety on the line for the 2A. I don't, either.

I didn't pull it out of my rear end. See...

Nate, I believe you to be far more intelligent and intuitive than as represented by this post. If you are, why are you playing coy? If you're not, what makes you think you're the appropriate voice for 2A?

And finally...
For radio interviews, there will be a delay of a few seconds. You mentioned recording it. Expect not to have the radio on in the same room. If you get nervous when public speaking, find a focal point in the room so you're not distracted. Maybe sitting at your desk looking at your notes.

He's been on live radio before (http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/03/radio-interview-and-oside-beach-cleanup.html?showComment=1236778860000). He's not a virgin as so many seem to be paranoid about.

1859sharps
07-20-2009, 9:56 PM
just a thought, but it has been my experience few people respond well to "in your face" approaches. particularly when they already have their mind made up.

In your face implies heated and emotionally charged actions. the anti's have made a lot of their progress by making us look dangerous and unreasonable. The wrong "in your face" approach simply reinforces that.

our efforts are better spent on the people who have not yet made up their minds and waffle back and forth on the issue. There are far more of these people then there are anti's and even pro's.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 10:03 PM
Well, we don't quite--it seems we still can't be certain the 9th won't take it en banc.

Last I saw, time ran out, so they would have had to violate federal procedure to take it.

But seems like things change weekly if not daily...

I think you're completely correct.

I think I'm demonstrably wrong on how long the court can take to go from a sua sponte rehearing request to an order granting an en banc vote.

Looking at US v. Strickland the brief requested in 21 days from the sua sponte call was filed 4/29/2009. The court didn't grant rehearing en banc until 6/19/2009 or 51 days from the filing of the brief.

If the court were to do exactly the same thing timing wise to Nordyke, the order taking the case en banc would be filed on July 29, 2009.

I retract my call on the odds of being out of the woods.

-Gene

Bingo!

If incorporation hits tomorrow, I will drive to San Diego for the next group UOC demonstration. Mark my words.

9th Circuit incorporation by the 3-panel has already hit. We are incorporated. Or did you mean confirmation by the en banc 9th Circuit of the standing incorporation ruling?

Kestryll
07-20-2009, 10:12 PM
You've been awfully quiet lately. Good to see you around.

But, it's clear that the poster above needs to read more about the ongoing fight here in CA before he dismisses something as a personal attack. If I'm off base with my assessment, PNS can correct me. That's exactly what I'm asking for.

Maybe you need to knock off the rude attitude before you find yourself viewing these threads from the outside?

oaklander
07-20-2009, 10:19 PM
PnS, you've got the best minds here telling you this is a bad idea. Then you've got a few fanboys who are stroking your ego. The bottom line is that you need to listen to the best minds, and stand down.

You are (1) not part of any concerted 2a effort in this state, (2) not qualified to speak for me, or the other folks who are actually fighting the 2a fight, and (3) generally too young and naive. For heaven's sake, you still live at home and have stuffed animals in your room.

Here's a comment from your Weekly Reader article. Tell me that you don't come off like a little kid. . .

#6

I am so happy for a neutral/slightly positive article! That's me on the cover! YAY!

Thank you Rosa!

CARRY ON!

-N8

http://caopencarry.blogspot.com

By pullnshoot25 12:01 a.m., Jul 16, 2009 > Report it

Hopi
07-20-2009, 10:21 PM
9th Circuit incorporation by the 3-panel has already hit. We are incorporated. Or did you mean confirmation by the en banc 9th Circuit of the standing incorporation ruling?

The later, thank you for clarifying...

I know, as you do, that incorporation is all but sealed. But the timing here is what I'm questioning.

wildhawker
07-20-2009, 10:22 PM
(as far as I can tell) I know you support the CGF and the booth events. That's great, I would never denigrate those efforts. If you are more "in the face" of the antis then I am happy to retract what I said. I posted "as far as I know" to include the possibility that you also do things of which I am unaware.

I get the impression that UOC bravado is being misconstrued as courage. How does being a pure antagonist, both "in the face" of the antis and the general public (who, by and large, do not see the value of 2A as we might), somehow ensure a higher rate of return (if any at all) for our cause?

oaklander
07-20-2009, 10:24 PM
It's simpler than that. Freud would have a lot to say. . .

I get the impression that UOC bravado is being misconstrued as courage. How does being a pure antagonist, both "in the face" of the antis and the general public (who, by and large, do not see the value of 2A as we might), somehow ensure a higher rate of return (if any at all) for our cause?

gotgunz
07-20-2009, 10:26 PM
PnS, you've got the best minds here telling you this is a bad idea. Then you've got a few fanboys who are stroking your ego. The bottom line is that you need to listen to the best minds, and stand down.

You are (1) not part of any concerted 2a effort in this state, (2) not qualified to speak for me, or the other folks who are actually fighting the 2a fight, and (3) generally too young and naive. For heaven's sake, you still live at home and have stuffed animals in your room.

Here's a comment from your Weekly Reader article. Tell me that you don't come off like a little kid. . .

WOW! I couldn't have said this any better myself. Well played Oaklander!!!!

p.s. to make your Youtube videos more professional in appearance try dressing more professional.... in appearance.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 10:41 PM
PnS, you've got the best minds here telling you this is a bad idea. Then you've got a few fanboys who are stroking your ego. The bottom line is that you need to listen to the best minds, and stand down.

You are (1) not part of any concerted 2a effort in this state, (2) not qualified to speak for me, or the other folks who are actually fighting the 2a fight, and (3) generally too young and naive. For heaven's sake, you still live at home and have stuffed animals in your room.

Here's a comment from your Weekly Reader article. Tell me that you don't come off like a little kid. . .

1) Who says it isn't concerted?

2) Why would I ever speak for you? Also, who made you the sole arbiter of "the fight" for 2A rights?

3) Yeah, that must be it. I must be so naive that I can't understand anything that is going on. Poor widdle me.

4) Who cares, dude! Living at home doesn't make me any less a legitimate person (I have earned my way, just FYI) nor do the three stuffed animals in my room (the only three I have, two of them were gifts and all filled with dust since I never even take them down) make me a child. I have a picture of my dead grandfather right next to them, does that make me a necrophiliac? I am certain you still have some crazy items left over from your sorority days, that doesn't make you immature.

Do you actually have any objections of merit?

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 10:44 PM
p.s. to make your Youtube videos more professional in appearance try dressing more professional.... in appearance.

Most of those were made in one day and were made to quickly train a bunch of new people for our latest event. We may re-film them in the future.

Kestryll
07-20-2009, 10:45 PM
Two steps back and chill out, nothing will be gained by getting personal.

DocSkinner
07-20-2009, 10:48 PM
I have "media training", i.e. media relations, public speaking, marketing, and public affairs as an Air Force recruiter.

I can say with confidence that Pullnshoot25 can handle any question they throw at him and probably turn it around on them.

CalGuns seems to have a lot of cases of ekthetohoplophobia: fear of exposed guns.

More that if you aren't Bill or Hoff, you shouldn't say anything, ever. But that is a lawyer's nature - they are the only ones that can say it just right, or think about it just right, so NEVER disagree with either, as they are the experts, and the only ones that can think about things. Don't get me wrong - their LEGAL knowledge and expertise in the field is excellent. But like all lawyers and doctors, they think because of their training they are THE experts on everything and anything. Kinda goes with the personality needed to make it as a lawyer, same personality as fighter pilots, but without the physical requirements.

This is actually part of the problem, and a problem addressed in the topic on the CA handgun roster. Having the NRA do it makes it seem like an isolated issue, but they have the expertise and backing. Having THEM stand down makes the case better and shows teh broad support - B and H's own opinion in fact. BUT they don't see that having only them or one or two carefully selected people speak ALSO makes the same situation - mouthpieces for a little money that do not represent THE PEOPLE in the state.

I do not know the OP but other have spoken for him, and think he is capable. If he is a reasonably smart person, reasonably articulate, and is smart enough to know to not let them piss him off, he should be okay.

After all - isn't that what we are trying to say about the majority of gun owners? I am finding it insulting that certain "powers that be" seem to think ALL gunners (except them) fall into the stupid redneck category and therefore should never 1) think for themselves 2) voice opinions on politics, and 3) speak for themselves in public.

The media has done a great job convincing the masses that only punks, criminals, and drunk rednecks own guns, so we should ban them. The gun community has helped by making sure they can find those types, and that only those types are ever heard from.

The laws are made on consensus and determined by how people think, not in a courtroom by lawyers pleading cases, they only ACT ON (within) the laws that are set. And yes teh Constitution is a living document. So even it can be altered based upon popular enough opinion. WE MUST CHANGE OPINION. People think by what they see/hear. They need to see and hear more "Mr.(Mrs, Miss) Joe Average, nice person that helps them all time and is an up standing citizen" that are gun owners to counteract the negative stereotype.

Constantly hiding these types only reinforces the stereotypes and causes us more problems in public opinion.

If you want to change laws, change opinion. You resort to "the laws says" enough times against opinion, the laws, even the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), will get changed.

Many of us often cite prohibition as example why bans don't work. It seems, however, that the real lesson is also lost on many pro gunners as well: enough popular opinion and the laws will change, including the Constitution, regardless of whether it makes sense. do we want to go through two Constitutional changes over this, or should we get smart and work on public opinion and never have to deal with a populace that wants to change the Constitution.


We should be helping by posing the hard question we think others are going to zing him with, and be prepping him (Which, by the way, is media training if you are curious), not staunching and downplaying him.

Hopi
07-20-2009, 11:00 PM
1) Who says it isn't concerted?

2) Why would I ever speak for you? Also, who made you the sole arbiter of "the fight" for 2A rights?

3) Yeah, that must be it. I must be so naive that I can't understand anything that is going on. Poor widdle me.

4) Who cares, dude! Living at home doesn't make me any less a legitimate person (I have earned my way, just FYI) nor do the three stuffed animals in my room (the only three I have, two of them were gifts and all filled with dust since I never even take them down) make me a child. I have a picture of my dead grandfather right next to them, does that make me a necrophiliac? I am certain you still have some crazy items left over from your sorority days, that doesn't make you immature.

Do you actually have any objections of merit?



Sorority days....lol.


PNS-

You still haven't answered some direct questions....why not wait for the solidification and legal recognition of incorporation?

If en banc is denied, you'll have what amounts to full constitutional protection and can count on many of our voices dimming on the negatives of your demonstration. Aren't those 2 motivations valid enough to back down a bit for a short time?

oaklander
07-20-2009, 11:02 PM
LOL, I missed that. . .

:)

I was never into the Greek stuff anyways.

Sorority days....lol.

Kestryll
07-20-2009, 11:04 PM
A bunch of hormonal kids walking around with erstaz-penises strapped to their legs in San Diego do not help us one bit.

This is the kind of comment that does NOTHING to help discussion, causes problems and is NOT going to end well.

Knock it off.

Hopi
07-20-2009, 11:06 PM
LOL, I missed that. . .

:)

I was never into the Greek stuff anyways.

FWIW, i think he was referencing your infamous panty-raids..... :p

oaklander
07-20-2009, 11:08 PM
Sorry Kes, this just drives me crazy. I'll tone it down. . .

This is the kind of comment that does NOTHING to help discussion, causes problems and is NOT going to end well.

Knock it off.

technique
07-20-2009, 11:08 PM
9th Circuit incorporation by the 3-panel has already hit. We are incorporated. Or did you mean confirmation by the en banc 9th Circuit of the standing incorporation ruling?

I meant the en banc ruling when I didn't agree that we are 100% incorporated.

Maybe you need to knock off the rude attitude before you find yourself viewing these threads from the outside?

Come on man...there were far worse insults being slung around..Hopi is in defense of what we have been advised to do by the CGF thus far..he later clarified the intent of what he said...I mean, I implied .454 was ghey for Obama that was way worse! (please don't ban me)...don't go Sotomayor on us.;)

PnS, you've got the best minds here telling you this is a bad idea. Then you've got a few fanboys who are stroking your ego. The bottom line is that you need to listen to the best minds, and stand down.

You are (1) not part of any concerted 2a effort in this state, (2) not qualified to speak for me, or the other folks who are actually fighting the 2a fight, and (3) generally too young and naive. For heaven's sake, you still live at home and have stuffed animals in your room.

Here's a comment from your Weekly Reader article. Tell me that you don't come off like a little kid. . .

I see where you stand Oak. I agree with you a bit. Who is qualified, may I ask? There are some around here that are fighting the 2A fight for us all. Who appointed them?

1) Who says it isn't concerted?

2) Why would I ever speak for you? Also, who made you the sole arbiter of "the fight" for 2A rights?

3) Yeah, that must be it. I must be so naive that I can't understand anything that is going on. Poor widdle me.

4) Who cares, dude! Living at home doesn't make me any less a legitimate person (I have earned my way, just FYI) nor do the three stuffed animals in my room (the only three I have, two of them were gifts and all filled with dust since I never even take them down) make me a child. I have a picture of my dead grandfather right next to them, does that make me a necrophiliac? I am certain you still have some crazy items left over from your sorority days, that doesn't make you immature.

Do you actually have any objections of merit?

You have to go to sleep and rest up if you are planning on goin through with this....Godspeed!

Kestryll
07-20-2009, 11:09 PM
If you don't like UOC; help yourself to a seat at the back of the bus where the good folk in Sacramento want you.

Would you like a seat in the 'viewing only' seats?

if not knock off the little snide comments.

I'm getting really tired of the cross-section of emotional idiocy I am seeing in this thread and am very close to not only shutting it down but locking out some accounts as well.

It's really simple folks.

If you can not make your points without insults, disparaging comments and digs at others then don't post.

This is not discussion, it's sniping and childish behavior and it achieves NOTHING.

nick
07-20-2009, 11:14 PM
And the sad part is, the moment I'm about to comment on a post, it's gone :(

Kestryll
07-20-2009, 11:15 PM
And the sad part is, the moment I'm about to comment on a post, it's gone :(

Talk to Oaklander, I haven't deleted anything.

nick
07-20-2009, 11:17 PM
Oaklander, would you mind re-posting the last two of your posts? :)

oaklander
07-20-2009, 11:21 PM
Not to derail the thread. . .

But you bring up a good point. What I am saying is that we need to have a concerted effort. Splinter groups do not help us. There is a small and (through the magic of the internet) vocal group of guys in San Diego who are doing UOC. It's only a few guys, all told.

The problem is that they are not coordinating with the NRA, the CRPA, or the attorneys who work with those groups.

This can only end badly, since the press is now getting interested.

There's no magic involved in legitimately "getting involved." I started by getting involved with my local NRA Member's Council, then I met with some other attorneys who do 2a work, then I ended up meeting some guys who eventually became the founders of the CGF. Each step of the way, I made sure that what I was doing was coordinated with what everyone else was doing.

The UOC crowd is not doing that, and it can hurt us.

I see where you stand Oak. I agree with you a bit. Who is qualified, may I ask? There are some around here that are fighting the 2A fight for us all. Who appointed them?

oaklander
07-20-2009, 11:22 PM
I realized that I was getting personal, and it does not suit me well. I deleted my own posts.

:p

Oaklander, would you mind re-posting the last two of your posts? :)

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 11:23 PM
Sorry Kes, this just drives me crazy. I'll tone it down. . .

I would hate to see you driven crazy like this in an ACTUAL adversarial proceeding. We are allies here, I think.

Or were you PUI?
:p

50 UOCers in San Diego, and groups/events forming in other counties is hardly "a few guys" just in San Diego. A few is 3-5. You're 45 over the limit.

thedrickel
07-20-2009, 11:25 PM
I realized that I was getting personal, and it does not suit me well. I deleted my own posts.

:p

U R big meanie.

































































Meanie.

locosway
07-20-2009, 11:26 PM
I've been mostly watching and asked a couple questions regarding the incorporation. I did happen to notice a comment that caught my eye. Saying that people who UOC is the equivalent of a juvenile showing off is absurd. Saying that there is no benefit for a person to UOC is YOUR opinion, not a fact.

I can think of countless situations where I'd rather UOC then have no means to defend myself. Even the benchmade I've carried for the past 13 years doesn't comfort me as much as UOC would. Granted I do agree with the timing of the current situation, I will however not agree with your bashing and name calling.

How can you lead and expect people to follow with such comments?

Note: Say your retraction, so there's no need to answer this.

oaklander
07-20-2009, 11:29 PM
You bring up a good point, and I will tone down my rhetoric.

I've been mostly watching and asked a couple questions regarding the incorporation. I did happen to notice a comment that caught my eye. Saying that people who UOC is the equivalent of a juvenile showing off is absurd. Saying that there is no benefit for a person to UOC is YOUR opinion, not a fact.

I can think of countless situations where I'd rather UOC then have no means to defend myself. Even the benchmade I've carried for the past 13 years doesn't comfort me as much as UOC would. Granted I do agree with the timing of the current situation, I will however not agree with your bashing and name calling.

How can you lead and expect people to follow with such comments?

technique
07-20-2009, 11:37 PM
Oaklander,

I wont derail the thread anymore either. Thanks for your answer. A lot of us (myself included) are very respectful of the CGF advise. I'm sure PNS is too. I don't think he has bad intentions. There has to be a way all sides can come together and do whats best for us all.

vrand
07-20-2009, 11:38 PM
While I have stayed out of the political aspect of Cal Guns, I feel the need to stand up and support Nate on his interview. From what I have read on his blog and such, he seems to be a very well spoken guy, and smart. I am a little amiss at the rebuff he has taken for wanting to do this. We should be supporting him. Honestly, I feel like you guys who don't support this are treating him like a little kid. The guy is taking a some initiative and a little intestinal fortitude and doing what he thinks is right. Doesn't CalGuns support educating the public?

Let's look at this from both sides here. I support Nate's 1A right to say what he wants, to whom he wants, whenever he wants.

However, having worked in news orgs before, I would caution you Nate to be on guard. You just never know. Beware and be aware is my motto. Good luck.

My intention is not to poke anyone in the eye here, but let's pull back and get a little perspective. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

Kestryll
07-20-2009, 11:41 PM
As for the topic itself, I have a few questions.

PNS, what is it you are trying to achieve with UOC?
No dig, I am serious.
What is the objective, why do you think this course is the correct one and why do you think many are opposed to it?
As follow up to those questions, what are you basing your concepts on and what are you using as data to project that your course of action will actually have the desired results and not have unintended consequences?


Oaklander and others, is there anything other than public opinion that can be adversely affected by UOC?
What exactly, in a nutshell, is the worst case scenario that can come out of UOC?
Do you see any potential benefits?

PNS, one more point.
You may not realize it or believe it but EVERY TIME you get in front of the press you ARE talking for me as a gun owner.
You can dress it up however you want to try to deny it but you are making yourself a 'spokesman' for all gun owners.
This is true of this forum, of CGF, of CRPA and of the NRA which is why these things are very carefully planned and worked out to maximize potential benefit and minimize potential harm.


All, are we in a better place now then we were four years ago?
Why is that?
Did we make the changes we have by having everyone running around in a dozen different directions?
Or did we all work TOGETHER and achieve more to stop and turn back the infringement of our rights then has happened in decades?

Exactly how helpful is to ALL of us to go out and say 'I'm doing this, the hell with all of you!'?
Likewise how helpful is it to belittle the efforts of people trying to reach the same goal as the rest of us?

Instead of saying 'You're foolish to do this' why not say 'I/we think this is a bad idea but if it's going to happen this is the best way to do it without damaging what we've already achieved'?

Instead of bulling forward why not listen to those who have been fighting this fight for a LONG time and have a lot of experience and know how on avoiding damage?

It all comes down to this.
There are a lot of people who are working both in public and in private to defend and restore our rights. A lot, and I mean a WHOLE LOT of time effort and discussion has gone down to plan this fight out so as not to loss ground or take significant damage.
The people saying 'Back off of UOC' aren't saying that because they don't like the people doing it, they are saying it because there are some very real concerns not only of hampering actions already in the works but of costing us ground already won.

There are also people who are GOING to UOC.
They feel this is a good form of outreach to acclimatize the public to the fact that gun owners are not psychos and that having the means to defend yourself and your loved ones is not only normal but acceptable.
They see the benefits as outweighing the detriments.

Nothing is going to change this so the question is do we fight amongst ourselves and accomplish nothing or do we try to find common ground to see if we can work together?
Neither side is going to drop their beliefs so either we figure out the best way to minimize damage and maximize benefit TOGETHER or we continue the useless bickering and division and work in opposition to each other.

Which one sounds less stupid?

locosway
07-20-2009, 11:44 PM
I think a lot of important views have been shared here. There's a lot of confusion on what should be happening, and who should be doing it. I CAN see UOC pushing forward legislature that makes getting a CCW easier so they can get firearms out of the public eye. On the other hand it could go the other way, where they ban unloaded firearms in public.

I won't speculate which is more likely, but I think we can all agree that UOC is popular because AOC is illegal here. In other states where AOC is legal people exercise this right. So UOC is not going away so long as CCW and AOC is impossible in CA. With that said, should there be something a little more formal to coordinate the UOC groups efforts? I believe the last thing any of us want is to have a set-back or other event that causes the "cause" any ill effects.

oaklander
07-20-2009, 11:46 PM
Agreed.

All I am really saying is that we need to coordinate on this type of stuff (and that's speaking for me only). Unless I say otherwise in a post, nothing I say is the official position of the CGF.

It is just "Kevin" talking! And I'll be the first to admit that it is sometimes out of the wrong orifice!

;)

Oaklander,

I wont derail the thread anymore either. Thanks for your answer. A lot of us (myself included) are very respectful of the CGF advise. I'm sure PNS is too. I don't think he has bad intentions. There has to be a way all sides can come together and do whats best for us all.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 11:51 PM
As for the topic itself, I have a few questions.

PNS, what is it you are trying to achieve with UOC?
No dig, I am serious.

I told him to go to sleep to be in tip-top shape for the interview this morning and he appears to have done so, so I'll answer in part, based the answer he's already given to this multiple times on CGN and maybe OCDO too, (though the environment is less hostile there.)

See his first blog post:
http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2008/07/hello-everyone.html

To start off, I would like to list the reasons why I participate in the legal open carrying of my weapons, an activity that is seen by many a supporter and antagonist as futile and meaningless.

1) I am trying to effect change by peaceable actions.The concealed carry laws here totally suck and the open carry ones aren't much better. With the Heller decision coming down in our favor, it shouldn't be too hard to effect some measure of change, like getting rid of the "unloaded in incorporated only" policy, etc.

2) To inform law enforcement of the laws. All too often, law enforcement does not realize what the laws are and are too quick to punish and ruin those following those laws. By following the law and making sure that the law enforcement is notified beforehand, I can effect a change in the mindset and practices of our favorite law enforcement officers so that we as free men can exercise our rights in the fullest capacity granted by law.

3) To inform the public about firearms. All too often I am asked why I own a gun (or guns), the "licensing requirements" and other such questions concerning the law, history and the general sport of shooting. With open carrying, it affords me an opportunity to diffuse my knowledge and bring other people into the sport. As it stands now, I have a policy of "You pay for the range, I will bring the guns and ammo" as a way to get people to try out our noble sport.

Being that I am a thoughtful soul, all comments, questions and ideas are appreciated and will be answered appropriately.

I'm sure he'll elaborate again on this oft-asked question when he gets a chance later today.

vrand
07-20-2009, 11:58 PM
I told him to go to sleep to be in tip-top shape for the interview this morning and he appears to have done so, so I'll answer in part, based the answer he's already given to this multiple times on CGN and maybe OCDO too, (though the environment is less hostile there.)

:thumbsup:

See his first blog post:
http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2008/07/hello-everyone.html



I'm sure he'll elaborate again on this oft-asked question when he gets a chance later today.

To Educate the Public :thumbsup:

elsensei
07-21-2009, 12:00 AM
24 pages of BS, and here I go adding to it.

Where to begin...I guess the NRA is the best place to start. Yes, maybe the NRA is finally doing some good. On the other hand, they are arguably the biggest gun-control organization on the planet, often taking "the middle road" towards "reasonable" banning of all sorts of weapons, magazines, etc. I used to be an NRA member, for you detractors out there, and know what I'm talking about. Agreeing to give up an arm to the bastard who wants to lop off an arm and a leg, still loses you an arm. I've always advocated joining no-compromise organizations like GOA or JPFO instead of politician-pandering NRA.

Next, on whether PNS25 ought to do an interview: Let me say he's my brother so go ahead and accuse me of bias. Now that that's out of the way, I find it fascinating that all the armchair quarterbacks are able to make such crystal-clear judgment calls. Can you guys tell me what lottery numbers I should choose for the next drawing?

I'm disgusted. Here you have a guy who has his beliefs in his rights and is exercising them in more ways than one, bringing about positive exposure to the RKBA, dealing with loads of police departments and bad attitudes from the powers that be, volunteering, getting the word out, etc etc etc...and some of you guys just ride him into the ground because it's easy to crouch behind a keyboard.

This whole UOC thing is about more than just gun rights, and those of you who accuse him of grandstanding or not being qualified, well, he's a citizen and a free man and that's all the qualification I need. Yeah, some politician may get his panties in a bind and try to pass laws against UOC. Guess what, numbskulls: THEY ARE ALREADY DOING ALL THEY CAN TO STRIP YOU OF ANY POWER YOU HAVE LEFT. Do you realize what state you live in? I mean, do you really think that if UOCers stopped tomorrow that our "representatives" would ignore the gun issue for a little while? Bull puckey. We've seen a steady erosion of our rights, and more than just gun rights, over the years. Do you really think that if incorporation happened tomorrow that the police in this state, like the jackbooted skinhead a-hole who pulled his weapon on Nate while 12031-ing him during a photo shoot at the beach, would suddenly start respecting gun owners, not to mention all the other people who's rights they routinely violate?

Hilarious. It ain't gonna happen. Even if we get incorporation, TPTB will just add on more "reasonable" restrictions until the 2nd is weakened to the point of worthlessness. Get used to the idea.

As far as shall-issue concealed carry, well, then you've taken a right and allowed the state to convert it to a privilege and issue a license and fee for it. Yep, America, land of the free. Heh. Just because you're able to do something, doesn't mean you're"free" to do it.

I'm wandering. It's late. Nate, do the interview. Use your head the way you have been and everything will turn out OK. And once we have incorporation, know that everyone will jump on the bandwagon because then, it will cost nothing to stand up for what they all should have been, all along.

technique
07-21-2009, 12:00 AM
Agreed.

All I am really saying is that we need to coordinate on this type of stuff (and that's speaking for me only). Unless I say otherwise in a post, nothing I say is the official position of the CGF.

It is just "Kevin" talking! And I'll be the first to admit that it is sometimes out of the wrong orifice!

;)

I understood that from the get go. I know you were speaking for yourself. The last I read though was that it was the position of the CGF not to UOC. That is what I meant...not specifically anything you said in this thread.



Alright guys..I enjoyed this thread enough for the evening. I'm off to bed. I will be up for PNS's interview. I am confident he can hang..he is a smart dude and kudos to his elephantiasis of the testicals. LOL. Good luck and hopefully there are no negative repercussions for his actions.

To anyone in this thread wondering..mud slinging aside. I never hold a grudge and I hope if I offended you with my stance on UOC...you have no hard feelings. Goodnight!:)

oaklander
07-21-2009, 12:02 AM
Thanks Kes for being the voice of reason. Here are some answers. . . (again, just speaking for me). . .

Oaklander and others, is there anything other than public opinion that can be adversely affected by UOC?

My main concern, and this is shared by others, is that too much press on UOC right now can cause lawmakers to pass bad laws. It is highly probable that the 1500 foot school zone thing was caused by UOC. This actually affects me where I live, as I am "now" in a school zone and I wasn't before.

A secondary concern is that a UOC'er will get involved in some sort of conflict with LE or the GP, but I guess that goes to public opinion.

That being said, public opinion is what gets bad laws passed.

What exactly, in a nutshell, is the worst case scenario that can come out of UOC?

Additional laws that hurt our rights. All it takes is one bad event, or one constituent, to get the ball rolling on a bad law. Right now, we are generally working "under the RADAR" and doing very well at that. The PR we have gotten has been very controlled and positive.

Do you see any potential benefits?

I kind of see the "educate the public" angle. But I don't agree with it. I don't see the self-defense angle at all. I know where I live, I would be mobbed and robbed of my gun before I could even load it.

ivanimal
07-21-2009, 12:03 AM
Do you actually have any objections of merit?

Yes, I am a father and there is one thing that will always get me going. Doing something I perceive as wrong in front of my kid. We are trying to win over the hearts of the fence riders, there are so many that are lost to our cause because they see you open carrying in front of their children. For every Rosa you have gained there are a thousand people that hate us. Dont you see now is not the time to be a maverick? You are only helping a few while the many sweat tears. Yes you are too young to realize that bravado is not bravery.

vrand
07-21-2009, 12:11 AM
Yes, I am a father and there is one thing that will always get me going. Doing something I perceive as wrong in front of my kid. We are trying to win over the hearts of the fence riders, there are so many that are lost to our cause because they see you open carrying in front of their children. For every Rosa you have gained there are a thousand people that hate us. Dont you see now is not the time to be a maverick? You are only helping a few while the many sweat tears. Yes you are too young to realize that bravado is not bravery.

"Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians."

N6ATF
07-21-2009, 12:11 AM
My main concern, and this is shared by others, is that too much press on UOC right now can cause lawmakers to pass bad laws. It is highly probable that the 1500 foot school zone thing was caused by UOC. This actually affects me where I live, as I am "now" in a school zone and I wasn't before.

So you think. The 1500 foot school zone was expanded before El Indio UOC meet #1. (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=204874)

Did the legislature have time machines? Or did they attack the rare individual UOCers before they even started to organize?

They just neglected to add the guns part, and AB 668 will fix that mistake - the legislature's intent for DECADES has been to screw law-abiding gun owners in favor of criminals, no precipitate event or activist movement really needed, unless they also have a chance to be patently racist.

Yes, I am a father and there is one thing that will always get me going. Doing something I perceive as wrong in front of my kid. We are trying to win over the hearts of the fence riders, there are so many that are lost to our cause because they see you open carrying in front of their children. For every Rosa you have gained there are a thousand people that hate us. Dont you see now is not the time to be a maverick? You are only helping a few while the many sweat tears. Yes you are too young to realize that bravado is not bravery.

The age argument holds no merit. Older and senior gentlemen are doing this. What are they, senile?

And where are these thousand people for every Rosa? Do you really trust the propaganda of the government which claims hundreds of people are calling in and flagging them down at every sight of the UOC movement?

ivanimal
07-21-2009, 12:12 AM
"Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians."

Maybe I spoke too soon.

Alaric
07-21-2009, 12:14 AM
PNS, I assume you are a member of the NRA right? Do you attend meetings of the local chapter here in the SD area? Do you discuss open carry policy at those meetings and coordinate your strategy with the local members council and get their blessing before OC'ing?

Did you also write to the AG's office in Sacramento and get their opinion on the legality of OC before taking it upon yourself to so openly carry in full defiance of some people's opinion? Is it completely legal and within your rights to do so?

Also, did you get permission from the CGF before choosing to vote for your favorite local candidates in the last election? What about the NRA and the local members council? Did they endorse your chosen candidates?

Oh wait. Maybe you don't need those things. Maybe you're an American who has the freedom to do as you choose, within the law. Maybe that's the bottom line and everything else is unreasonable demands that serve no purpose but to put undue restrictions on your liberties. Maybe you should carry on, for you serve as a shining example to us all with your courage to raise the bar, exercise your rights, and push the boundaries of freedom itself.

That said, I wouldn't OC myself. I think you're forging a potential lightning rod for the opposition to galvanize it's rhetoric upon, and further attack our rights. While I fail to see the direct evidence linking UOC with the enhanced school zone restrictions, I believe in my crusty little heart that what you're doing does not lend itself to media friendly sound bytes or conclusions. Your cause is simply too complex in it's intricacies at the intersection of arcane gun law and expression of personal freedom for most of the sheeple to swallow whole. All it will take is one very biased editorial or news item published by the AP or NYT that becomes syndicated by thousands of other papers and media outlets to cause UOC to lead to another wave of anti-gun sentiment and legislation.

In short, I recognize and respect what you're doing for the rights of gun owners and as a personal expression of your own freedom, but I urge you to reconsider your actions based on the potential "spin" in the MSM this could lead to and the resulting legislation that would follow.

locosway
07-21-2009, 12:17 AM
Yes, I am a father and there is one thing that will always get me going. Doing something I perceive as wrong in front of my kid. We are trying to win over the hearts of the fence riders, there are so many that are lost to our cause because they see you open carrying in front of their children. For every Rosa you have gained there are a thousand people that hate us. Dont you see now is not the time to be a maverick? You are only helping a few while the many sweat tears. Yes you are too young to realize that bravado is not bravery.

Sorry, I can't sleep tonight. I pick up my G20 in a couple hours... :D

I'm a father too, and I share your concern here. However, what's the difference between a police officer with a gun and a law abiding citizen? The uniform? If so, then how do you explain to the kids that detectives, plain clothes cops, and arson investigators don't always wear a uniform?

ivanimal
07-21-2009, 12:20 AM
Sorry, I can't sleep tonight. I pick up my G20 in a couple hours... :D

I'm a father too, and I share your concern here. However, what's the difference between a police officer with a gun and a law abiding citizen? The uniform? If so, then how do you explain to the kids that detectives, plain clothes cops, and arson investigators don't always wear a uniform?

They carry concealed.

locosway
07-21-2009, 12:20 AM
All it will take is one very biased editorial or news item published by the AP or NYT that becomes syndicated by thousands of other papers and media outlets to cause UOC to lead to another wave of anti-gun sentiment and legislation.

In short, I recognize and respect what you're doing for the rights of gun owners and as a personal expression of your own freedom, but I urge you to reconsider your actions based on the potential "spin" in the MSM this could lead to and the resulting legislation that would follow.

With so many states allowing loaded open carry I really don't think CA would make much headline across the country unless it was to laugh at us for carrying unloaded weapons.

locosway
07-21-2009, 12:22 AM
They carry concealed.

If so, why did I see three detectives checking out a stolen car down the street from me with their firearms exposed?

Why does an Arson Investigator I know carry exposed as well as concealed?

It's never a black and white situation, just because someone is carrying a firearm and doesn't have the full uniform doesn't mean they're breaking the law.