PDA

View Full Version : Possible Ground on UOC - No flaming desired


Theseus
09-09-2009, 12:10 PM
So there has been much divisiveness and arguing going on.

This thread is not to continue the OC/Calguns bashing of the other threads. What I would like this to be is a constructive discussion about what the Calguns community can accept from OC'ers and what OC'ers can accept from the Calguns community.

I will mention two major points that I think we have all lost sight of.

1. OC'ers, whether you like it or not, we will need Calguns. Calguns is a forum of some 30,000 relatively like minded people that would greatly add to the strength and power of our movement. When Calguns decides to use the OC movement to forward their goals, which they have made clear they likely will at some time, then we can almost immediately add 30,000 people to our cause. That is (unless my numbers are wrong) almost the amount of troops currently fighting in Afghanistan!

As I mentioned at our meeting late last week I mentioned that OC only worked in the other states when there was a group like the VCDL that was willing to support and fight the cause. Calguns has money, lawyers, and political connections we just don't have. Even if we wanted to it is unlikely that we could hope to grow as strong and powerful in the next year without a huge war chest brought by a benefactor like Gene (whom is already a rare enough creature).

2. Calguns will need Open carriers. Gene and the rest have made it pretty clear the they will need veteran open carriers to help forward their cause. Calguns has already decided that they seek to dramatically grow their numbers in the next year in preparation for some heavy movement. We can help with that, something I am sure Calguns can appreciate.

Even though our numbers are not as high, we are a highly motivated group that can contribute time, energy and money to Calguns.

My point in all this is that eventually we will need each other. Many of the active people on Calguns are supporters of the right, they just don't see that our time is now. I disagree. I think that maybe our time is now, but that we should focus our efforts on the fight ahead. We should recruit, build our leadership, media connections and strength so that we will be better poised to fight the enemy anti's and not our allies.

I propose that if we can reach an agreement that is mutually beneficial we can all get what we want (which is, believe it or not the same thing).

I think either we win together, or we will lose separately.

So proposals on how we might reach an agreement?

sorensen440
09-09-2009, 12:26 PM
I suggest an in person meeting with a few of the highly respected party's from both sides of the debate
Keep it informal and remember that we are all on the same side and just disagree on the path to get us there.

The majority from both sides will follow there respected "leaders" if an agreement can be made

Theseus
09-09-2009, 12:29 PM
I suggest an in person meeting with a few of the highly respected party's from both sides of the debate
Keep it informal and remember that we are all on the same side and just disagree on the path to get us there.

The majority from both sides will follow there respected "leaders" if an agreement can be made

Only real problem is the OC group doesn't have "leaders".

sorensen440
09-09-2009, 12:32 PM
Only real problem is the OC group doesn't have "leaders".
What I had in mind are the half a dozen folks that have been the most vocal proponents of UOC
(You and Pullinshoot are the first that come in mind for me)

cineski
09-09-2009, 12:36 PM
There is one rather outspoken gentlemen and OC advocate on this forum that would likely take that role.

Only real problem is the OC group doesn't have "leaders".

Theseus
09-09-2009, 12:50 PM
Well, I don't know, but I perceive an agreement possible if:

OC Conditions


OC is allowed to continue growing its members, training, and building connections, including helping train and prepare more Calgunners.
OC events are permitted to occur.
If we decide it necessary to, we can call to action our forces.
At least 1 OC proponent at the Calguns booths, town-halls, etc. (I shall say the opportunity. Calguns can't be responsible to provide them.)

OC concessions:


Our events and meetings will be held in relative privacy and secrecy so as not to incite public panic or notice to the legislature.
We will not call our forces to action earlier than 7/2010 unless specifically asked to by Calguns.
No individual OC.

By the events, I percieve that the events be held in peoples homes, rented meeting rooms, or something of that nature. The members might be brought in by a "sponsorship" process. . . where someone brings the interested person to a meeting/event instead of public promotion.

Any other possible thoughts on this?

grammaton76
09-09-2009, 12:52 PM
You should perhaps consider organizing a county-wide group, which is what San Diego's working at presently. Kind of like what the NRA Member Councils do.

A state-wide UOC group wouldn't be too useful - it duplicates the efforts of other boards, and the groups DO need to be small and agile enough to know their county of operation intimately.

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-09-2009, 12:58 PM
Why does Calguns need OC'ers? Not understanding the point here.

Glock22Fan
09-09-2009, 1:02 PM
Why does Calguns need OC'ers? Not understanding the point here.

Because if we don't hang together, we shall assuredly hang separately.

I think someone more important than me said that first ;)

paladin4415
09-09-2009, 1:05 PM
Why does Calguns need OC'ers? Not understanding the point here.

Calguns needs ALL gun owners.

sorensen440
09-09-2009, 1:19 PM
Why does Calguns need OC'ers? Not understanding the point here.
I'm not sure if the foundation has a plan that involves activating OC'ers but they certainly need to come to an agreement as It seems to be the opinion of the foundation and the lawyers that UOC could do some real damage if done right now

POLICESTATE
09-09-2009, 1:27 PM
Calguns needs ALL gun owners.

Absolutely right!

Kestryll
09-09-2009, 1:31 PM
At least 1 OC proponent at the Calguns booths, town-halls, etc. (I shall say the opportunity. Calguns can't be responsible to provide them.)

The Booths and outreach programs are volunteer efforts based on promoting Calguns itself not any particular stance within the 2A community.

I would take issue with trying to insert an OC ideology in to the Booths and outreach just as I would take issue with trying to insert an anti-OC ideology.

To date Calguns as an entity has not taken a position on OC and will not right now. In the future? Maybe, maybe not, we'll have to see how things fall out.

Roadrunner
09-09-2009, 1:32 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the analogy that UOC is a low hanging fruit for politicians. Does this imply that politicians are that short sighted to see that this could effect them in a negative sense politically should they create a law like this and have it challenged in court? Or is the argument against UOC, should politicians make a law prohibiting UOC, it's one more challenge that could cost our side money to fight against? If this is the case, then I would submit that incorporation would essentially make a law prohibiting OC of any type unconstitutional and ultimately null and void. I would also submit that should incorporation not be granted, the politicians could make more laws restricting the possession and carrying of firearms anyway. Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm looking at this from a layman's point of view. As I have said before, I personally do not see the need for the constant accessibility of a firearm in my community, but I do understand that those of you who live in Urbania are closer to crime and violence than I am and have the need to have a readily accessible weapon.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 1:41 PM
You should perhaps consider organizing a county-wide group, which is what San Diego's working at presently. Kind of like what the NRA Member Councils do.

A state-wide UOC group wouldn't be too useful - it duplicates the efforts of other boards, and the groups DO need to be small and agile enough to know their county of operation intimately.

Speaking of when are we meeting up again to discuss whats what :D

Kestryll
09-09-2009, 1:44 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the analogy that UOC is a low hanging fruit for politicians.

As I see it, and this is just my opinion and nothing more, to a politician UOC is a visible and easily manipulatable issue they can use as a vehicle to pass even more restrictive laws.

In the eyes of a politician this one is an easy sell and a PR coup.

People see UOC and become concerned, the politician and media begin the sell job that these dangerous guns are now on the street right next to YOUR CHILDREN, "What if one of these UOC'ers started shooting at people or tried to be a hero in a hold-up and shot YOR child because he's not trained like Police are?"

A Bill is proposed to limit or ban UOC with public support in the name of public safety of the children, with the obligatory added riders and clauses that impose limits on things other than OC (When have you EVER seen a Bill wiithout riders?) and WHAMMO!
We now have 2 to 5 more years of unnecessary court cases and expenses to regain the ground lost and get back to where we are today and anti-gun politicians can go back to their districts and say "Look what we did to protect you from the evil guns! Vote me back in to keep defending you!"

That is my interpretation of 'low hanging fruit' that politicians can go after and what the cost to us can be.

rkt88edmo
09-09-2009, 1:45 PM
Only real problem is the OC group doesn't have "leaders".

So without leaders/organization how can you reach any type of agreement/compromise/what-have-you that has any meaning?

Theseus
09-09-2009, 1:52 PM
Perhaps I should have said we don't have "leadership". There are some that might be able to take a leadership role. . . and this might be a way we can start building it.

Will we be able to stop ALL OC? Probably not. But I figured that if we can discuss the issue in a constructive manner that leadership might present itself, a consensus drawn and a group willingness to follow the end result.

I mean, a man can hope, right?

rkt88edmo
09-09-2009, 2:11 PM
I think you are putting the cart before the horse, you need the organization and leadership first to bring something to the table.

Lancear15
09-09-2009, 2:17 PM
OCers need Calguns more then Calguns needs or wants UOCers. There just aren't enough Calgunners interested in, or in support of UOC activism. Many Calgunners like myself are actually very much against UOC, and find it to be to risky to do personally and risky for all gun members for reasons that are well known and have been stated many times by CGF board members. The few who are very interested in UOC seem to me, to have no expendable funds (or even jobs), and lack a base of members willing to fund any sort of legal team specifically for UOC/OC.

Whole thing is a FAIL IMHO.

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 2:23 PM
I think this discussion would be fantastic at the local level, face to face, as previously mentioned. I have no doubts that much can be accomplished if we start working together in the real world. Online forums are great tools, but the work is in the field. While I agree that some sort of structured communication between subsets would be very useful, the idea that we negotiate between orgs is a concept based on the presumption that we're two distinct and separate interests- I'm not willing to give up on the thought that we are all under the same big tent, just have a surmountable disagreement as to timing and some methodology.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 2:24 PM
OCers need Calguns more then Calguns needs or wants UOCers. There just aren't enough Calgunners interested in, or in support of UOC activism. Many Calgunners like myself are actually very much against UOC, and find it to be to risky to do personally and risky for all gun members for reasons that are well known and have been stated many times by CGF board members. The few who are very interested in UOC seem to me, to have no expendable funds (or even jobs), and lack a base of members willing to fund any sort of legal team specifically for UOC/OC.

Whole thing is a FAIL IMHO.

Don't really see that as being constructive to the topic at hand unless you are simply saying that there be no reason we should work together.

If so then, ok..

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 2:26 PM
Lancear, we may disagree on some aspects but let's not overlook the OC community as passionate and valuable resources capable of contributing much, not to mention fellow human beings and brothers in RKBA.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 2:31 PM
I think this discussion would be fantastic at the local level, face to face, as previously mentioned. I have no doubts that much can be accomplished if we start working together in the real world. Online forums are great tools, but the work is in the field. While I agree that some sort of structured communication between subsets would be very useful, the idea that we negotiate between orgs is a concept based on the presumption that we're two distinct and separate interests- I'm not willing to give up on the thought that we are all under the same big tent, just have a surmountable disagreement as to timing and some methodology.

Some already feel that OCDO and Calguns are already at odds. What I would like to see is for us to find a solution. If that solution is that we can't reach one and instead stop trying to steal eachothers air then so be it. . . I don't think either group really wants that.

I don't truly believe that the majority of Calguns is against UOC as much as they are simply threatened by it now.

And I can tell you that although we don't have official leadership we do have those that are leading with a respectful following. Since each person is autonomous we can't control them, but we might have more success getting through to them than the leadership here can IF we can reach an agreement and consensus.

rkt88edmo
09-09-2009, 2:50 PM
Since each person is autonomous we can't control them, but we might have more success getting through to them than the leadership here can IF we can reach an agreement and consensus.

I haven't really been reading all the UOC threads, and decided to read this one just because, so I may not be exactly up to speed on all the old arguments and back and forth. What I see from the above is "please give us something and in return we will promise you nothing but we hope it works out ok". Everyone everywhere is an autonomous individual, so what?

That doesn't seem very convincing to me.

Lance, I am pretty sure calguns membership overall has a majority opinion, but it seems really presumptuous to declare calguns needs or does not need so and so. I think that kind of talk gets reserved for Kestryll.

Lissauer
09-09-2009, 3:04 PM
Why does Calguns need OC'ers?

Because together we stand divided we fall. It is that simple. If we start to divide in the 2A ranks the anti's will find the wedges and drive them between us and gain ground. If we organize and provide a united front then we can win the battles and eventually the war.

That being said, I am not in favor of OC however we need to work as a team not as fragamented groups.

Lancear15
09-09-2009, 3:17 PM
Lance, I am pretty sure calguns membership overall has a majority opinion, but it seems really presumptuous to declare calguns needs or does not need so and so. I think that kind of talk gets reserved for Kestryll.

I agree, I was just stating my two cent view on why there is no real reason for Calguns and OCDO to do any type of joint venture.

Meplat
09-09-2009, 3:31 PM
It seems that lately there are a bunch of "unaffiliated" UOC cells popping up. I doubt they will be effected, and they are much looser cannons than people on the UOC forum. I think we are just going to have to live with this.


What I had in mind are the half a dozen folks that have been the most vocal proponents of UOC
(You and Pullinshoot are the first that come in mind for me)

Meplat
09-09-2009, 3:35 PM
Why does Calguns need OC'ers? Not understanding the point here.

:eek:We need all the help we can get!:rolleyes:

M1A Rifleman
09-09-2009, 3:47 PM
What's to mutually agree upon? What your asking is not possible IMOP. One side thinks UOC is cool and exercising a right. The other side thinks the practice, while legal, in the end will hurt the overall goal of more firearm rights and less restrictions. Not to difficult to understand. I think the intent of your post maybe more along the lines of we are all interested in this hobby, so we should agree to disagree and shake hands over the issue rather than bickering and bashing.

Meplat
09-09-2009, 3:50 PM
Judges read newspapers and watch TV just like the rest of us. I think they fear them wetting their robes at the site of armed citizens, and this negativly effecting very pivotal cases. After all, one 5th circuit judge more or less could soon mean victory or defeat for incorporation.



I'm still trying to wrap my head around the analogy that UOC is a low hanging fruit for politicians. Does this imply that politicians are that short sighted to see that this could effect them in a negative sense politically should they create a law like this and have it challenged in court? Or is the argument against UOC, should politicians make a law prohibiting UOC, it's one more challenge that could cost our side money to fight against? If this is the case, then I would submit that incorporation would essentially make a law prohibiting OC of any type unconstitutional and ultimately null and void. I would also submit that should incorporation not be granted, the politicians could make more laws restricting the possession and carrying of firearms anyway. Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm looking at this from a layman's point of view. As I have said before, I personally do not see the need for the constant accessibility of a firearm in my community, but I do understand that those of you who live in Urbania are closer to crime and violence than I am and have the need to have a readily accessible weapon.

Kestryll
09-09-2009, 4:24 PM
and they are much looser cannons than people on the UOC forum.

Really?
Did you see this gem from 'smoking357' on opencarry.org?
It's time, people.

Know the three rules:

1. Police are an army whose enemy is the People.

2. Police are the greatest enemy America has ever faced.

3. America would be better off without the police.

When we see a car pulled over, we need to realize that there is a citizen at risk. We need to start defending each other.

It's time we all remembered what open carry is all about, and it ain't protection against burglars.

It's time.

I'd say there are nutballs on the forum side of it too.

Just for the record this kind of idiotic threat and 'call to arms' is why Calguns does not have an open carry forum.
Whay invite even more scrutiny by having fools shoot their mouths off with threats like this?

GM4spd
09-09-2009, 4:30 PM
[QUOTE=Kestryll;3038298]As I see it, and this is just my opinion and nothing more, to a politician UOC is a visible and easily manipulatable issue they can use as a vehicle to pass even more restrictive laws.

In the eyes of a politician this one is an easy sell and a PR coup.]



I agree, Paul, there can be some very negative "unintended consequences"
from this situation(UOC). Pete

Meplat
09-09-2009, 4:50 PM
The UOC folks are always saying it’s the only way they can legally have a firearm to defend themselves and their families. Maybe, but for something legal is sure results in a lot of criminal charges. Expensive charges. Now, as Don Meredith would say, I admire your courage but I question your judgment. In fact in less sensitive times I look forward to joining you.

My idea of a good compromise would be if UOCers would stand down until we get incorporation. If you really are carrying for defense, carry concealed, CCW or not. I did it for decades. Getting busted is 10,000 to one less likely than UOC. And CCW busts happen every day without any publicity. If charged with felony CCW a CalGuns member with a clean record would have the CalGuns foundation behind him at least to the point that charges are reduced to a no jail time misdemeanor.

If you are UOCing just because it feels good, and I understand the feeling, get out and enjoy some of our wonderful CA public lands and open carry loaded. I get my fix every year during hunting season.

If you are UOCing just to be in someone’s face: Stop That!:p

Just some thoughts.

tombinghamthegreat
09-09-2009, 4:54 PM
The problem(regardless of individual's members view of UOC) is Pandora's box in a way has been opened and it is now slowly turning into a national debate with some of the people OC near the president. At this point it might be necessary sooner than later to back the OCers. Hopefully incorporation will quickly address the issue of carrying firearms without the risk of having a bad law passed or have people risk spending 5-10 grand in legal fees for exercising their rights.

Meplat
09-09-2009, 4:57 PM
Jeez! This guy should not post unless he is sober! It's even scaryer thinking maybe he was!:eek:


Really?
Did you see this gem from 'smoking357' on opencarry.org?


I'd say there are nutballs on the forum side of it too.

Just for the record this kind of idiotic threat and 'call to arms' is why Calguns does not have an open carry forum.
Whay invite even more scrutiny by having fools shoot their mouths off with threats like this?

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 5:03 PM
Bad, but no worse than what we run into regularly at the gun shows.

Jeez! This guy should not post unless he is sober! It's even scaryer thinking maybe he was!:eek:

Theseus
09-09-2009, 5:06 PM
So what I am seeing so far is that no one wants to try and figure out a solution?

Meplat
09-09-2009, 5:16 PM
I am a "no one" and I would like to see a try at figuring out a solution. So, I guess your right



So what I am seeing so far is that no one wants to try and figure out a solution?

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 5:27 PM
I've mentioned working together in numerous posts- there are many who are as interested as I am.

I'm confident that all the energy and resources out there in the OC community can help us get some serious work done.

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-09-2009, 6:51 PM
I'm not sure if the foundation has a plan that involves activating OC'ers but they certainly need to come to an agreement as It seems to be the opinion of the foundation and the lawyers that UOC could do some real damage if done right now

That's the kicker. Calguns does not need UOC, but the latter surely does in some attempt at cohesion and a PR campaign. UOC offers nothing to Calguns but setbacks. Bringing in certain UOC people under CGN wings is merely a form of damage control and nothing more. That's what happens when an unviable strategy is permitted to grow. Theseus says we are all 'autonomous individuals'; why should Calguns (Kestryll, volunteers, et all) waste its time trying to control people that even the "leaders" (which Theseus states that UOC does not have) of UOC cannot? This is a ridiculous notion, impractical, and will not yield any kind of positive results. CGN sanctioned UOC events will not damper the bad publicity that other events create.

Meplat
09-09-2009, 7:23 PM
Actually I personally agree with some of his stuff. BUT , when he starts talking about going to war with LE, Well.........

Yesterday a CHP helped my son by pushing his Excursion up an off ramp to a parking lot, saving him from having to call a tow truck when the problem was minor and easy to fix. They are not all, or even most, JBTs.

Yes, it can be like snake handling blindfolded. But, don't shoot the gopher snakes for rattlers. And even rattlers have their place.




Bad, but no worse than what we run into regularly at the gun shows.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 7:30 PM
That's the kicker. Calguns does not need UOC, but the latter surely does in some attempt at cohesion and a PR campaign. UOC offers nothing to Calguns but setbacks. Bringing in certain UOC people under CGN wings is merely a form of damage control and nothing more. That's what happens when an unviable strategy is permitted to grow. Theseus says we are all 'autonomous individuals'; why should Calguns (Kestryll, volunteers, et all) waste its time trying to control people that even the "leaders" (which Theseus states that UOC does not have) of UOC cannot? This is a ridiculous notion, impractical, and will not yield any kind of positive results. CGN sanctioned UOC events will not damper the bad publicity that other events create.

Make no mistake, UOC can benefit from Calguns, but we can and will do it without them if it becomes in our interest to do so.

If the above continues to be the prevalent view held by Calguns then there is nothing more to be gained by trying to work together.

If you thought we made noise before you will be amazed how much louder we will be getting.

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-09-2009, 7:35 PM
Make no mistake, UOC can benefit from Calguns, but we can and will do it without them if it becomes in our interest to do so.

If the above continues to be the prevalent view held by Calguns then there is nothing more to be gained by trying to work together.

If you thought we made noise before you will be amazed how much louder we will be getting.

So you really don't care what Calguns or CGF thinks about UOC, as has been suspected all along. Thanks for making that clear.

technique
09-09-2009, 7:39 PM
So you really don't care what Calguns or CGF thinks about UOC, as has been suspected all along. Thanks for making that clear.

Man, thats been clear...crystal freaking clear...since the PNS radio interview. At least to me anyway.

CalNRA
09-09-2009, 7:39 PM
Make no mistake, UOC can benefit from Calguns, but we can and will do it without them if it becomes in our interest to do so.

If the above continues to be the prevalent view held by Calguns then there is nothing more to be gained by trying to work together.

If you thought we made noise before you will be amazed how much louder we will be getting.

sigh. Theseus, it might be time for all of us to take one step back and take a deep breath.

Meplat
09-09-2009, 7:53 PM
Please do not take the comments of one who feels he needs to call attention to his doctorate to bolster his credibility on a forum that presumably has nothing to do with his chosen field of study as indicative of the majority opinion.

We need to work togather.





Make no mistake, UOC can benefit from Calguns, but we can and will do it without them if it becomes in our interest to do so.

If the above continues to be the prevalent view held by Calguns then there is nothing more to be gained by trying to work together.

If you thought we made noise before you will be amazed how much louder we will be getting.

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 8:15 PM
Theseus, your threat is not helping me help you (and us). I *am* trying.

Meplat
09-09-2009, 8:19 PM
Theseus, your threat is not helping me help you (and us). I *am* trying.
+1:)

Theseus
09-09-2009, 8:22 PM
So you really don't care what Calguns or CGF thinks about UOC, as has been suspected all along. Thanks for making that clear.

Man, thats been clear...crystal freaking clear...since the PNS radio interview. At least to me anyway.

I don't see how your comments and my response indicate that I didn't care what their opinion was. I must be confused in thinking that trying to find a way to work together means that I am not willing to find a way to work together.

Now, if you are suggesting that I am not willing to offer an unconditional surrender then you are correct. I was here to discuss terms. If no terms will be offered, then I must reject the offer.

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-09-2009, 8:28 PM
Please do not take the comments of one who feels he needs to call attention to his doctorate to bolster his credibility on a forum that presumably has nothing to do with his chosen field of study as indicative of the majority opinion.

We need to work togather.

Calling attention to my doctorate? It's a Ghostbusters character dude. Next time look up your material references before you try flaming. It might help you hit your mark.

And we do need to work together. It's called not open carrying. That's all that there is to it.

I don't see how your comments and my response indicate that I didn't care what their opinion was. I must be confused in thinking that trying to find a way to work together means that I am not willing to find a way to work together.

Now, if you are suggesting that I am not willing to offer an unconditional surrender then you are correct. I was here to discuss terms. If no terms will be offered, then I must reject the offer.

You don't care what others think as long as it is some compromise on CGF or CGN's views, NOT yours. In the end you will UOC no matter what organization is at the table to discuss the terms. Calguns and the CGF would still be fighting their respective legislative battles with or without UOC guys. In fact it'd be even easier for them if UOC simply disappeared. You want to try discuss options when you don't bring anything worthwhile and you refuse to accept that UOC is a meaningless distraction to the RKBA in this state.

1859sharps
09-09-2009, 8:30 PM
I can't get my head around why the UOC crowd is so determined to move forward at this time.

wouldn't it make more sense to wait until we can get incorporation and repeal the handgun roster before moving forward with open carry?

without incorporation there is little to no protection on 2nd amendment grounds. without repealing the roster, eventually we won't have any handguns to open carry with.

it would seem to me that these to pushes are FAR more important at this time then open carry.

Going to go out on a limb here. I think Open Carry is an issue a lot, if not the vast majority of gun owners can get behind once the foundational issues are resolved. It is just that we comprehend it is not the time to rock that particular boat yet.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 8:31 PM
Theseus, your threat is not helping me help you (and us). I *am* trying.

It is not a threat but a warning. I am here trying to find a way that we can work together in a way that would allow us to work together for mutual benefit.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe UOC to be useful or not. There are many that just won't listen to anything Calguns has to say. There are many that suggest I am exercising futility in trying to find a way. There are some that suggest we abandon all consideration for what Calguns suggests and really make something out of it without Calguns and by making all the noise that OC created in most of the other places it has been practiced.

If you wish to avoid this as I do then I suggest we stop trying to anger each other and find a mutually agreeable solution.

pullnshoot25
09-09-2009, 8:44 PM
As grammaton76 stated earlier, the SD OC guys are working on getting a sort of organization together. This will be to have outreach to curious/concerned citizens and to try to get the different factions into the fold.

Our org won't necessarily be entirely about conducting UOC events either. We have thought of several different and creative types of events that will (hopefully) have a powerful effect here in San Diego and elsewhere.

Speaking of the devil, I am going to start typing up some ideas right now.

CARRY ON!

-N8

Sgt Raven
09-09-2009, 8:52 PM
So you really don't care what Calguns or CGF thinks about UOC, as has been suspected all along. Thanks for making that clear.

Like that's a big surprise. :eek: :rolleyes:

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 8:55 PM
As grammaton76 stated earlier, the SD OC guys are working on getting a sort of organization together. This will be to have outreach to curious/concerned citizens and to try to get the different factions into the fold.

Our org won't necessarily be entirely about conducting UOC events either. We have thought of several different and creative types of events that will (hopefully) have a powerful effect here in San Diego and elsewhere.

Speaking of the devil, I am going to start typing up some ideas right now.

CARRY ON!

-N8
Nate don't forget to forward those ideas to the rest of us that are in on this :). I just told Grammaton tonight our group needs to get together SOON to get some things written down and going forward. I guess you had ESP tonight too cause well you were next on the list to talk to but food was calling and well pepperoni pizza was calling my name.

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 9:04 PM
No, they were threats. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Let's reread them:

...but we can and will do it without them [Calguns] if it becomes in our interest to do so.

If you thought we made noise before you will be amazed how much louder we will be getting.

I know that much can be gained in having a cohesive team to attack the many social and political angles that require attention; maybe you didn't realize that we just had a Town Hall in your area, but it would have been great to see you there and discuss this in person much like those I met with in San Diego.

I will tell you this: if some faction of OC decides to throw a tantrum, it will not end well- for any of us. Further, I honestly don't think the majority of OC advocates are as ready to walk off the proverbial cliff as you make them out to be; the San Diego folks like pullnshoot, grammaton, KylaG and others have proven to be motivated, focused and considerate proponents of the OC movement. It's really bad negotiating form to drop ultimatums this early, especially since you're really not negotiating for any organized group, and even worse to tell the other party that you're only invested in an agreement as long as it's "...in your interest to do so." Not confidence inspiring.

Mutual benefit = gun rights/sympathetic culture. Let's focus on getting some work done in our communities and do something more productive than bantering back and forth on the internet. There is no shortage of things to do. I'm confident that each of us has something valuable (time, skill, financial support...) we can contribute to RKBA beyond posting here at Calguns.

It is not a threat but a warning. I am here trying to find a way that we can work together in a way that would allow us to work together for mutual benefit.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe UOC to be useful or not. There are many that just won't listen to anything Calguns has to say. There are many that suggest I am exercising futility in trying to find a way. There are some that suggest we abandon all consideration for what Calguns suggests and really make something out of it without Calguns and by making all the noise that OC created in most of the other places it has been practiced.

If you wish to avoid this as I do then I suggest we stop trying to anger each other and find a mutually agreeable solution.

sorensen440
09-09-2009, 9:04 PM
This is why I suggest a few respected members from each side meeting face to face
The little digs and jabs from folks not looking for a solution arent going to help find a resolution

Gray Peterson
09-09-2009, 9:08 PM
Look, here's the real problem here:

1) CGF, Calguns, and other associated gun rights leadership is not free to be able to discuss the full reasons and litigation roadmap and planning process for gun rights issues in general. The reason for this is we have LCAV, Brady Campaign, and certain legislative staffers continually trolling for information out of this forum. You guys already know, obviously about Sykes and Pena (carry and handgun roster) suits. An AWB lawsuit is pretty damned certain. What makes you think that there isn't a plan for the truly effective method of OC?

2) The problem as Americans, we have a large percentage of the population that don't trust "leadership" in general. It's in our blood, and it's in our heritage to be rebellious against any perceived authority telling you that someone can't tell you to do something. This doesn't mean that every reason for rebellion is a good thing...

3) This is a question for all of you: If you knew for absolute certainty that UOC now would effect the possibility (in the negative) of being able to LOC statewide (I won't go into the details of how or what) within the next 5 years, the would you still continue to UOC? Forget who says it, assume for a minute that this is true. Would you all continue to UOC anyway? Are you willing to throw away that possibility by continuing to UOC?

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 9:09 PM
I agree, I was just stating my two cent view on why there is no real reason for Calguns and OCDO to do any type of joint venture.

OK first off there are people here on CG that also go to OCDO. Second of all not all UOC are in it for in your face because I can neener neener boo boo crap. Why does Calguns need the support of OCers because they are also gun owners. You may not agree with the UOCers and that is your right. But it is also their right to think differently than you do. Here is the thing most of the UOCers that come here to Calguns actually stood down even BEFORE Gene asked. Not all of us UOC without thinking long and hard before we do so.

Personally when I do choose to OC I do so for protection. You may say UOC is useless in that but it is the closest thing I have to doing so if needed. See I can't run away if something goes bad enough to where I am in need of defense. So I can still load my gun and use it faster than I would be able to run. I hope that I never have to make that choice but I will if I have to. Now given the choice I would much rather CCW or even LOC but right now those are not viable options for me since one LOC isn't legal and two since CCW seems to be harder to get in this county than it would to have the holy grail.

So instead of fighting amongst ourselves about who is more right or wrong why not at least try to work together to get rid of some of the bad laws and get some better ones in place. The anti-gun people love when we are fighting within our own community they see it as opportunity to make things even harder for us.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 9:21 PM
No, they were threats. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Let's reread them:





I know that much can be gained in having a cohesive team to attack the many social and political angles that require attention; maybe you didn't realize that we just had a Town Hall in your area, but it would have been great to see you there and discuss this in person much like those I met with in San Diego.

I will tell you this: if some faction of OC decides to throw a tantrum, it will not end well- for any of us. Further, I honestly don't think the majority of OC advocates are as ready to walk off the proverbial cliff as you make them out to be; the San Diego folks like pullnshoot, grammaton, KylaG and others have proven to be motivated, focused and considerate proponents of the OC movement. It's really bad negotiating form to drop ultimatums this early, especially since you're really not negotiating for any organized group, and even worse to tell the other party that you're only invested in an agreement as long as it's "...in your interest to do so." Not confidence inspiring.

Mutual benefit = gun rights/sympathetic culture. Let's focus on getting some work done in our communities and do something more productive than bantering back and forth on the internet. There is no shortage of things to do. I'm confident that each of us has something valuable (time, skill, financial support...) we can contribute to RKBA beyond posting here at Calguns.

Well, since I am not good at playing the word games some here are then, fine. . .it was a threat.

You are right that there are some on Calguns, including myself that aren't ready to "jump off the cliff", but there are many more that don't even bother coming here that are communicating with me.

I am here trying to discuss it, but if the discussion doesn't prove fruitful then it is not in our best interest to continue discussing and start taking action.

Kestryll
09-09-2009, 9:23 PM
Make no mistake, UOC can benefit from Calguns, but we can and will do it without them if it becomes in our interest to do so.

If the above continues to be the prevalent view held by Calguns then there is nothing more to be gained by trying to work together.

If you thought we made noise before you will be amazed how much louder we will be getting.
You come in here and essentially offer terms that are nothing more than 'We want to do what we like and you have to agree to validate it.

No, you're NOT looking for common ground, you're trying to coerce and cajole.

As for your threat listen to this man because he's giving you good advice:
Theseus, your threat is not helping me help you (and us). I *am* trying.

I don't see how your comments and my response indicate that I didn't care what their opinion was. I must be confused in thinking that trying to find a way to work together means that I am not willing to find a way to work together.
No, you are not trying to find a way to work together, you are trying to dictate term under the threat of "We'll do even more damage if you do not accept."

Now, if you are suggesting that I am not willing to offer an unconditional surrender then you are correct. I was here to discuss terms. If no terms will be offered, then I must reject the offer.
We're not offering crap, you are the one who wanted to act as 'spokesman' for a movement you admit has no leadership, no guidelines, no structure and basically nothing but but the attempt to intimidate by virtue of suggesting active attempts to damage EVERYONE'S rights if you don't get your way.

It is not a threat but a warning. I am here trying to find a way that we can work together in a way that would allow us to work together for mutual benefit.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe UOC to be useful or not. There are many that just won't listen to anything Calguns has to say. There are many that suggest I am exercising futility in trying to find a way. There are some that suggest we abandon all consideration for what Calguns suggests and really make something out of it without Calguns and by making all the noise that OC created in most of the other places it has been practiced.

If you wish to avoid this as I do then I suggest we stop trying to anger each other and find a mutually agreeable solution.

Let me put this plainly and you can get pissed, offended or wad your short 7 meters up for all I care.

You do NOT want to play 'warning/threat' crap with me.
When I see your post my immediate reaction is to tell you to take your sorry little threat and go pound sand elsewhere.
I don't put up with that kind of attempted intimidation crap at all, you want to play that game I'll shut you and the whole UOC concept down on this forum.

Now that is my immediate reaction and frankly one I really think is where this is going to go in the end because in all honesty I DO NOT think you are here to try to work together.
I think you are trying to either pick enough of a fight that you can say 'Oh look, I tried but oh well' and then go on about doing what you want to do regardless of what damage it does to others.
Or you are here to try and finagle some form of 'concession' by way of threat, one of the two.

As I said, that is my immediate reaction and gut feeling on this.

However.

I also know that you do NOT speak for many of the UOC'ers on Calguns and elsewhere and there are many cringing at your ultimatum hoping not to be smeared with that broad brush.

Because of that and ONLY because of that I am going to forego my gut response and instincts on this and say only this.

If you, or ANY UOC group, is truly willing to look for common ground and how UOC can be better represented here they are welcome to discuss it but realize there are criteria for discussion.

Leave the attitude and ego at the door, all it is going to do is bring things to this point even faster. Neither side benefits from the 'My cyber-wee-wee is bigger' game.

Understand that you are NOT going to walk away with everything you want and a smile, that's not discussion or working together that is dictating terms.

Always keep in mind that this is NOT about your ego, your self-importance, our 'rep' or our standing with anyone. It is about making sure that EVERYTHING is done with the end goal of the preservation and restoration of our Second Amendment rights.

Leave the threats and ultimatum stuff at the door. Never, let me repeat that, NEVER throw that crap down unless you are willing and ready to walk away irrevocably at that moment. Because nothing makes people stonewall you faster than the feeling that they are being pushed in to something by threat.

These are basic criteria designed to allow real discussion and not just posturing and blustering and they apply to ALL involved in a discussion.


I have NEVER barred or banned discussion of UOC here nor have I ever stated an Official Calguns Position on UOC.
I would prefer not to have to do either of these things now.

But if this turns in to a pissing match of 'Oh yeah well I'll do THIS and see who blinks!' I'll tell you right now that will make my decision for me.

Kestryll
09-09-2009, 9:28 PM
As grammaton76 stated earlier, the SD OC guys are working on getting a sort of organization together. This will be to have outreach to curious/concerned citizens and to try to get the different factions into the fold.

Our org won't necessarily be entirely about conducting UOC events either. We have thought of several different and creative types of events that will (hopefully) have a powerful effect here in San Diego and elsewhere.

Speaking of the devil, I am going to start typing up some ideas right now.

CARRY ON!

-N8

OK first off there are people here on CG that also go to OCDO. Second of all not all UOC are in it for in your face because I can neener neener boo boo crap. Why does Calguns need the support of OCers because they are also gun owners. You may not agree with the UOCers and that is your right. But it is also their right to think differently than you do. Here is the thing most of the UOCers that come here to Calguns actually stood down even BEFORE Gene asked. Not all of us UOC without thinking long and hard before we do so.

Personally when I do choose to OC I do so for protection. You may say UOC is useless in that but it is the closest thing I have to doing so if needed. See I can't run away if something goes bad enough to where I am in need of defense. So I can still load my gun and use it faster than I would be able to run. I hope that I never have to make that choice but I will if I have to. Now given the choice I would much rather CCW or even LOC but right now those are not viable options for me since one LOC isn't legal and two since CCW seems to be harder to get in this county than it would to have the holy grail.

So instead of fighting amongst ourselves about who is more right or wrong why not at least try to work together to get rid of some of the bad laws and get some better ones in place. The anti-gun people love when we are fighting within our own community they see it as opportunity to make things even harder for us.

Nate, Kyla, I am very aware of what the San Diego OC'ers are trying to do and frankly I've been impressed with much of what I've seen and heard.

What I'm hearing is much more conducive to actually working together than coming in slinging threats and ultimatums and is much more likely to result in real discussion and cooperation.

I am talking to WH and Gram and want to hear more on what is going on and what ideas are floating around.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 9:33 PM
This is why I suggest a few respected members from each side meeting face to face
The little digs and jabs from folks not looking for a solution arent going to help find a resolution

EXACTLY!!!!!The town hall meeting that was held here in San Diego was successful I do believe. A lot of good ideas were had by all in attendance, there was good food and even some good laughs. Plus it was a great way to actually see the faces behind the screen names here at Calguns.

Theseus you made some good points on what OC would have to do. In that post without actually out and out saying it you did say no OC till 06/2010. Grammaton is right in saying it would be better to have the OC groups by county. Lets face it is hard to do anything here that is statewide just on the fact that the state is huge to begin with. So by breaking it down by county isn't a bad idea. This does not mean that the groups are totally on their own either. They can work together to collaborate what should and should not be done when OC. I will say this though if you are going to run a OC group please try to get it through the members heads that it is wise to do your homework before you go out. I know what you said on OCDC about how it is not wise to look for schools in the area. I have to totaly disagree with that. Due to the fact that while yes the courts say innocent till proven guilty we both know the fact it would be up to you to prove you did not know.

I can use the would you get behind the wheel of a car and drive to somewhere you have never been before without first looking at the map to make sure you know where you are going. Where there are gas stations and the like. Simplistic example to be sure but illustrates the fallacy of saying not looking up of schools is ok for someone that is going to OC. I would rather do my homework and be safe than to take a blind chance that it is a safe area. Oh and if for some reason you do get stopped in a school zone you checked out if you did look it up and that school does not show and you can prove it could also be the ticket to your freedom instead of your ticket to a jail cell.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 9:42 PM
Nate, Kyla, I am very aware of what the San Diego OC'ers are trying to do and frankly I've been impressed with much of what I've seen and heard.

What I'm hearing is much more conducive to actually working together than coming in slinging threats and ultimatums and is much more likely to result in real discussion and cooperation.

I am talking to WH and Gram and want to hear more on what is going on and what ideas are floating around.

You got it. :) And hopefully we will have some game plans down for you to see soon. Hopefully we will be able to do some good things to help further the 2A rights across the board. At least in my personal case UOC was never for in your face reaction.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 10:03 PM
You come in here and essentially offer terms that are nothing more than 'We want to do what we like and you have to agree to validate it.

No, you're NOT looking for common ground, you're trying to coerce and cajole.

As for your threat listen to this man because he's giving you good advice:

We're not offering crap, you are the one who wanted to act as 'spokesman' for a movement you admit has no leadership, no guidelines, no structure and basically nothing but but the attempt to intimidate by virtue of suggesting active attempts to damage EVERYONE'S rights if you don't get your way.

Let me put this plainly and you can get pissed, offended or wad your short 7 meters up for all I care.

You do NOT want to play 'warning/threat' crap with me.
When I see your post my immediate reaction is to tell you to take your sorry little threat and go pound sand elsewhere.
I don't put up with that kind of attempted intimidation crap at all, you want to play that game I'll shut you and the whole UOC concept down on this forum.

Now that is my immediate reaction and frankly one I really think is where this is going to go in the end because in all honesty I DO NOT think you are here to try to work together.
I think you are trying to either pick enough of a fight that you can say 'Oh look, I tried but oh well' and then go on about doing what you want to do regardless of what damage it does to others.
Or you are here to try and finagle some form of 'concession' by way of threat, one of the two.

As I said, that is my immediate reaction and gut feeling on this.

However.

I also know that you do NOT speak for many of the UOC'ers on Calguns and elsewhere and there are many cringing at your ultimatum hoping not to be smeared with that broad brush.

Because of that and ONLY because of that I am going to forego my gut response and instincts on this and say only this.

If you, or ANY UOC group, is truly willing to look for common ground and how UOC can be better represented here they are welcome to discuss it but realize there are criteria for discussion.

Leave the attitude and ego at the door, all it is going to do is bring things to this point even faster. Neither side benefits from the 'My cyber-wee-wee is bigger' game.

Understand that you are NOT going to walk away with everything you want and a smile, that's not discussion or working together that is dictating terms.

Always keep in mind that this is NOT about your ego, your self-importance, our 'rep' or our standing with anyone. It is about making sure that EVERYTHING is done with the end goal of the preservation and restoration of our Second Amendment rights.

Leave the threats and ultimatum stuff at the door. Never, let me repeat that, NEVER throw that crap down unless you are willing and ready to walk away irrevocably at that moment. Because nothing makes people stonewall you faster than the feeling that they are being pushed in to something by threat.

These are basic criteria designed to allow real discussion and not just posturing and blustering and they apply to ALL involved in a discussion.


I have NEVER barred or banned discussion of UOC here nor have I ever stated an Official Calguns Position on UOC.
I would prefer not to have to do either of these things now.

But if this turns in to a pissing match of 'Oh yeah well I'll do THIS and see who blinks!' I'll tell you right now that will make my decision for me.

Hm. . .

Firstly, I didn't offer terms, I suggested them and sought comment.

Secondly, I don't respond to threats either Kestryll, I never expected you or anyone here would either.

To believe that I would even be in a position to MAKE Calguns do anything it doesn't want to is presuming a confidence I don't have. I can't make Calguns do anything no matter how I might wish I could.

The fact that you had to stand on your platitude and threaten me tells me that you feel the same as the others.

If we can't figure a solution without having to pump and beat our chests we will not accomplish anything. As I have said, I was not intending to threaten anyone as stated above the threat would have been empty, useless and unproductive.

It is suggested we have nothing to offer, but we do. Calguns wants us to stop. We don't want to stop. But we will be willing to keep it low-key and under radar so as not to cause as much a fuss.

And what would Calguns need to do get this consideration from a group they can't get it from? Simply allowing us the room to grow. Quit the bashing, quit the rabid attacks and we will keep quiet and not cause waves for you long enough to get your cases worked out. When you have CCW and such we can then motivate our people to work on getting LOC.

If I understand it it is just about what you are already asking us to do, except we will still have our events.

gravedigger
09-09-2009, 10:15 PM
My step-dad was an intelligent man. He used to say,

"People can get used to anything. Even hanging."

I see the UOC movement as not unlike the introduction of bikini to the beach full of conservatively dressed beach goers in one-piece suits, the first black people sitting in seats at the front of the bus, first convertible automobile, and the introduction of cellular telephones.

At first, there society suffers a bit of shock at the sight of a new and controversial thing that some people have, but after a while, society gets used to it.

Seeing people UOC is the means of getting society used to seeing guns on the hips of ordinary citizens. Yes, they SEE a gun on the hip of the nicely dressed man who is enjoying a cheeseburger combo, or on the hip of the woman who is strolling along the boardwalk with a parasol to shade her fair skin form the sun ... but they ALSO see that nothing came of it. They might go home and say, "I saw a man in the mall who was wearing a GUN!" As the conversation continues with whoever he is sharing this breaking news, they will ultimately get to, "OMG! What happened?" and the response would naturally be, "Nothing. he just bought a pair of shoes at the Foot Locker and left."

Those who oppose lawful UOC actions are only feeding the unfounded and irrational fears of society. They are concentrating on the fact that ordinary folks see a MWG, but they seem to ignore the logical outcome of that sighting which is, they talk about it with someone else, and most likely reach the logical conversation point of saying, "Nothing happened."

I cannot think of a more powerful message to send to frightened and curious onlookers than to have them witness some cops stopping "the man with a gun!", 12031 checking his weapon, RETURNING his weapon to him and allowing him to go on his way. You know they're expecting the MWG to be hauled away in a patrol car, so just imagine the impact of seeing him released WITH his lawfully carried weapon and allowed to walk away!

To avoid UOC is to make the incidents of UOC exceptional rather than just matter of fact.

How many people really turn to take a hard look at someone walking while talking on a cellular phone today? There WAS a time, not so long ago, when a guy with a cell phone would turn heads.

I do not understand the opposition to UOC, or even LOC. There is no other way to get society used to seeing people carrying guns except to provide plenty of opportunities for people to see other people carrying guns!

Also, we have the "odds" phenomenon to consider. If only ONE UOC event occurs, and for whatever reason, some gun-hating adrenaline-junkie causes a disturbance by trying to yank a gun from someone's holster, or whatever, it will make the news! If 1,500 UOC sightings happened that week in the same area, and that same incident occurred, people would naturally conclude that "there is one in every crowd."

ONE airliner takes off and crashes. It pegs air travel as horribly dangerous. Yet, airliners crash now and then. So why do people STILL climb onto jumbo jets every day? It is because they accept the rare and infrequent crashed airliner as part of the risk of air travel. Heck, even after Islamic extremists hijacked FOUR PLANES and slammed them into buildings, people STILL climb aboard jumbo jets, because they reason in their minds that the ODDS of that occurring on their particular flight are minimal.

If UOC events occurred daily on several parts of every major city, people would get used to it, and the rare and infrequent accidental discharge or other incident would be accepted as part of the risk, just like how the deaths by drunk drivers that occur EVERY DAY are accepted as part of the risk of allowing society to drive cars.

CalNRA
09-09-2009, 10:34 PM
I am here trying to discuss it, but if the discussion doesn't prove fruitful then it is not in our best interest to continue discussing and start taking action.



If you thought we made noise before you will be amazed how much louder we will be getting.

Theseus, what do you mean by "taking action" and "getting louder"? I am deeply concerned about your wording here.

Librarian
09-09-2009, 10:38 PM
gravedigger, that's an interesting post.

Unfortunately, I think it's a fantasy. It seems to be based on a hope for rationality among the populace that I think has seldom been encountered.

I do expect that some people will act as you suggest - see a MWG, realize nothing happened, become accustomed to it.

But those people don't usually work for newspapers nor run for public office.

And the ones who call in the MWG to police won't hang around to see the carrier get his gun back - they'll see the police arrive and leave, thinking 'Now things are under control.'

Theseus
09-09-2009, 10:41 PM
Theseus, what do you mean by "taking action" and "getting louder"? I am deeply concerned about your wording here.

I am confused by your concern?

Do you think we were all organizing to sit around and be quiet?

gravedigger
09-09-2009, 10:44 PM
And the ones who call in the MWG to police won't hang around to see the carrier get his gun back - they'll see the police arrive and leave, thinking 'Now things are under control.'

Now come on! WHEN has anyone who called in a terrible car accident, or a tip on a bank robbery, or any other "I'm telling!" call ... WHEN have they left the scene the moment the authorities arrive? Heck! you can't even get people to drive past a dented fender on a freeway without succumbing to the "lookie-loo" syndrome.

Anyone who calls in a MWG will damned sure stick around to watch him being thrown into a police cruiser (if only from a safe distance), so he can get his satisfaction that he got an "evil gun owner" thrown into jail. NO ONE who calls in a MWG on an UOC event would leave the moment the cops show up. NO ONE!

CalNRA
09-09-2009, 10:45 PM
I am confused by your concern?

Do you think we were all organizing to sit around and be quiet?

well, telling a bunch of gun rights supporters that you just might go out and "take action" and "get louder" just might raise a few eyebrows.

Tell me this, since there has already been numerous organized UOC events in the past where the participants were courteous yet firm in asserting their rights, hopefully educated some people on the issue at various locales, what do you mean by "getting louder" Louder than holding events and pass out pamphlets?

Theseus
09-09-2009, 10:48 PM
well, telling a bunch of gun rights supporters that you just might go out and "take action" and "get louder" just might raise a few eyebrows.

Tell me this, since there has already been numerous organized UOC events in the past where the participants were courteous yet firm in asserting their rights, hopefully educated some people on the issue at various locales, what do you mean by "getting louder" Louder than holding events and pass out pamphlets?

I thought that was what you were getting at.

CalNRA
09-09-2009, 10:58 PM
I thought that was what you were getting at.

well, since you didn't really address my concern I can only hope for the best.

Bruce
09-09-2009, 11:10 PM
Now come on! WHEN has anyone who called in a terrible car accident, or a tip on a bank robbery, or any other "I'm telling!" call ... WHEN have they left the scene the moment the authorities arrive? Heck! you can't even get people to drive past a dented fender on a freeway without succumbing to the "lookie-loo" syndrome.

Anyone who calls in a MWG will damned sure stick around to watch him being thrown into a police cruiser (if only from a safe distance), so he can get his satisfaction that he got an "evil gun owner" thrown into jail. NO ONE who calls in a MWG on an UOC event would leave the moment the cops show up. NO ONE!

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=217350

Post #1, the black text.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 11:18 PM
well, since you didn't really address my concern I can only hope for the best.

Must fight the urge to laugh. . . . Nope! :rofl2:

The amount of times someone on this board uses words that could be "reason for concern" but you choose this one to say something.

Speaks far more about you that I believe it does me.

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 11:26 PM
Ok, I think we've gone far enough away from constructive discussion for one evening. Let's table this and return to it tomorrow afternoon.

CalNRA
09-09-2009, 11:27 PM
...

okay then. Since I am not going to get a serious response from you, I'll sit this out for a while.

:popcorn:

Gray Peterson
09-09-2009, 11:29 PM
I find it funny no one has at all addressed statement my statement or questions yet.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 11:38 PM
Ok, I think we've gone far enough away from constructive discussion for one evening. Let's table this and return to it tomorrow afternoon.

But he started it! :p

And back to the serious discussion though, I have gotten a positive response from a few of the "leaderless" group that if Calguns could help tone down the negativity against OC and stop attacking us that they will agree to our events and such low-key and out of note so that Calguns can do its thing.

See. . . there are some reasonable people when you aren't attacking us. . .

Purple K
09-09-2009, 11:41 PM
Because if we don't hang together, we shall assuredly hang separately.

I think someone more important than me said that first ;)

All gun owners need to support each other and their personal decisions about how they use their firearms. I don't shoot trap or skeet, but I certainly support other's rights to do so. Some folks hunt critters while some folks hunt little X's printed in the middle of a bunch of circles. Personally I would much rather carry concealled rather than UOC simply because UOC draws too much attention to yourself. But, I fully support my gun owning UOC brothers. If the anti-gunners see us gun owners as devided in any way they will make every effort to aggrivate that discord. Let us not forget the big picture.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 11:44 PM
3) This is a question for all of you: If you knew for absolute certainty that UOC now would effect the possibility (in the negative) of being able to LOC statewide (I won't go into the details of how or what) within the next 5 years, the would you still continue to UOC? Forget who says it, assume for a minute that this is true. Would you all continue to UOC anyway? Are you willing to throw away that possibility by continuing to UOC?

IIRC we played that game in another thread and it ended up nothing more than another UOC bash.

That was why I wasn't answering it.

Lets not focus on laying the blame though and stay on target. <----Now that is a reason for concern. . . I have said take action, make noise and target in the same thread! :rofl:

FreedomIsNotFree
09-09-2009, 11:50 PM
What is most abhorrent, to me, about the discussion in this thread is that ANYONE thinks they can dictate to another under what conditions/manner someone else can carry a firearm, protect the life of themselves or their family or make a political statement.

The "official" position of Calguns.net or of "leaders" of the UOC crowd mean little to nothing to me. I am an individual that has enough intelligence to think on my own, make my own decision, and if the situation requires it, suffer MY OWN consequences.

The hubris demonstrated by both sides in this thread is disgusting.

I've got a great idea...why don't those of us not on the extreme of either side start our own movement....:cool:

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 11:53 PM
Maybe instead of debating the risk/reward aspect of this we can each come up with one way to reach out to to our neighbors re RKBA without a gun on our hip. It's entirely useless to only say "no" or technically out-debate someone and not offer any alternatives for taking action; frankly, the open carry folks have at least the motivation to get off their butts and get out there, something many who oppose UOCs can't say for themselves. Let's use this energy and passion to create opportunity for culture change here in California, so when we get both CCW and LOC the public will have been primed for the many changes coming through the courts. What a disservice to our fellow citizens if we don't offer to them a positive perspective of firearm ownership and gun owners as NRA, CGF, SAF and others work so hard to take back and secure our rights in DC, Sacto and the court system.

I'll never be a Gura, Kilmer, Davis, Kates, Michel, Hoffman, Worley (and the list goes on)... We can every one of us be the guy or gal who brought the spirit of 2A to our little corner of the world; not *our* flavor of 2A, but the one that matters to *them*- our friends, neighbors, communities. Let's not squander this tremendous gift we have here at Calguns with unproductive comments like many in this and other threads.

I find it funny no one has at all addressed statement my statement or questions yet.

hoffmang
09-09-2009, 11:53 PM
I want to make sure that people understand what CGF's position is because its not like we're asking for some open ended stand down.

1. Until incorporation no UOC. Just don't do it. LUCC or LOC where legal is fine. If you want to stage a protest, stage a protest and use obviously non gun guns...

2. After incorporation, pre "carry is a right", group UOC but be cautious - especially about GFSZs. We're now in a world where reasonable men can disagree about the effectiveness of UOC and its upsides and downsides. Absolute worst case time to getting to stage 2 is June 30, 2010 - less than 10 months from today.

3. After carry is a right (Sykes or Palmer final.) Individual UOC - go right ahead. But you may be able to do something even better... Worst case on this - 24-36 months.

-Gene

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 11:58 PM
And the fact that you just offered nothing to everyone is both frustrating and amusing. I can see now that you're a big boy. Care to work with all of us towards a positive result, or did you just want to throw stones from the upstairs window of your nice big glass house?

What is most abhorrent, to me, about the discussion in this thread is that ANYONE thinks they can dictate to another under what conditions/manner someone else can carry a firearm, protect the life of themselves or their family or make a political statement.

The "official" position of Calguns.net or of "leaders" of the UOC crowd mean little to nothing to me. I am an individual that has enough intelligence to think on my own, make my own decision, and if the situation requires it, suffer MY OWN consequences.

The hubris demonstrated by both sides in this thread is disgusting.

I've got a great idea...why don't those of us not on the extreme of either side start our own movement....:cool:

sorensen440
09-10-2009, 12:03 AM
This seems fully reasonable to me
I want to make sure that people understand what CGF's position is because its not like we're asking for some open ended stand down.

1. Until incorporation no UOC. Just don't do it. LUCC or LOC where legal is fine. If you want to stage a protest, stage a protest and use obviously non gun guns...

2. After incorporation, pre "carry is a right", group UOC but be cautious - especially about GFSZs. We're now in a world where reasonable men can disagree about the effectiveness of UOC and its upsides and downsides. Absolute worst case time to getting to stage 2 is June 30, 2010 - less than 10 months from today.

3. After carry is a right (Sykes or Palmer final.) Individual UOC - go right ahead. But you may be able to do something even better... Worst case on this - 24-36 months.

-Gene

pullnshoot25
09-10-2009, 12:04 AM
Nate, Kyla, I am very aware of what the San Diego OC'ers are trying to do and frankly I've been impressed with much of what I've seen and heard.

What I'm hearing is much more conducive to actually working together than coming in slinging threats and ultimatums and is much more likely to result in real discussion and cooperation.

I am talking to WH and Gram and want to hear more on what is going on and what ideas are floating around.

Thank you for the opportunity. I will do my best to not disappoint you or my fellow firearms enthusiasts. :)

Theseus
09-10-2009, 12:11 AM
I want to make sure that people understand what CGF's position is because its not like we're asking for some open ended stand down.

1. Until incorporation no UOC. Just don't do it. LUCC or LOC where legal is fine. If you want to stage a protest, stage a protest and use obviously non gun guns...

2. After incorporation, pre "carry is a right", group UOC but be cautious - especially about GFSZs. We're now in a world where reasonable men can disagree about the effectiveness of UOC and its upsides and downsides. Absolute worst case time to getting to stage 2 is June 30, 2010 - less than 10 months from today.

3. After carry is a right (Sykes or Palmer final.) Individual UOC - go right ahead. But you may be able to do something even better... Worst case on this - 24-36 months.

-Gene

And in honesty Gene I believe the true issue with some of the OC group now is not with the official position on OC as much as the amount of bashing that we take from the forum members. There are admittedly the few that don't trust Calguns at all. They feel that once Calguns gets CCW the OC crowd will be left hanging with their asses out, without leadership, and without the support because we respected your requests not to organize.

Treat them like inconsiderate animals long enough and they just might become what it is you are treating them as.

The point I am making is let us have some respect here and stop attacking us. Stop making them feel as if there is nothing here for us and no ground we can stand together on or they will leave and they won't give the slightest consideration to you or your goals.

ALSO: In terms of #1, isn't it illegal to have replica arms? I thought it was against the law. I mean, if we were allowed to holster the bright orange and blue guns? If so that might actually be a stronger statement than UOC itself.

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 12:25 AM
Treat them like inconsiderate animals long enough and they just might become what it is you are treating them as.


I hear that but here is the other side of that coin.

Months ago one of the best NRA guys we all have was physically threatened by a UOC proponent in a face to face setting.

I've been called a traitor and accused of bringing UOC to the attention of the Legislature.

I've been called a liar for trying to explain that the Legislature is fully aware of UOC.

I've been called a non patriot for suggesting a wiser course of political action.

I've been called ignorant of the law when I said that the state courts are not our friends and will not follow the law where guns are involved in urban areas and I've not enjoyed watching your case prove me prophetic.

I've been told that I moved the goal posts when I have been clear about what's politically safe and what's not when. You yourself tried to imply that I didn't say to stand down even group stuff after Nordyke went en banc.

I'm also not responded to when I defend my position that invoking your "right" to UOC is not a defense of UOC. Most UOC'ers position is that they have a right to carry and that they should be able to carry without taking even their own gun cultures' best interests into consideration. If that was so, then they should be selfless enough to loaded carry in a school zone and damn the consequences. The point here is this. UOCers are worried about their own hides and don't (in most cases) want to break the law. Well, that tells me that you are responding to the fact that LOC isn't legal. That means UOC is a privilege until the law changes. We're moving as fast as possible to change the law but that's not good enough. When we change the law, UOC and likely LOC will be a right. That right may have some limited manner restrictions on it - like parade permits - but you'll be able to exercise the core of the right.

In today's legal environment - which you are accepting by carrying unloaded - you are invoking a privilege that a majority of the California Legislature is giddy to take away from you. Please stop making the argument into one of false patriotism to those of us counseling folks that this is a more dangerous strategy in California at this time than you're aware of.

That's the other side of the coin. I don't like not getting much time today for my family because cases were flying and lawyers were arguing. It's not appreciated to get back to Calguns.net and find out that I'm a false patriot because some impatient folks say so.

-Gene

FreedomIsNotFree
09-10-2009, 12:32 AM
And the fact that you just offered nothing to everyone is both frustrating and amusing. I can see now that you're a big boy. Care to work with all of us towards a positive result, or did you just want to throw stones from the upstairs window of your nice big glass house?

Excuse me Wildhawker, but before you recently turned a new leaf you were one of the most vocal and divisive bashers from the anti-UOC crowd. You consistently belittled, berated and demonized those that chose to UOC...so please save the crap that I "offered nothing". Do you think your new found direction erases your past comments and gives you credibility?

The reason why nothing was offered is because there is nothing to "offer". Gun owners are, by in large, individualists that march to the beat of their own drum and detest being dictated to. Is that NOT apparent to you yet?

This very thread proves my point.

Care to work with all of us towards a positive result, or did you just want to throw stones from the upstairs window of your nice big glass house?

Work with whom exactly? Can you tell me who the "leader" of the UOC crowd is? Does such a person even exist?

And your use of the glass house idiom is completely out of context...but that's a separate issue of yours.

FreedomIsNotFree
09-10-2009, 12:36 AM
Gene,

You've said all that can be said. This entire matter has, unfortunately, been turned in to a giant pissing contest at this point. Keep doing what you are doing..the vast majority of us appreciate the time, energy and money you've invested in this cause of ours.

Theseus
09-10-2009, 12:49 AM
Months ago one of the best NRA guys we all have was physically threatened by a UOC proponent in a face to face setting.

I was not aware of that and am sorry for that.

I've been called a traitor and accused of bringing UOC to the attention of the Legislature.

I've been called a liar for trying to explain that the Legislature is fully aware of UOC.

I've been called a non patriot for suggesting a wiser course of political action.

I've been called ignorant of the law when I said that the state courts are not our friends and will not follow the law where guns are involved in urban areas and I've not enjoyed watching your case prove me prophetic.I agree that we have all suffered from the differences in this issue. I believe many on both sides are tired, irate and to the point that if we don't start calming down we might pass the point of no return.

I've been told that I moved the goal posts when I have been clear about what's politically safe and what's not when. You yourself tried to imply that I didn't say to stand down even group stuff after Nordyke went en banc.And actually, I didn't understand that you asked for group stand down. . . and I was apparently not the only one. That was the only reason I was arguing about it so much. . . It was driving me crazy that you were complaining about OC events when it was my understanding that you were OK with. . .

I'm also not responded to when I defend my position that invoking your "right" to UOC is not a defense of UOC. Most UOC'ers position is that they have a right to carry and that they should be able to carry without taking even their own gun cultures' best interests into consideration. If that was so, then they should be selfless enough to loaded carry in a school zone and damn the consequences. The point here is this. UOCers are worried about their own hides and don't (in most cases) want to break the law. Well, that tells me that you are responding to the fact that LOC isn't legal. That means UOC is a privilege until the law changes. We're moving as fast as possible to change the law but that's not good enough. When we change the law, UOC and likely LOC will be a right. That right may have some limited manner restrictions on it - like parade permits - but you'll be able to exercise the core of the right.

In today's legal environment - which you are accepting by carrying unloaded - you are invoking a privilege that a majority of the California Legislature is giddy to take away from you. Please stop making the argument into one of false patriotism to those of us counseling folks that this is a more dangerous strategy in California at this time than you're aware of.

That's the other side of the coin. I don't like not getting much time today for my family because cases were flying and lawyers were arguing. It's not appreciated to get back to Calguns.net and find out that I'm a false patriot because some impatient folks say so.

-GeneI can understand your frustration. I am sure that when Calguns was getting its legs with OLL's it wasn't so easy getting everyone together. I was not here for the beginning, but I am sure it had its bumps.

Have a little more patience and work with us and we might just show you what we can accomplish with leadership.

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 12:54 AM
little more patience and work with us and we might just show you what we can accomplish with leadership.

I have patience and a pretty thick skin or I couldn't do what I do so don't worry too much about me.

I am truly sorry that I wasn't clearer on the Nordyke en banc impact. That post was late and I had been leading my sales team and company at an offsite earlier that day, plus being wicked busy due to the various fallout impacts the en banc call had. Realize that there are other CGF "projects" that had to go on hold that day too. It's not just group UOC that needed to pause because of some lone judge on the 9th Circuit...

I think we're all frustrated. The good news is that frustration is very temporary. Let's focus on defeating 962 and the Cow Palace bill over the next 48 hours and then turn our attention to the Nordyke en banc on the 24th. I'd love to see you there if you can make it but completely understand if you can not.

-Gene

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 1:23 AM
Excuse me Wildhawker, but before you recently turned a new leaf you were one of the most vocal and divisive bashers from the anti-UOC crowd. You consistently belittled, berated and demonized those that chose to UOC...so please save the crap that I "offered nothing". Do you think your new found direction erases your past comments and gives you credibility?

As I told the UOC folks I met in person in SoCal, I take full responsibility for the things I have said in the past. To be frank, my position remains that UOC is not terribly helpful to our cause at this time; the difference is that I recognized the passion and energy could be more effectively utilized for RKBA if focused towards achieving concrete results at the local level rather than debating the risk/rewards of UOC. I am absolutely committed to this goal. Does this erase my past comments? Hardly. Am I credible? That is up to all of you to decide. I will not be deterred from seeking out and organizing those who are interested in 2A outreach and activism simply because I have in the past said things you might find abrasive.

The reason why nothing was offered is because there is nothing to "offer". Gun owners are, by in large, individualists that march to the beat of their own drum and detest being dictated to. Is that NOT apparent to you yet?

This very thread proves my point.

Honestly, the fact that you look past what so many volunteers here - all who had something to offer - have accomplished is disturbing. No one was dictated to, it was done because they care enough about this to set aside their ego and march together. I can't tell if you've just not witnessed it yet or if it goes beyond that. Either way, I hope that you'll join us when we meet in your area. Surely you must have some talent, time or other resource that would be helpful to furthering RKBA here in California.

I apologize if my use of the glass house idiom was out of place. Rereading the post I can see how that was not the appropriate way to phrase what I intended to express. Let me make take a different tact that, at 1:15a, I sincerely hope will make more sense. Nothing in your post was at all constructive in helping to bridge the elements present in this discussion. That you walked in to the thread, took shots at both sides and remarked that this community should further devolve into another faction was entirely unnecessary and (even if in jest) not what the situation called for. This isn't directed only at you, but we really don't need anyone coming in, taking a shot(s) and leaving the rest of us who are invested in this process to deal with the fallout.

Gray Peterson
09-10-2009, 1:35 AM
And actually, I didn't understand that you asked for group stand down. . . and I was apparently not the only one. That was the only reason I was arguing about it so much. . . It was driving me crazy that you were complaining about OC events when it was my understanding that you were OK with. . .

As Gene had repeatedly stated, he is privy to information, facts, and details about the inner workings of the State Legislature, the personalities involved there, and the gun rights lobbyists (Worley, Tom Pederson, etc), not to mention CGF's continued legal strategy. He generally has to keep confidence and keep those things spoken to him under the radar. Since I've done this sort of political wetwork (and god, do I hate politics even more so now) before up here in Washington, I can pretty well tell that this is what's happening.

What you're asking for is for him to make a full disclosure as to reasons why UOC should pause, which he cannot go into full details as to why for 3 reasons:

1) A full disclosure of persons, statements, and hearsay in relation to the issue would compromise his ability to deal with the Legislature, making him tremendously less effective in helping stop bad legislation as no one would talk to him about gun issues because they would be afraid that he'd blab his mouth to everyone on a web forum.

2) A full disclosure as to legal plans, especially in regards to this issue, would allow our enemies in the Legislature, over at LCAV, and the Brady Campaign, be able to effectively counter the combined might of NRA, CRPA, Calguns, etc. Disclosure of the full extent of the legal battle plans on here would be no different than the Allies basically sending by air-mail to the Axis Powers their invasion plans for Normandy years before the actual battle in 1944. I don't have to tell you how stupid that would be.

3) A full disclosure would likely be entirely ineffective in stopping most of the UOC anyway. There are members of this forum who do not care the rhyme or reason, and even he was to fully disclose (and cause him to less effective AND screw us over for LOC down the line), there are still people who will continue to UOC because they'll think he's lying, he's being "too political", or generally just don't give a **** and will keep doing whatever they want, then what gain can he make by ruining the first two situations?

I can understand your frustration. I am sure that when Calguns was getting its legs with OLL's it wasn't so easy getting everyone together. I was not here for the beginning, but I am sure it had its bumps.

It isn't the same thing at all. With the Harrot case and especially with AB2728, OLL was a safe bet. The Assault Weapons furor had died down even in the California Legislature because of the fact that most of the politicians of that era (1989-1990, 1999) were termed out of the Legislature.

Have a little more patience and work with us and we might just show you what we can accomplish with leadership.

It's not a matter of patience, it's a matter of trust. If you're not willing to take Gene on faith when he's hearing that UOC is going to A) Cause a huge political problem for gun owners generally and B) Possibly screw up the legal work to bring a truly effective method of OC back to California, then I don't know what it'll take for you to trust him, and then in return, you having his trust.

Is it too much to ask to take him at his word? Why would he lie to you (or anyone else who's UOCing), or obfuscate facts, or do anything else that others in this thread and others (but not you) have repeatedly accused him of. Gene and others dialed up got the OLL revolution started, has on CGF payroll by far THE BEST 2nd Amendment lawyer in the country (Alan Gura, who's legal filings are easy for non-lawyers to understand), and lord knows what else. For what reason can you not trust what he says is right?

FreedomIsNotFree
09-10-2009, 1:52 AM
Wildhawker,

Everything that can be said on the UOC matter has been said. The people that were amiable have already bent. Those that aren't, simply wont. There are very few "fence sitters" at this point.

This does not mean there isn't work to be done in this State in regards to RKBA. I do applaud you for organizing in person events that seek to put faces to names and personalize our struggle...that's all good stuff indeed.

You are right, in a sense, that I did take shots at both sides, the extremists, regarding this issue. In the nearly 4 years I have been here NOTHING has split the Calguns family such as the UOC issue has. It pains me to see this division and from a cost/benefit perspective there is little to gain from a continued debate. Again, people are pretty much set in their perspectives at this point and nothing will likely change that.

I'd much prefer Gene spend his valuable time contemplating his next evil plan on our behalf than responding to the same UOC arguments day after day...as I'm sure you and the vast majority of Calguns agrees.

And just for the record, my comment about starting a movement for those of us in the middle was pure sarcasm. The last thing we need here is yet another "group". We need to get back to ALL being on the same side.

No hard feelings.

Theseus
09-10-2009, 2:08 AM
Gray,

I don't recall that in this thread we were asking him to divulge any such "secret information".

All I was asking is what we can do to get OC'ers what we want in a way that also doesn't prevent Calguns from getting what it wants.

It seems that we might be able to get through this intact after all.

And I have said over and over again that I believe when Gene says he is here for the whole right and will not stop until that goal is achieved. Others don't.

I think that with some of the emotion and a clearer understanding at this point that we can set the minds of those nay sayers to rest. It doesn't matter if they can trust Gene or Calguns if we have the organization prepared to take up the fight in their absense.

I am trying to get the unorganized open carriers to work together with Calguns so that two things can happen.

1. Calguns achievs their goals quicker than they might have without OC'ers.

2. OC'ers achieve their goals quicker than they might have been able to without Calguns.

In the end we might just all get what we want if we can try and move on from the past emotion and chest thumping.

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 2:10 AM
I hope there's no hard feelings all the way around, and I apologize for my inappropriate remarks. Thanks for the reply; I think we agree much more than we disagree (hasn't this been the case for most of us throughout the UOC debate?).

Ultimately, all many of us can do is move from our ineffective (disasterous?) attempts at evangelizing to rolling up our sleeves and going out to work, together, with people in our community -whatever it may look like. I really believe that most of the open carry community just wants to be actively involved, to have a tangible outlet for their sincere desire to see a better, more free California. I really do respect and admire that; it's too bad that all of the ~35,000 Calgunners we have now don't take it upon themselves to do *something* as the open carry folks have - what would our world look like if we did?

If we think outside the box and point towards some reasonable objectives, there is much that can be accomplished. This group has proven it time and again.

Wildhawker,

Everything that can be said on the UOC matter has been said. The people that were amiable have already bent. Those that aren't, simply wont. There are very few "fence sitters" at this point.

This does not mean there isn't work to be done in this State in regards to RKBA. I do applaud you for organizing in person events that seek to put faces to names and personalize our struggle...that's all good stuff indeed.

You are right, in a sense, that I did take shots at both sides, the extremists, regarding this issue. In the nearly 4 years I have been here NOTHING has split the Calguns family such as the UOC issue has. It pains me to see this division and from a cost/benefit perspective there is little to gain from a continued debate. Again, people are pretty much set in their perspectives at this point and nothing will likely change that.

I'd much prefer Gene spend his valuable time contemplating his next evil plan on our behalf than responding to the same UOC arguments day after day...as I'm sure you and the vast majority of Calguns agrees.

And just for the record, my comment about starting a movement for those of us in the middle was pure sarcasm. The last thing we need here is yet another "group". We need to get back to ALL being on the same side.

No hard feelings.

Theseus
09-10-2009, 2:13 AM
I may be getting all sentimental. . . and . . . I promised myself I wouldn't do this. . .

I think I just need a hug...I mean a beer!

I think we might have actually achieved something here. . . And I am working with the OC group to see if we can't actually get this to work.

FreedomIsNotFree
09-10-2009, 2:15 AM
I may be getting all sentimental. . . and . . . I promised myself I wouldn't do this. . .

I think I just need a hug...I mean a beer!

I think we might have actually achieved something here. . . And I am working with the OC group to see if we can't actually get this to work.

Beer me schmuck! ;)

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 2:21 AM
Theseus, I still owe you a beer from a previous thread; why don't we make it two and setup a group hug in shoots and meets. :p (Freedom, you're much closer so I gotta be careful with how many beers I go promising someone who could at any moment come by and collect :) ).

Theseus
09-10-2009, 2:28 AM
I believe there is something going down at a Lytle Creek shooting. If I can get someone to help fray the costs of, I will make it to Nordyke. . . Any takers?

And, if I can find a ride along partner to offset the cost I will make it to Nordyke on the 21st?

FreedomIsNotFree
09-10-2009, 2:29 AM
Ahh crap...all the beer talk led me to the fridge...and its almost 2:30...:eek:

Alaric
09-10-2009, 3:35 AM
There's really nothing to say that hasn't been said yet here, other than this. I'm getting an uncomfortable feeling from the past hour analyzing this thread that this is about more than UOC. It's actually about leadership and accountability. We are on the verge of a social movement of significant proportion, and many of our leaders and players in this are unknown to us. Faceless entities on the interweb do not inspire confidence. Even those who we think we know and respect are often little more to us than a name and an avatar. Perhaps this has something to do with the ongoing rebellion within the rebellion, the UOC movement.

If I had to give it a name I might say this has been a "crisis of confidence", that things aren't moving fast enough, that there hasn't been enough transparency, that there hasn't been enough involvement from the community at large. I understand and have seen first hand how many of these deficiencies are being addressed first hand, and applaud those changes. Transforming Calguns from an online forum to a grassroots movement of community activists won't happen overnight, but it will involve those most motivated to strike out and challenge the status quo, the UOC'ers - they will be key.

To you UOC'ers, I urge you to continue to challenge the leadership here to build a broader movement. It's not enough to fight this battle in the courts alone. While UOC itself remains a bad idea at this time, it's your spirit and your optimism that will shape the formation of this movement in the years to come. In short, you keep our leaders honest and you challenge them to innovate and attack on new fronts. It's your energy and impatience that will enervate and inspire us.

We'll make this movement coalesce, make no mistake; and it will take all of us to really make it happen.

Now if we could only come up with a suitable replacement for UOC...

artherd
09-10-2009, 3:56 AM
Why does Calguns need OC'ers? Not understanding the point here.

Because several Cal-gunners ARE OC'ers.

We all need each other.

Calguns, Inc. isn't taking a side on this issue - instead we're providing a forum for the discussion!

CGF has asked that UOC be paused (with the implied resumption forthcoming.) due to a temporarily hostile legal climate - this all as a tactical move.

artherd
09-10-2009, 4:04 AM
It seems that lately there are a bunch of "unaffiliated" UOC cells popping up. I doubt they will be effected, and they are much looser cannons than people on the UOC forum. I think we are just going to have to live with this.

I didn't get OLLs by 'living with this'.

I didn't make DOJ back down on their threats of 219 felonies by 'living with this'.

I didn't help found CGF and defend a dozen innocent men by 'living with this'.


And I damn sure won't let some differences in views splinter or undermine this community!

Decoligny
09-10-2009, 7:56 AM
Calling attention to my doctorate? It's a Ghostbusters character dude. Next time look up your material references before you try flaming. It might help you hit your mark.

And we do need to work together. It's called not open carrying. That's all that there is to it.



You don't care what others think as long as it is some compromise on CGF or CGN's views, NOT yours. In the end you will UOC no matter what organization is at the table to discuss the terms. Calguns and the CGF would still be fighting their respective legislative battles with or without UOC guys. In fact it'd be even easier for them if UOC simply disappeared. You want to try discuss options when you don't bring anything worthwhile and you refuse to accept that UOC is a meaningless distraction to the RKBA in this state.

Compromise means making concessions on BOTH sides.

What you are suggestion is that OCers compromise, but CalGunners not compromise.

This is not what the word compromise means.

If one side gives up something, and the other side does not, that is referred to as UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-10-2009, 8:13 AM
Look, here's the real problem here:

1) CGF, Calguns, and other associated gun rights leadership is not free to be able to discuss the full reasons and litigation roadmap and planning process for gun rights issues in general. The reason for this is we have LCAV, Brady Campaign, and certain legislative staffers continually trolling for information out of this forum. You guys already know, obviously about Sykes and Pena (carry and handgun roster) suits. An AWB lawsuit is pretty damned certain. What makes you think that there isn't a plan for the truly effective method of OC?

2) The problem as Americans, we have a large percentage of the population that don't trust "leadership" in general. It's in our blood, and it's in our heritage to be rebellious against any perceived authority telling you that someone can't tell you to do something. This doesn't mean that every reason for rebellion is a good thing...

3) This is a question for all of you: If you knew for absolute certainty that UOC now would effect the possibility (in the negative) of being able to LOC statewide (I won't go into the details of how or what) within the next 5 years, the would you still continue to UOC? Forget who says it, assume for a minute that this is true. Would you all continue to UOC anyway? Are you willing to throw away that possibility by continuing to UOC?



The problem is that I don't know that the UOC events (because everyone here knows its the events that I speak of) cause, or can cause such a problem. Yes, an anti-gun politician cited UOC as her motivation. But, being that she's anti-gun anyway, can her words be taken seriously? Wouldn't she be doing all that she can to screw us anyway? IE; has UOC really done any harm? But, I am willing to accept the possibility that there are forces out there that might be brought against us because of this. Still, it looks a lot like we're ceding the battlefield w/o a fight. We run away before we're pushed away. Can we not push back at least a little before we run?

Gravedigger's argument comparing cell phones in public to guns in public is a valid one. Guns on hips cause surprise only because this is unusual. When it stops being unusual, it'll stop being a surprise, & stop being a problem. The counter-argument that it relies on a level of rationality seldom seen among the general public is true, but is also based on what is true NOW. The basis for my efforts (and here I emphasize that is just my efforts) is that what might be true NOW doesn't have to STAY true forever. IE, hearts & minds can be changed. What it takes is effort to bring about that change. The UOC events are an effort to bring about that change. While I fully realize that events (and individual UOC) badly done can cause harm, I don't believe that a well-run event will automatically do so.

So, keeping with the theme of this thread, is there no middle ground on this? Could we not come up with a form of outreach to the public that would keep both sides happy? Would NOT carry (IE, empty holsters) events do for now? Maybe those so all fired up against UOC events can suggest another form of outreach that can be done instead of just pronouncing 'UOC is bad' & the like? Yes, I've seen the suggestions for helping out at the CalGuns booth, etc. But I'm looking for an outreach to the public, not to those in the choir. All I'm seeing now is a choice between 'do nothing, keep quiet, all will be well' from the one side; and 'lets get in their faces' (not necessarily from Calgunners) on the other.

The need for outreach is there. Surely we can come up with a way to do that comes between upsetting the legal efforts & just surrendering.

The Raisuli

rkt88edmo
09-10-2009, 8:19 AM
The point I am making is let us have some respect here and stop attacking us. Stop making them feel as if there is nothing here for us and no ground we can stand together on or they will leave and they won't give the slightest consideration to you or your goals.


Well, we can't just dish out respect. This is pretty much an open forum, we don't actively try to manage the opinions of individual members. Trying to bargain with that sea of collective voices as a group doesn't seem possible. This is the internet, and discussions are often full of contention.

The feelings of others is something only they can control.

There is plenty of ground to stand together on, is it that hard to see?

Roadrunner
09-10-2009, 8:32 AM
As I see it, and this is just my opinion and nothing more, to a politician UOC is a visible and easily manipulatable issue they can use as a vehicle to pass even more restrictive laws.

In the eyes of a politician this one is an easy sell and a PR coup.

People see UOC and become concerned, the politician and media begin the sell job that these dangerous guns are now on the street right next to YOUR CHILDREN, "What if one of these UOC'ers started shooting at people or tried to be a hero in a hold-up and shot YOR child because he's not trained like Police are?"

A Bill is proposed to limit or ban UOC with public support in the name of public safety of the children, with the obligatory added riders and clauses that impose limits on things other than OC (When have you EVER seen a Bill wiithout riders?) and WHAMMO!
We now have 2 to 5 more years of unnecessary court cases and expenses to regain the ground lost and get back to where we are today and anti-gun politicians can go back to their districts and say "Look what we did to protect you from the evil guns! Vote me back in to keep defending you!"

That is my interpretation of 'low hanging fruit' that politicians can go after and what the cost to us can be.

Okay, I see your point, and they might be able to claim victory if they did this unopposed. However, I believe the Bible verse "the truth will stand the test of time" is appropriate here in that I believe that overwhelming evidence exists that guns in the hands of private citizens in public have done more to save lives than they have done evil in the hands of criminals. On the other hand, draconian restrictions like those that exist in New York, Chicago, New Jersey, and D.C. have proven that restricting the law abiding does nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons and turning them on the public. So, I'm thinking that a politicians downfall is to present half truths to the public only to have someone come behind them and shine the light of truth on their disinformation. I understand that the liberal media will carry the ball for them and attempt to amplify their rhetoric, but if the polls are true, conservative media seems to have a bigger audience than the liberals and would do well to carry the truth about guns more than they do now. NRA news does a great job, but unfortunately they are just one advocate of a well armed public, and are viewed as bias for obvious reasons. FOX news on the other hand while conservative for the most part does have a bigger piece of the viewing public and could easily do a hit piece against a politician that continues to spew disinformation. Perhaps we as the viewing public could encourage conservative media to take a more active role in protecting the second amendment, by getting the armed citizen stories that are overwhelmingly out there. If what FBI stats say is true, there are 2,500,000 defensive use of guns every year around the country. That's 6,850 defensive uses per day around the United States. Put in a positive light, that's 6,850 or more lives saved that were threatened by violent criminals.

On a weekend, my wife and I went down to Orange County and we stayed at a Best Western. I believe it was a Sunday, while we were in our room I was watching TV and saw a program hosted by Wayne LaPierre about armed citizens defending themselves. I was surprised when I saw it, especially on a TV station in California. As I recall, it aired on KCAL 9. That's the kind of exposure lawful gun ownership needs in California, especially in Urbania. We have lots of exposure to guns in Stanislaus county, but Urban politicians seem to go unopposed on their tirades about guns, and no opposition tacitly suggests that what they are saying is the truth. At least UOC, is bringing the issue onto the public stage where it can be discussed. Again I see no need for UOC in my community, but I do see UOC as a positive tool to inform the public, so long as the people doing the UOC conduct themselves in a civilized manner and continue to obey the laws.

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 11:34 AM
Mulay, the very point of the Calguns Community Chapters (c3) concept (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3011504&postcount=1) is to **empower** all of you to get involved at the local level, to establish outreach efforts with the very public you speak of and support the efforts with the best printed and other media our side has to offer, not to mention an organizational structure that is conducive to adaptation. We understand that an effective approach in Orange County might be entirely different than West LA- we can customize and tailor the message to the audience and the corp of volunteers. That, too, is important; these efforts must be rewarding to the volunteers or we will not have any interested volunteers to do the work. What was discussed at the recent SoCal town halls were largely these 2 points:

1. How do we reach out to the public in *your* neighborhoods and communties?

2. What types of material might be useful to you in support of these efforts?

Very soon, c3 regional forums will be established to give everyone here an area to collaborate on new material, discuss opportunities, share events and items of note and plan Calguns outreach events for *their* area. The gun shows were never designed to be where Calguns stopped; rather, they have provided us with experience and a ton of very motivated volunteers which will springboard us into all sorts of fun area of outreach :43:. We could use your help.

It is really overwhelming to see how much (motivated) talent there is here at Calguns; I would strongly urge all of you in SoCal who can to attend the Lytle Creek shoot-n-que (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=220139) being planned for later this month. I know that the LA/OC/IE coordinators (SeanCasey, pennys dad, lomalinda) will be there ready to have a great time and talk about what types of outreach opportunities we can get to work on ASAP.

So, to answer your question, I truly do feel that there is middle ground. That middle ground is an active outreach effort to the public that will take many forms as we go along. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to PM or email me. I'll give you or anyone else here my phone number and we can discuss this in detail offline if it would be preferrable. Thanks for your consideration and support, and I look forward to working with you.

So, keeping with the theme of this thread, is there no middle ground on this? Could we not come up with a form of outreach to the public that would keep both sides happy? Would NOT carry (IE, empty holsters) events do for now? Maybe those so all fired up against UOC events can suggest another form of outreach that can be done instead of just pronouncing 'UOC is bad' & the like? Yes, I've seen the suggestions for helping out at the CalGuns booth, etc. But I'm looking for an outreach to the public, not to those in the choir. All I'm seeing now is a choice between 'do nothing, keep quiet, all will be well' from the one side; and 'lets get in their faces' (not necessarily from Calgunners) on the other.
The need for outreach is there. Surely we can come up with a way to do that comes between upsetting the legal efforts & just surrendering.

The Raisuli

MrSigmaDOT40
09-10-2009, 1:08 PM
You should perhaps consider organizing a county-wide group, which is what San Diego's working at presently. Kind of like what the NRA Member Councils do.

A state-wide UOC group wouldn't be too useful - it duplicates the efforts of other boards, and the groups DO need to be small and agile enough to know their county of operation intimately.


I really like this idea, that sets up a nice Pro 2A Structure. Anti's would not be able to sleep.


LOCAL STATE FED
County OC Org/ Nra Councils-----> CGF/CRPA------> NRA.

As active as we are that kind of framework should REALLY keep us on top of things.

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 1:13 PM
FYI, here's a gimpse of the c3 regional structure:

http://www.cpec.ca.gov/Images/HistoricRegionMap.jpg

And forums:

Northern California
Sacramento Area
San Francisco Bay Area
Northern Central Valley
Southern Central Valley
Central Coast
South Coast
LA / OC / IE
San Diego / Imperial

dominic
09-10-2009, 1:20 PM
What good does unloaded open carry do? Criminals don't carry unloaded or openly. Its a noble cause, but until we can carry loaded and concealed lawfully in this state its pointless.

xxdabroxx
09-10-2009, 1:36 PM
there is NO NEED to open carry right now, just lay off for a while. Or continue and possibly F it up for all. Well looking back probably won't completely F it up but could bring more thorns in our side. I think that is the only reasonable agreement possible.

I like the idea of walking around with a gun on my hip too, but its not feasible at this time. /END

Sorry for being a dick, but i tend to be very blunt and dont always completely comprehend how things are taken by others.

ChuckBooty
09-10-2009, 1:36 PM
I don't see why the two are exclusive....it is NOT against the law to UOC, so why would a Calguns booth exclude this information when educating people about California's gun laws?

Kestryll
09-10-2009, 1:42 PM
What good does unloaded open carry do? Criminals don't carry unloaded or openly. Its a noble cause, but until we can carry loaded and concealed lawfully in this state its pointless.
Open carry has it's down sides and does hold potential for problems, that much is true.

HOWEVER...

At no point is taking up the cause of fighting for your rights 'pointless'.
Does the current structure of OC need an overhaul? I'd say yes.
That does not make it pointless, just in need of refinement.

It's another arrow in our quiver and one who's time should be carefully chosen.

there is NO NEED to open carry right now, just lay off for a while. Or continue and F it up for all. I think that is the only reasonable agreement possible.

While I agree with your sentiment about laying off for a while the tone of 'f it up for all' is just as destructive as incorrect or badly timed OC.

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 1:43 PM
Dominic, xxdabroxx- knock off the unnecessary jabs. I expect you two are ready to volunteer or are you just here to mouth off and run to off topic?

Gray Peterson
09-10-2009, 1:51 PM
Now if we could only come up with a suitable replacement for UOC...

Empty holster protests on university properties were tremendously effective in getting the word out about state universities banning carry. It's "somewhat" suitable.

The truly suitable replacement is statewide LOC.

dantodd
09-10-2009, 1:55 PM
I don't see why the two are exclusive....it is NOT against the law to UOC, so why would a Calguns booth exclude this information when educating people about California's gun laws?

It really depends on whether it is a calguns.net booth or a calguns foundation booth. If it is a calguns.net booth there would certainly seem to be a large enough contingent of calgunners who support UOC to make this feasible. However; if the booths are calguns foundation booths passing out information on OC would seem inappropriate.

Gray Peterson
09-10-2009, 1:56 PM
And in honesty Gene I believe the true issue with some of the OC group now is not with the official position on OC as much as the amount of bashing that we take from the forum members. There are admittedly the few that don't trust Calguns at all. They feel that once Calguns gets CCW the OC crowd will be left hanging with their asses out, without leadership, and without the support because we respected your requests not to organize.

Then the question must be asked: Why do they feel that way? Let's get to the real core of the what the problem is: Is it a misunderstanding of strategy, or is it a common misunderstanding of law?

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 1:56 PM
Gray, we are working on a way to support responsible students in establishing college clubs that can promote RKBA. Empty holster activities would be a very interesting way to get some exposure.

sorensen440
09-10-2009, 2:07 PM
Gray, we are working on a way to support responsible students in establishing college clubs that can promote RKBA. Empty holster activities would be a very interesting way to get some exposure.
I really like the idea of empty holsters
Really tough for the media to use it against us and it still sends a message

grammaton76
09-10-2009, 2:11 PM
It really depends on whether it is a calguns.net booth or a calguns foundation booth. If it is a calguns.net booth there would certainly seem to be a large enough contingent of calgunners who support UOC to make this feasible. However; if the booths are calguns foundation booths passing out information on OC would seem inappropriate.

The problem is that you get very passionate open carry guys at the Calguns booths, who more or less dedicate themselves to promoting open carry instead of Calguns. This has happened, and had a serious impact on the other volunteers.

On a side note, empty-holster protests are a VERY big part of "moderate open carry" plans, plus LOC where legitimately legal.

San Diego is going to be doing some neat things over the next few months. As soon as we have our official org off the ground in San Diego, we'll be providing a lot of "here's how you run an OC group without being STUPID" documentation so that other groups can follow our example. Documentation will include things like how to check for school zones, proper training for your unarmed camera guys, things like that.

BTW, it should be mentioned that neither I, nor any of the folks I work with in San Diego that I know of, should be counted as being "behind" some of guys making "we of the OC community want..." statements. They speak for THEMSELVES, and anyone who's actually going to explicitly say they stand with them. I do not, nor does anyone I know in SD.

BTW, inert "blue guns" aren't expensive and unlike airsoft are legal to take anywhere. I bought two recently myself.

sorensen440
09-10-2009, 2:13 PM
Inert "blue guns" aren't expensive and unlike airsoft are legal to take anywhere. I bought two recently myself.
There was a question of legality on using fake guns
do we know if thats just fud ?

grammaton76
09-10-2009, 2:29 PM
There was a question of legality on using fake guns
do we know if thats just fud ?

Fake guns and inert guns are different matters.

The "blue guns" and "red guns", etc - all one color, cast in the shape of the gun, typically have no moving parts, etc - enjoy special protection in PC.

Airsoft guns are actually significantly risky, as they can fall under a few classifications which do not enjoy the exemptions enjoyed by the inert guns.

pullnshoot25
09-10-2009, 2:51 PM
The problem is that you get very passionate open carry guys at the Calguns booths, who more or less dedicate themselves to promoting open carry instead of Calguns. This has happened, and had a serious impact on the other volunteers.

I try not to do too much UOC propaganda at the booth, though I was pointed out by about 20 people at the last show that all stopped to talk with me. Other than when I get pointed out, I do not talk about UOC nor advocate for it.

Just my .02 FTM.

CaliforniaCarry
09-10-2009, 3:01 PM
There was a question of legality on using fake guns
do we know if thats just fud ?

(a) No person may openly display or expose any imitation firearm, as defined in Section 12550, in a public place. (b) Violation of this section, except as provided in subdivision (c), is an infraction punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100) for the first offense, and three hundred dollars ($300) for a second offense. (c) A third or subsequent violation of this section is punishable as a misdemeanor. (d) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to the following, when the imitation firearm is: (1) Packaged or concealed so that it is not subject to public viewing. (2) Displayed or exposed in the course of commerce, including commercial film or video productions, or for service, repair, or restoration of the imitation firearm. (3) Used in a theatrical production, a motion picture, video, television, or stage production. (4) Used in conjunction with a certified or regulated sporting event or competition. (5) Used in conjunction with lawful hunting, or lawful pest control activities. (6) Used or possessed at certified or regulated public or private shooting ranges. (7) Used at fairs, exhibitions, expositions, or other similar activities for which a permit has been obtained from a local or state government. (8) Used in military, civil defense, or civic activities, including flag ceremonies, color guards, parades, award presentations, historical reenactments, and memorials. (9) Used for public displays authorized by public or private schools or displays that are part of a museum collection. (10) Used in parades, ceremonies, or other similar activities for which a permit has been obtained from a local or state government. (11) Displayed on a wall plaque or in a presentation case. (12) Used in areas where the discharge of a firearm is lawful. (13) A device where the entire exterior surface of the device is white, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright green, bright blue, bright pink, or bright purple, either singly or as the predominant color in combination with other colors in any pattern, or where the entire device is constructed of transparent or translucent materials which permits unmistakable observation of the device's complete contents. Merely having an orange tip as provided in federal law and regulations does not satisfy this requirement. The entire surface must be colored or transparent or translucent. (e) For purposes of this section, the term "public place" means an area open to the public and includes streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways, front yards, parking lots, automobiles, whether moving or not, and buildings open to the general public, including those that serve food or drink, or provide entertainment, and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings. (f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude prosecution for a violation of Section 171b, 171.5, or 626.10.

Looks to be legal. Have we found our answer? I'd totally carry a fake gun as part of a concerted effort, if the minds at CGF think it'll have either a positive or neutral effect.

Theseus
09-10-2009, 3:25 PM
The problem is that you get very passionate open carry guys at the Calguns booths, who more or less dedicate themselves to promoting open carry instead of Calguns. This has happened, and had a serious impact on the other volunteers.

On a side note, empty-holster protests are a VERY big part of "moderate open carry" plans, plus LOC where legitimately legal.

San Diego is going to be doing some neat things over the next few months. As soon as we have our official org off the ground in San Diego, we'll be providing a lot of "here's how you run an OC group without being STUPID" documentation so that other groups can follow our example. Documentation will include things like how to check for school zones, proper training for your unarmed camera guys, things like that.

BTW, it should be mentioned that neither I, nor any of the folks I work with in San Diego that I know of, should be counted as being "behind" some of guys making "we of the OC community want..." statements. They speak for THEMSELVES, and anyone who's actually going to explicitly say they stand with them. I do not, nor does anyone I know in SD.

BTW, inert "blue guns" aren't expensive and unlike airsoft are legal to take anywhere. I bought two recently myself.

Nothing I said should have been taken to imply that I speak for ALL OC'ers, and I am sure that I never explicitly said so. I was speaking on my behalf about what some have communicated to me.

There was someone asking about why there are some that don't trust Calguns. The reason? I don't necessarily know. That is a personal decision that I tend not to get involved in. As long as they are willing to work with us in a way that allows us to get what we all want I don't think it is really that important.

I did ask about the "inert" guns earlier. I believe that such items would actually allow us to get the message to more people in places that we would normally find OC being a huge issue.

Take a school zone, mall, and theater for example. These are places that are traditionally high risk zones (and of course the school zone is definite risk) and using said "inert" guns would keep us legal and perhaps make a better statement as they may draw more eyes to the holster than a innocuous black pistol.

grammaton76
09-10-2009, 3:31 PM
Nothing I said should have been taken to imply that I speak for ALL OC'ers, and I am sure that I never explicitly said so. I was speaking on my behalf about what some have communicated to me.

I wasn't specifically talking about you, no. There's been sort of this "we" vs "them" sentiment peppered throughout the thread, and it's shown itself in a number of posts. A few of them were yours, most were others.

Many "I's" vs "them" ... yep, that's what's happening here.
"We" vs "them" ... not exactly. :)

I did ask about the "inert" guns earlier. I believe that such items would actually allow us to get the message to more people in places that we would normally find OC being a huge issue.

Take a school zone, mall, and theater for example. These are places that are traditionally high risk zones (and of course the school zone is definite risk) and using said "inert" guns would keep us legal and perhaps make a better statement as they may draw more eyes to the holster than a innocuous black pistol.

Yep. Another thing that draws MUCH more attention is openly worn body armor, as holsters tend to blend in with your pants.

Openly worn body armor, with signs taped to it saying, "This is because I can't carry my gun", is a very good example of shielding a Second Amendment issue with a First Amendment issue. Antis protect and respect the First, not so much the second, and that's the sort of 'Rosa Parks' activity that'll get us places. :)

grammaton76
09-10-2009, 3:32 PM
Looks to be legal. Have we found our answer? I'd totally carry a fake gun as part of a concerted effort, if the minds at CGF think it'll have either a positive or neutral effect.

That's exactly what I'm advocating at "less aggressive" open carry events. We WILL get our message out, and it WON'T be in a way that interferes at all with what CGF is trying to accomplish.

As well as LOC events in appropriate areas, which will start happening once we've gotten our organizational ducks in a row and identified some proper areas within San Diego county.

Decoligny
09-10-2009, 3:35 PM
There was a question of legality on using fake guns
do we know if thats just fud ?

This would be legal. And it would definitely highlight the stupidity of California Gun laws.

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/banana-holster-20080506-124002.jpg

grammaton76
09-10-2009, 3:38 PM
This would be legal. And it would definitely highlight the stupidity of California Gun laws.

You know, I actually like that idea too! Open Fruit Carry - because thrown fruit is more effective in self defense than what the legislature WANTS us to wind up with. :)

grammaton76
09-10-2009, 3:45 PM
There was someone asking about why there are some that don't trust Calguns. The reason? I don't necessarily know. That is a personal decision that I tend not to get involved in. As long as they are willing to work with us in a way that allows us to get what we all want I don't think it is really that important.

I think I accidentally deleted this part of your post in my previous reply, as I certainly meant to address it.

The problem here is the same problem you'd run into if you DID successfully organize a state-wide CA open carry group: a lot of people DON'T trust leadership that they don't personally meet.

For those guys, you've got to have leadership they can meet in person every so often. Folks with enough time to talk to individuals at length. Gene, for instance, certainly doesn't have enough time to do so, much as he may try! That particular type of person is very common amongst the open carry movement, and is a big chunk of the reason why I've been saying that OC groups should be organized to cover an area no larger than a county.

Another point is that OC groups need to keep a finger on the pulse of their local city halls, and that becomes impossible in larger orgs. If we'd had an official card-carrying .org here in San Diego already, we could have started a letter-writing campaign to Saldana yesterday - she's one of our local representatives.

While she didn't really say anything untrue (a few mixups here and there, but not a lot) about what's gone on in SD county, it would be nice if she received a hundred letters or postcards FROM HER CONSTITUENTS informing her that we were aware of her words, and appreciated that she acknowledged we were exercising our rights. Then we inform her that we DO vote, and probably 75% of our membership is there in order to protest our county's lack of CCW issuance. If she would like to get openly carried guns off the street, laying down pressure on SDSO to issue more permits would be an effective way to reduce the issue. :)

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 3:53 PM
Sean, to be honest, body armor is not going to get you sympathy and acceptance- which is what an appropriately-structured OC campaign can do. A woman with a tee printed with a bold target and a quote from her CCW denial letter makes for one hell of an argument. Don't use armor to further separate from the common citizen - there are already enough barriers. Become the non-threatening, professional, responsible and law-abiding "regular guy/gal" who is pleading with society for a way to defend themselves.

Another thing that draws MUCH more attention is openly worn body armor, as holsters tend to blend in with your pants.

Openly worn body armor, with signs taped to it saying, "This is because I can't carry my gun", is a very good example of shielding a Second Amendment issue with a First Amendment issue. Antis protect and respect the First, not so much the second, and that's the sort of 'Rosa Parks' activity that'll get us places. :)

KylaGWolf
09-10-2009, 4:39 PM
There's really nothing to say that hasn't been said yet here, other than this. I'm getting an uncomfortable feeling from the past hour analyzing this thread that this is about more than UOC. It's actually about leadership and accountability. We are on the verge of a social movement of significant proportion, and many of our leaders and players in this are unknown to us. Faceless entities on the interweb do not inspire confidence. Even those who we think we know and respect are often little more to us than a name and an avatar. Perhaps this has something to do with the ongoing rebellion within the rebellion, the UOC movement.

If I had to give it a name I might say this has been a "crisis of confidence", that things aren't moving fast enough, that there hasn't been enough transparency, that there hasn't been enough involvement from the community at large. I understand and have seen first hand how many of these deficiencies are being addressed first hand, and applaud those changes. Transforming Calguns from an online forum to a grassroots movement of community activists won't happen overnight, but it will involve those most motivated to strike out and challenge the status quo, the UOC'ers - they will be key.

To you UOC'ers, I urge you to continue to challenge the leadership here to build a broader movement. It's not enough to fight this battle in the courts alone. While UOC itself remains a bad idea at this time, it's your spirit and your optimism that will shape the formation of this movement in the years to come. In short, you keep our leaders honest and you challenge them to innovate and attack on new fronts. It's your energy and impatience that will enervate and inspire us.

We'll make this movement coalesce, make no mistake; and it will take all of us to really make it happen.

Now if we could only come up with a suitable replacement for UOC...

Alaric actually a few of us are not so hidden behind the computer. I can say there will be a group here in San Diego that is going to be doing all we can to try to bridge the gap that has to do with UOC and 2A issues. Although as for out and out OC events right now we have agreed to stand down to not do any damage to pending court cases. I can say that as soon as a few things are unkinked so to speak the group should be up and running. Yes this will be an actual group with leadership not just a faceless group of users on a computer.

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 6:01 PM
Looks to be legal. Have we found our answer? I'd totally carry a fake gun as part of a concerted effort, if the minds at CGF think it'll have either a positive or neutral effect.
This works.
This would be legal. And it would definitely highlight the stupidity of California Gun laws.

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/banana-holster-20080506-124002.jpg

And so does this.

Large group events like that make a lot of sense. When we marched in the San Francisco Pride Parade we carried empty holsters. Add in some good signage and you have an excellent way to bring the right kind of attention to the Second Amendment in California.

-Gene

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 6:11 PM
We have some of the best art, PR and printing folks right here in Calguns. There's no reason we can't make some awesome material and banners for this type of thing.

Theseus
09-10-2009, 6:14 PM
This would be legal. And it would definitely highlight the stupidity of California Gun laws.

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/banana-holster-20080506-124002.jpg
What? Not green bananas? Yellow bananas are too ripe and prone to opening, rotting and the like. . . OCYB (Open carry of Yellow bananas) is not as useful as OCGB (Open carry of green bananas).

Meplat
09-10-2009, 6:17 PM
I didn't get OLLs by 'living with this'.

I didn't make DOJ back down on their threats of 219 felonies by 'living with this'.

I didn't help found CGF and defend a dozen innocent men by 'living with this'.


And I damn sure won't let some differences in views splinter or undermine this community!

I sure agree with that last statement. I have been one of the voices calling for common ground.

All meant by that is that we can't effect the behavior of all of the independent UOCers out there.:surrender:

BTW, thank you for your service.

artherd
09-10-2009, 6:30 PM
I can understand your frustration. I am sure that when Calguns was getting its legs with OLL's it wasn't so easy getting everyone together. I was not here for the beginning, but I am sure it had its bumps.

Have a little more patience and work with us and we might just show you what we can accomplish with leadership.

If we didn't have a lot of patience - we'd be the wrong men for this job :)

I've been called a traitor (and cheated out of a great deal of money) by the very people I risked 219 years in jail for.

Here's what UOC comes down to:

We're not asking you to stand down, we're asking you to not walk into the ambush up ahead.

Decoligny
09-10-2009, 6:31 PM
What? Not green bananas? Yellow bananas are too ripe and prone to opening, rotting and the like. . . OCYB (Open carry of Yellow bananas) is not as useful as OCGB (Open carry of green bananas).

Oh no, you could never carry REAL fruit, just the plastic bananas. Real fruit is way too dangerous for an ordinary citizen to carry around. With a real banana there is the possibility that the person carrying the banana might get hungry, eat the banana, and throw the dangerous peel on the ground. Someone might slip on the peel and hit their head on the sidewalk and die. This could lead to the eventual outlawing of bananas across the entire state. And after that they might make carrying plastic bananas illegal due to the panic which might occur if someone saw a potential slippery peel just waiting to be thrown to the ground. :rolleyes:

artherd
09-10-2009, 6:32 PM
I sure agree with that last statement. I have been one of the voices calling for common ground.

Oh, please understand my comment wasn't directed at you :).

artherd
09-10-2009, 6:34 PM
Then the question must be asked: Why do they feel that way? Let's get to the real core of the what the problem is: Is it a misunderstanding of strategy, or is it a common misunderstanding of law?

THIS~!

Theseus
09-10-2009, 6:42 PM
THIS~!

It is not this. I am sure I know what it is, but I don't think it is really important. If they can trust their leaders and the leaders trust you, then it works.

artherd
09-10-2009, 6:54 PM
Don't use armor to further separate from the common citizen - there are already enough barriers. Become the non-threatening, professional, responsible and law-abiding "regular guy/gal" who is pleading with society for a way to defend themselves.

And this is why you're in charge of PR!

artherd
09-10-2009, 7:05 PM
It is not this. I am sure I know what it is, but I don't think it is really important. If they can trust their leaders and the leaders trust you, then it works.

Check your PM, we're working towards the same goals.

Centurion_D
09-10-2009, 7:28 PM
Guys..not trying to start a flame war..I'm all for UOC, CC, OC..but SB 585 is headed to the Govs desk and AB 962 might follow soon. For now just concentrate on killing these two bills before they become law.

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 8:19 PM
What, are you saying that we can't multitask? You sound like my wife. :p

Guys..not trying to start a flame war..I'm all for UOC, CC, OC..but SB 585 is headed to the Govs desk and AB 962 might follow soon. For now just concentrate on killing these two bills before they become law.

KylaGWolf
09-10-2009, 8:32 PM
Guys..not trying to start a flame war..I'm all for UOC, CC, OC..but SB 585 is headed to the Govs desk and AB 962 might follow soon. For now just concentrate on killing these two bills before they become law.

Been there done that already!

Meplat
09-10-2009, 8:43 PM
It has occurred to me that my own situation may be instructive. I admire the pluck of UOCers, and I would be right in there a’rootin and a’gruntin with them, except for one thing; I have a CCW. And UOC could jeopardize that CCW.

Now imagine if You had a CCW, would you UOC? Well, UOC is jeopardizing your ability to get one in the very near future. I admire your courage, but I question your judgment.

Gray Peterson
09-10-2009, 10:33 PM
It has occurred to me that my own situation may be instructive. I admire the pluck of UOCers, and I would be right in there a’rootin and a’gruntin with them, except for one thing; I have a CCW. And UOC could jeopardize that CCW.

Now imagine if You had a CCW, would you UOC? Well, UOC is jeopardizing your ability to get one in the very near future. I admire your courage, but I question your judgment.

This is correct. In Shasta County, ConditionThree had his CCW license revoked for UOCing in Redding City limits. Even though they issued "shall-issue" all for personal protection, the sheriff there was willing to revoke the license for doing any sort of OC at all, whether it be UOC'ing in city limits or LOC'ing on county land.

Post-Sykes is a different situation entirely.

dantodd
09-10-2009, 10:34 PM
Now imagine if You had a CCW, would you UOC? Well, UOC is jeopardizing your ability to get one in the very near future. I admire your courage, but I question your judgment.

For the vast majority of Californians they have VERY little to no chance of getting a CCW in the very near future. If/when we win Sykes legal UOC, or a history thereof will be irrelevant.

Meplat
09-10-2009, 10:46 PM
Incorporation will bring Shall Issue. Don't screw it up!



For the vast majority of Californians they have VERY little to no chance of getting a CCW in the very near future. If/when we win Sykes legal UOC, or a history thereof will be irrelevant.

dantodd
09-10-2009, 10:54 PM
Incorporation will bring Shall Issue. Don't screw it up!

So, in light of incorporation what do you think UOC would do to prevent shall-issue?

ETA: Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread. Got sucked in by meplat. I'll leave it to the constructive conversation that was going on.

locosway
09-10-2009, 10:58 PM
I see all members of CGN/CGF standing down from UOC as they've done so far. Everyone here is educated on the issues and understands the risks. LUCC is much safer to the cause at this time. However, CGN people don't make up all of the UOC proponents. There are a lot of other groups and even individuals that are working their UOC magic whenever they can.

I don't see any UOC discussion on CGN doing anything for anyone at this time. It's very clear who sees things clearly and who doesn't. It's also clear who is willing to wait and who isn't. CGN/CGF has no control over individuals or even it's members. There has been some very good advice with great reasoning behind it, but in the end that's all it is, it's only advice.

We do need to work as a group though. That should be our main goal, teamwork. Without everyone working towards the same goal as efficiently as possible then we're just spinning our wheels. Wasting anyone's time or money isn't a good thing, and should be avoided at all costs.

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-11-2009, 1:38 AM
Compromise means making concessions on BOTH sides.

What you are suggestion is that OCers compromise, but CalGunners not compromise.

This is not what the word compromise means.

If one side gives up something, and the other side does not, that is referred to as UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.

The people willing to UOC are going to be an active participant in Calguns community outreach in other activities NOT related to UOC until the time is right. Have you not read this thread? If that's what you define as unconditional surrender, please find a more appropriate term.

Stormfeather
09-11-2009, 1:55 AM
Ok folks, it looks like we are all making some headway in this UOC situation. People are talking, egos and tempers have been checked at the door, and we've come up with what could possibly be some ideal compromises. Now all we need to do is work on utilization of resources.

So, (bear with me now, Ive had a few Capt Morgans and my mind is blurry and racing all at once! But ask WildHawker, he will tell you, some of my best posts come after a few drinks!) now lets get down to the next steps. As I see it. . . . .

1- We need a leadership team for UOC. Who's it going to be? Keep in mind the time, money, energy, effort that's going to need to be expended here to maintain these positions. Don't step up to the plate unless you are ready for it! Without leaders, people don't have a point of contact to follow, information can get muddled and lead to a bad situation, and so on and so on. We all know the pitfalls that can happen, so lets not go there and beat that dead horse. Lets get down to where the mettle meets the meat. . . .So who is it going to be? The time has come to crap or get off the pot and put your money where your mouth is. Lets get a leadership team together, and do some face to face and start ironing out the details. Talk is cheap here, action is whats warranted. Make it happen. Plain and simple. We can talk til we are blue in the face, but if nobody is willing to step up to the plate and make it happen, then its just treading water in my opinion, wasting energy and going nowhere. I know you guys have make some extraordinary strides down south when it comes to UOC, so lets take it to the next level. You have a .Org getting ready to go up, who is in charge of it?

Thesus, I know you are a very vocal proponent of UOC, and you took the first step here in opening this discussion, which tells me you have balls, lets take those brass balls and start ringing them for everyone to see.
PullnShoot, same goes for you, I read time and time again of your forays in UOC, so are you ready to liaison and pull your troops together and get as many as you can organized under one flag?
Gammatron, you have a horse in this race too right?
Glock22Fan, same applies for you.
All of you are well known here, and respected for your opinions, thoughts, and the ability to express yourself eloquently and enunciate what is in your mind to you your lips. What say you guys band together and lets make this happen? Whats it going to take? You have a ton of people up here in the NorCal who are willing to lend you support, direction, and suggest ways to help you in this fight while maintaining your autonomy. What is needed to make this happen? No matter what, we know there will always be people who aren't going to be willing to jump on board, and thats just the way its going to be. BUT, there are quite a few who are willing to jump on board, so lets get those people together and make it happen. Thesus had some great ideas on things that the UOC movement could do to help out and at the same time curtail the "visibility factor" til the time is right. That's a great start and possibly the best route to go. So whats stopping us from it? Do we need face to face time? If so, then lets make it happen.

2- We need for everyone to understand, and by everyone, I do mean everyone, that no matter your particular flavor of firearm or 2A Sport, we are all on this ride til the end. There's no getting off in the middle of a roller coaster ride, and that's what we are on right now. We need to stand together on this. So you have a choice, jump in balls deep or give up your guns now, because in the long run, that's whats going to be the end result if we don't stand together. As so eloquently said by quite a few on here, we are all symbiotically attached in this fight, be it by Blackpowder, OLL's CCW or UOC, it all falls under the RKBA. As CGN Member Glock22 said. . . .
Because if we don't hang together, we shall assuredly hang separately.
I think someone more important than me said that first ;)
And this is a no bull****ter fact. I remember reading a quote somewhere that was "based on a famous 1933 quote by Martin Niemoller, a leader in the Confessing Church which was begun by Niemoller and several other ministers, voted for the Nazi party. By 1938, however, he was in a concentration camp. After the war he was believed to have said, "
"In Germany, the Nazis came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
They changed it by adding firearms and it was shocking how true it felt.
"In America the Government came for the Machine Guns and Silencers, and I didn't speak up because I didn't own a machine gun or silencer. Then they came for the Black Rifles, and I didn't speak up because I only owned a pistol. Then they came for the hunting rifles, and I didn't speak up because I only owned a pistol. Then they came for the shotguns, and I didn't speak up because I only owned a pistol . Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."


I specifically wanted to address Lancear15 on this really quick, and I'm not trying to put you on blast and throw you under the bus, I just wanted to let you know something, so please don't take offense.

OCers need Calguns more then Calguns needs or wants UOCers. There just aren't enough Calgunners interested in, or in support of UOC activism. Many Calgunners like myself are actually very much against UOC, and find it to be to risky to do personally and risky for all gun members for reasons that are well known and have been stated many times by CGF board members. The few who are very interested in UOC seem to me, to have no expendable funds (or even jobs), and lack a base of members willing to fund any sort of legal team specifically for UOC/OC.

Whole thing is a FAIL IMHO.

The whole thing is NOT a FAIL, its about banding together, utilizing resources, instead of under-utilizing the resources at our disposal. Im interested in UOC, and guess what, I have expendable funds, I have a job, and I can afford a lawyer. There's alot more of "us" out here than you think. We are just exercising "verbal restraint" that was recommended at a earlier time. We all need each other in this fight, make no mistake about it, it is a fight, maybe not a knockdown drag out fight in the middle of the street, but it is a fight nonetheless.

Calguns and the UOC needs to recognize that while UOC isn't on the front burner for CGN, it is at least on the stove. Now we all know that there's the Incorporation Issue coming up here in the not too distant future, and other battles (Sykes and Pena's carry and handgun roster) suits that are upcoming as well. There's also the Cow Palace bill and the Internet Ammo bill that's first and foremost in order of upcoming. Everyone here should have made a phone call or at the very least sent an email. If you haven't, stop reading now and go to http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=220872 and make that happen. Utilization of resources folks. . . .right?
I also saw where some expressed concern that UOC wont be a concern of CGN after the incorporation win, and while I personally dont speak in any compacity for CGN, CGF, or CG.Com, im pretty sure you guys wont be left hanging in the wind. To date, CGN has show an extremely impressive track record of fighting the good fight when it comes to our 2A rights. It started with OLL's and have metamorphosed into a highly effective fighting tool for California's RKBA struggle. Have faith folks, we are all here for one reason or another, to see our RKBA struggle placed in the forefront of the politicians in office. At some point, they will recognize to either grant us our due, or be voted out of office. But to do this, we need all CGN members, UOC members, LOC members, and each and every one of you who sit on the fence wondering which way to turn to back us up. Together we are a formidable force to be reckoned with, but as small splinter groups, we are as ineffective as shooting a BB gun at a tank, but together, we are a cannon waiting to deal a devastating blow to those that would oppress our god-given rights.

Theseus
09-11-2009, 2:34 AM
Thesus, I know you are a very vocal proponent of UOC, and you took the first step here in opening this discussion, which tells me you have balls, lets take those brass balls and start ringing them for everyone to see.


As anyone who has been in the Army like I have should know. . . brass balls tarnish quickly and must be frequently polished. :eek:

As for being leader. . . I would like to think I could, but I don't believe I am in a position to fully commit to leadership.

I do have some time and energy, but with the trial, trying to get Bruce paid and my wife through graduate school without a job I have a pretty fill plate.

I will do what I can in getting the balls rung, but I can't be the priest that has to do it all day on the hour. . . See what I did there? Haha. . .

artherd
09-11-2009, 3:28 AM
"All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field." - Albert Einstein.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-11-2009, 6:18 AM
Then the question must be asked: Why do they feel that way? Let's get to the real core of the what the problem is: Is it a misunderstanding of strategy, or is it a common misunderstanding of law?



Its been said (QUITE heatedly, by some) that if we get LOC as the Minimum Constitutional Standard, we won't get SI-CCW. Its not just being said heatedly, its being said a lot. That's why *I* feel that LOC is going to be thrown under the bus.

The Raisuli

Gray Peterson
09-11-2009, 8:18 AM
Its been said (QUITE heatedly, by some) that if we get LOC as the Minimum Constitutional Standard, we won't get SI-CCW. Its not just being said heatedly, its being said a lot. That's why *I* feel that LOC is going to be thrown under the bus.

The Raisuli

The would be the case if PC12031 and PC626.9 were not in existence. However they do exist now.

Theseus
09-11-2009, 11:42 AM
The would be the case if PC12031 and PC626.9 were not in existence. However they do exist now.

I disagree with the notion that California and its legislature would accept everyone loaded open carrying over the option of giving them shall-issue CCW.

But that isn't so important now. Regardless, the point is that by working together now and building the OC group into a strong pollitical power, if Calguns doesn't wish to help us achieve our goal, we can do it alone.

As much as I would like to think we could now, I just don't see it. If OC doesn't have the power to make positive influence and strides now without help, then maybe we should start working with those that can help us build and develop the power we need.

I expect that we won't really see unlicensed LOCfor 5 years. I am figuring it will take that long for everything to get settled and the people to accept the idea that law abiding people can be trusted to carry.

wildhawker
09-11-2009, 11:45 AM
I would like to think we're past the "do it alone" stage at this point. We're all in this together, and it's important that we keep this discussion pointed towards progress.

I disagree with the notion that California and its legislature would accept everyone loaded open carrying over the option of giving them shall-issue CCW.

But that isn't so important now. Regardless, the point is that by working together now and building the OC group into a strong pollitical power, if Calguns doesn't wish to help us achieve our goal, we can do it alone.

As much as I would like to think we could now, I just don't see it. If OC doesn't have the power to make positive influence and strides now without help, then maybe we should start working with those that can help us build and develop the power we need.

I expect that we won't really see unlicensed LOCfor 5 years. I am figuring it will take that long for everything to get settled and the people to accept the idea that law abiding people can be trusted to carry.

artherd
09-11-2009, 1:17 PM
Its been said (QUITE heatedly, by some) that if we get LOC as the Minimum Constitutional Standard, we won't get SI-CCW. Its not just being said heatedly, its being said a lot. That's why *I* feel that LOC is going to be thrown under the bus.

The Raisuli

I'm not really willing to allow this to be an either-or issue in the end. Who's saying this that matters?

dantodd
09-11-2009, 1:20 PM
I'm not really willing to allow this to be an either-or issue in the end. Who's saying this that matters?

The problem is that if we assume the state has the right to permit one form of carry only and can choose which form then getting CC protected doesn't provide an incentive for the legislature to make or keep OC legal. i.e. They could outlaw it any time they choose.

However; if OC is the initial judicially protected right it is much easier for gunnies to put pressure on the legislature to permit the less "publicly offensive" CC to lessen the prevalence of OCing. This is what happened in OH

Theseus
09-11-2009, 1:33 PM
I would like to think we're past the "do it alone" stage at this point. We're all in this together, and it's important that we keep this discussion pointed towards progress.

I am not disagreeing with that. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't matter if Calguns will be there in the end to help us get what we want if we work together now, we will be strong enough to get it ourselves.

It isn't trying to incite anything, I still want to work together toward a mutual goal, I just don't think that we need to throw away all skepticism. Work together, but keep a watchful eye. . .

Lancear15
09-11-2009, 2:15 PM
Post #61
Well, since I am not good at playing the word games some here are then, fine. . .it was a threat.

Post#62
You do NOT want to play 'warning/threat' crap with me.

Post #66
I was not intending to threaten anyone as stated above the threat would have been empty, useless and unproductive.

Theseus has said so many arrogant and careless remarks in so many threads, I really believe he is a danger to our RKBA. He only backs off when he realizes hes gone way to far. But he really believes the junk he says in those times he is way over the line. I'm talking in general about many UOC threads he posted in. I see him as a guy who loves attention and loves running around with a gun on his hip. Now that he realizes how risky it is, he doesn't even carry anymore; yet he pushes UOC agenda every chance he gets... kind of hypocritical, no?

Why so sparring with the ban stick kest? I've seen people get it for less. Don't get soft on us.

grammaton76
09-11-2009, 2:32 PM
Here's the deal: I honestly think it's time to "refactor" this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_refactoring

A number of things have been said that were pertinent, and a number of things were said that will only serve to derail further discussion over time.

I propose that I lock this thread, and Theseus takes "his original post, adjusted to reflect the status of his present negotiations" and starts a new one to be free of the derailment.

Nothing will be deleted, thus nothing swept under the rug, etc. Just, this thread stops and there's little risk of continued derailment and things get entirely back on track.

Theseus: sound good?

wildhawker
09-11-2009, 3:15 PM
Good idea gramma.

Theseus
09-11-2009, 3:17 PM
Post #61


Post#62


Post #66


Theseus has said so many arrogant and careless remarks in so many threads, I really believe he is a danger to our RKBA. He only backs off when he realizes hes gone way to far. But he really believes the junk he says in those times he is way over the line. I'm talking in general about many UOC threads he posted in. I see him as a guy who loves attention and loves running around with a gun on his hip. Now that he realizes how risky it is, he doesn't even carry anymore; yet he pushes UOC agenda every chance he gets... kind of hypocritical, no?

Why so sparring with the ban stick kest? I've seen people get it for less. Don't get soft on us.
:rolleyes:

Meplat
09-11-2009, 3:21 PM
Why so sparring with the ban stick kest? I've seen people get it for less. Don't get soft on us.

That sounds like a threat to me! The stick belongs to Kes, not you.

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-11-2009, 3:31 PM
:rolleyes:

The claims aren't exactly untrue, you know.

grammaton76
09-11-2009, 3:44 PM
Thread locked; productive discussion has pretty much ended. Anyone who would like Kestryll to take action, may use report post and bring their concerns to him directly.

Theseus, you're welcome to start a new thread to refactor the discussion.