PDA

View Full Version : Can Calguns represent the interests of California gun owners?


zeleny
10-30-2009, 11:40 PM
Please consider my subject line carefully. I may or may not be trolling for your attention. It is not for me to be the judge of my own motives. Suffice it to say that the question I am posing is of great concern to every member and visitor of this forum. Please give it due consideration regardless of your personal feelings in my regard. Think of the message; never mind the messenger.

I do not mean this conversation to be about personalities or personae, be they my own or anyone else's. But some context is in order. In a recent thread reporting on my actions that deviated from a presumptive consensus of Calguns members, the secretary of the Calguns Foundation accused me (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3278443&postcount=173) of putting my own needs ahead of other people's needs. I corrected him by pointing out (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3278976&postcount=187) that am putting my rights ahead of other people's wishes, and elaborating that this sort of arrangement is implicit in the very nature of rights and wishes. Another member responded:It would be more accurate to say that "this sort of arrangement is simplistic and does not reflect the reality the LACK OF A LEGAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms in California".

A lot of folks here are doing some hard work to further our legal rights here in California. By conflating your crusade (no matter how honorable or correct it might be) you are, in fact, being counter-productive to the cause.

So while I appreciate that you might (or might not) have a claim against Cisco/Webex I can't, as a member of this community, support your effort to attract attention by conflating your cause with ours.

Does that make sense?

--NeillIn the remainder of this note, I intend to answer the question posed by Neill irrespectively of the particulars of my crusade.

At this time, the agenda of Calguns comprises two goals: advocacy and communication. I claim that this combination involves the forum in an irremediable conflict of interests. I recommend that the political function of advocacy be separated from the social function of communication. I recommend that these functions be compartmentalized and promoted independently of one another. I recommend that the forum be reserved as a place for communication, and that another organization be created as an arm of advocacy, or vice versa.

There is nothing new about this division of labor. It reflects the distinction between NRA at large, as an American non-partisan, non-profit (501(c)(4)) organization that lists as its goals the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defense in the United States, and its partisan lobbying arm, NRA-ILA. The same division should arise within the California gun activism, for the same legal reasons that I need not recite here. My concern is with more fundamental justifications for separating advocacy from communication. They have to do with the different effect of organization on these two functions.

Communication is best promoted by a setting with widely distributed and constantly disparaged authority and broad-based mechanisms of attaining at best a provisional consensus. The most effective online communication devices, Wikipedia and Craigslist, bear out this point. No centrally controlled forum equals them in reach, value, and influence. On the other hand, the success of advocacy depends on tight regulation and rigorous coordination that can only be obtained in a hierarchical setting. By their nature and history, online media have done much better at communication than at advocacy. If a lot of folks are committed to do hard work to further the legal rights of California gun owners, they would be best served by getting together in realspace and establishing a formal chain of command to lobby our legislators and work our courts in the manner of NRA-ILA. These activities are orthogonal to the goal of fostering communication among California gun owners. In the normal course of events, political moves and legal pleadings work much better on a need-to-know basis. Conversely, effective communications can and should thrive on dissent and disclosure. In this regard, even NRA is inadequate as the role model for an all-inclusive conversational community of gun enthusiasts, as witness numerous splinter groups and special interests alienated by its stance in specific matters ranging from civilian machine gun ownership to civil rights litigation.

More generally, advocacy favors and agrees with a fairly narrow range of personalities from wannabe politicians to real movers and shakers. By tailoring the purlieu of their communications to these types, Calgunners do themselves the great disservice of marginalizing and silencing the less compromising of their natural allies. In the long run, this process results in the impoverishment of conversation, as the forum focuses on logrolling and backslapping to the increasing disfavor of anyone substantively invested into a personal position on its titular issues. The best conversations are not those that result in the strongest consensus, but those that open the greatest opportunities for further inquiry. These opportunities can only be thwarted by the necessity of imposing party discipline.

None of the foregoing is meant as a self-serving polemic. I have no personal stake in the regulation and orientation of this forum and no interest in using it to promote my personal agenda. Its management is unlikely to be swayed by my arguments, and I have no intention of tilting at their windmills, being quite adequately supplied with far more challenging targets. My free advice is worth no more than what my readers make of it. I wish all of them the best of luck, regardless of their taking or leaving it.

CHS
10-30-2009, 11:47 PM
"Can Calguns represent the interests of California gun owners?

Yes. Absolutely.

Any more questions?

zeleny
10-30-2009, 11:51 PM
Yes. Absolutely.

Any more questions?You are proving my point, to the extent that a kneejerk response forecloses the possibility of meaningful conversation.

Gray Peterson
10-30-2009, 11:53 PM
Michael, you are looney tunes. Go away! OUT! SHOOO!!!!

hoffmang
10-30-2009, 11:53 PM
Oaklander was speaking in his personal capacity and not stating an official position of the Calguns Foundation.

However, your question is improperly phrased. What you are really asking is, "Can Calguns represent the interests of Michael Zeleny."

The answer is probably not as your interests don't align with the interests of most California gun owners. If you are arrested for possession of a legally owned firearm, CGF might be able to help. CGF has specifically asked for individuals to not UOC in places where LOC is illegal and as such would probably not defend you.

I suggest, that even if your beef with a former executive of Webex is legitimate, that it should not be conflated with or used to disparage the fight for Second Amendment civil rights by the Calguns community or The Calguns Foundation.

-Gene

bsim
10-30-2009, 11:53 PM
Yes, they can. And do.

zeleny
10-30-2009, 11:58 PM
Oaklander was speaking in his personal capacity and not stating an official position of the Calguns Foundation.

However, your question is improperly phrased. What you are really asking is, "Can Calguns represent the interests of Michael Zeleny."Hardly so. "I would never join a club that would have me as a member."

CHS
10-30-2009, 11:58 PM
You are proving my point, to the extent that a kneejerk response forecloses the possibility of meaningful conversation.

How on earth is that a kneejerk response? I've been involved here for a couple YEARS now, and have seen the work that has been done. I've been lucky enough to even have been involved in some of the work, indirectly and directly. I've volunteered at the booths for outreach and fund raising.

I *KNOW*, without a doubt, without a kneejerk response, that Calguns can and does represent the majority of interests of gun owners in the state of California.

Hell, I've TRIED to have a meaningful conversation with you, but you've got your head stuck so far up your A-- that it wasn't possible. Not my fault.

hoffmang
10-31-2009, 12:03 AM
Hardly so. "I would never join a club that would have me as a member."

Have you actually done something to support gun rights that was not related to your quest in opposition to Min Zhu?

-Gene

CHS
10-31-2009, 12:06 AM
the secretary of the Calguns Foundation accused me (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3278443&postcount=173) of putting my own needs ahead of other people's needs. I corrected him by pointing out (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3278976&postcount=187) that am putting my rights ahead of other people's wishes, and elaborating that this sort of arrangement is implicit in the very nature of rights and wishes.

What rights?

You don't have the rights you keep talking about here in CA. Sure, you have a constitutional right to all kinds of great things, but your 2A right cannot legally be exercised here.

What part about that is it that you continually fail to understand? Why is it that you can't seem to grasp the concept that by acting out in the way you are, you are putting ALL California's gun owners future legal rights at risk?

HondaMasterTech
10-31-2009, 12:06 AM
I thought the point of this forum was so that people with an interest in guns can communicate with one another. The CalGunsFoundation isn't this forum, or so it seems to me. It's a coincidence that the most popular California gun enthusiast forum is run by individuals involved in the advancment of the 2nd amendment. I'm like a Ginsu knife, I'm not the sharpest, but I never go dull.

By the way, exactly what was your point with respect to " average joe " who connects to this forum?

wildhawker
10-31-2009, 12:09 AM
Have you actually done something to support gun rights that was not related to your quest in opposition to Min Zhu?

-Gene

That question was asked and went unanswered in a previous thread. I'm interested to see the response, if there is to be one.

Gray Peterson
10-31-2009, 12:10 AM
You know, I tried seeing things from your point of view, Michael, but I can't shove my head that far up my ***.

obeygiant
10-31-2009, 12:10 AM
:popcorn:

oaklander
10-31-2009, 12:20 AM
Yup.

Oaklander was speaking in his personal capacity and not stating an official position of the Calguns Foundation.

However, your question is improperly phrased. What you are really asking is, "Can Calguns represent the interests of Michael Zeleny."

The answer is probably not as your interests don't align with the interests of most California gun owners. If you are arrested for possession of a legally owned firearm, CGF might be able to help. CGF has specifically asked for individuals to not UOC in places where LOC is illegal and as such would probably not defend you.

I suggest, that even if your beef with a former executive of Webex is legitimate, that it should not be conflated with or used to disparage the fight for Second Amendment civil rights by the Calguns community or The Calguns Foundation.

-Gene

Kestryll
10-31-2009, 12:22 AM
Default Can Calguns represent the interests of California gun owners?

Yes, it can and it does.
Because Calguns is made entirely of California gun owners.
It's owners, Moderators and members are all California gun owners, and with all due modesty Calguns is one of if not the biggest direct voice that California gun owner have.

The NRA/CRPA are the biggest and loudest voices, and rightly so, however by nature of their design they are representative voices.
Calguns is the direct voice of all of it's members.
Since we're using vocal characterizations, Calguns is the chorus, NRA/CRPA are the soloists. Together the music is deafening.

Now, on to the real question at the heart of this thread that has been touched on already.
"Can Calguns represent the interests of Michael Zeleny."

The short answer is yes and no.

The long answer is in the overall sceme of 2nd amendment rights, yes in the same manner we work for the rights of ALL California (and National to be honest) gun owners.

In the direct application, no we will not act as a springboard or as a prop for you to use and abuse in your personal crusade.


the secretary of the Calguns Foundation accused me of putting my own needs ahead of other people's needs.
Incorrect.
What was pointed out, by oaklander and by your own words, is that you are willing to endanger the rights of others by your action as long as it serves your needs and benefit.
I corrected him by pointing out that am putting my rights ahead of other people's wishes,
Again, incorrect.
You are putting your personal Quixote-esque crusade ahead of the rights of all and jeopardizing them by using them as an attention getting prop for your own benefit.


Frankly we spent 3 days and over 500 posts in a thread giving you clear opportunity to quite plainly state your complete lack of care for the damaging repercussions of your actions to California gun owners.
We know where you stand and what motivates you.


We're not going to start that same song and dance again just so you can feel relevant.