PDA

View Full Version : Sit-down with Whitman's advisor.


Barkoff
06-16-2010, 10:05 AM
I met with One of Whitman’s advisors in Morgan Hill on Monday. Here are some of my impressions.

Whitman sees three important issues in this race, and guns law is not one of them. She seems to be focused on the CA debt, education and jobs. It seems as if our gun laws are secondary. I explained to him that maybe a group of over 50K voters should be considered.

He was pretty well versed in gun law; he and his family are pro-gun and commented that his family at one time had over 150 firearms. He understood why we perceived Brown as being friends to gun owners, but seemed surprised that so many see Whitman as anti-gun.

When we got to her eBay policy, he mentioned that he didn’t think her being anti was the reasoning behind the eBay policy. I mentioned I believe that this was just another over reaction (by somebody who believes guns to be evil) to the VT shooting. He said he is pretty sure the policy was not a reaction to VT.

Really? I asked. This guy goes on a rampage, the press makes a big deal over the fact he bought his extra mags on eBay, then just a few weeks later eBay announces their new policy…that dog don’t hunt! If Whitman is not anti gun, then she needs to explain herself.

I brought up the point of her ignorance for her not seeming to know the issues of “shall issue” and CCW. His explanation was that she does know of these issues, but to people who do not spend a lot of time with guns as their life or hobby, or a lot of times on gun boards, the terms are not instantly recognizable. Whitman has stated she is pro-second.

I then asked, what does that mean…exactly? Arnold told us he was pro-gun, and then he signed this BS. I then gave him that last few gun laws Arnold hand signed…he already knew these laws by designation and what they entailed.

I asked him what Whitman meant when she said “CA does not need anymore gun laws at this time”….at this time?

So he asked me, so many gun owners take “at this time” as a threat that she may be open for more laws in the future”? ABSOLUTLY! Meg Whitman was raised in NY, she went to school in NY, then moved out here to CA, everything that has formed Whitman’s opinions on guns, she has learned in NY and CA, couple in her ebay and paypal policy and you tell me why we should not be concerned?

I told him, "look, she can throw some vanilla soundbite out there, but we want to know how she feels about “shall issue”, how she feels about these ammo bans, anyone can spew out a sound bite".

He was up on Heller and McDonald, but not Nordyke or Sykes, so I gave him a brief explanation and some reading on both those cases. He asked me how I thought Nordyke and Sykes would be influenced by McDonald, and how I believe McDonald would impact CA? I told him I was not qualified to answer; I am not an attorney, nor an expert in law.

He told me that he had also met with a gentleman who was the President of a group called “California Gun owners” or something to that effect. I asked him what their concerns were, and he replied, “Pretty much, they mirror yours”.

I asked him if Whitman would be interested with meeting with CalGun leadership and giving them a chance to voice the concerns of gun owners? He said, he didn’t know for sure, but that he would have to meet with them first, and hear what they wished to discuss, and then pass it on, and see if Whitman is interested. I asked if he had an open line to Whitman, he told me he wouldn't call her out of the blue, rather he would send her a personal email...this says Jr. Adviser IMHO.

He told me I have an open line anytime, and to pass on his email and phone number to anyone from GalGun leadership who would like to talk. He does seem real interested on McDonald and the possible ramifications for CA.

So, over all impressions? I need to hear something out of Whitman’s mouth to be convinced she is not an anti. I believe the guy, although up on the issues, was not a Sr. Adviser, but one who does the legwork for the senior advisers. I will leave it up to Calgun leadership if they want to try to take advantage of a door cracked that might be opened wider, or to just let it go.

My opinion is that CalGuns has a much better chance of getting a hold of her ear now, more so than if she actually becomes our governor. I don’t think it could hurt to hedge our bets, maybe form a couple of personal relationships, even if you still intend to support Brown. If Brown loses, then what do we have, and what are our chances of being heard by Whitman, then?

It’s easy to get pissed and write her off, but I think CalGuns should consider a disciplined effort at hedging their bets, just in case Brown loses. Personally I left the AWB out of the conversation, choosing small steps instead of big ones. IMHO “shall issue carry” is an easier game to sell up front without stoking the fear among the sheep that the AWB seems to. Better to open the door and be invited in first.

Who will I vote for? I still don’t know, there is a lot of time before I have to commit, and hopefully some debates where this subject will come up. Can’t say is if I will be a one issue voter or not, I have to hear their ideas on immigration and taxes. If Brown comes out in support of AZ’s law (which CA already has in their law) and says he supports CA enforcing what is already on our books, he just might be my guy.

If anyone from CG leadership wishes this Jr. adviser's phone or email, feel free to PM me.

John Browning
06-16-2010, 10:13 AM
Well done with the pointed questions.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1233928590_citizen%20kane%20clapping.gif

Cobrafreak
06-16-2010, 10:18 AM
It would be very easy to write her off. If she has been misunderstood of her 2nd A stance then this would be a good way to clear it up. If I were a betting man I would say she would not be interested in such a forum as the % she would potentially gain in numbers would be minimal in her eyes. Until such a forum takes place with pro 2A groups I am reluctantly voting for Brown. At least I know what I will be getting.

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 10:21 AM
It would be very easy to write her off. If she has been misunderstood of her 2nd A stance then this would be a good way to clear it up. If I were a betting man I would say she would not be interested in such a forum as the % she would potentially gain in numbers would be minimal in her eyes. Until such a forum takes place with pro 2A groups I am reluctantly voting for Brown. At least I know what I will be getting.

I agree with that assessment, Whitman needs to reach out and gain some trust that has been lost.

turbogg
06-16-2010, 10:23 AM
We'll need to hear directly from Whitman about her viewpoints, and potential policies. A Jr advisor most likely does not have his finger on the pulse of what is going on. That being said, nice work Barloff!

zinfull
06-16-2010, 10:26 AM
Everything I have heard from her election is general and has the biggest market. I doubt that she will take a stand on small fish which could make her look bad. She is a republican running in a liberal state so guns are taboo.

jerry

HUTCH 7.62
06-16-2010, 10:32 AM
I would have no Problem voting for Meg if she can prove in writing she is pro 2A. until then I will vote for Jerry Brown.

gbp
06-16-2010, 10:53 AM
ThanX Barkoff
Sounds like an interesting conversation was had. It would have been better if he were a little closer to Whitman but as you say perhaps the door has been cracked a little.

Nice Job

Barabas
06-16-2010, 11:02 AM
Words, words, words.

Is there a method to her madness? Her deeds have proven her stance. A single issue, 2nd amendment voter would never vote for her regardless of the noise that comes out of her mouth or her camp.

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 11:06 AM
I'm not sure I understand the line of questioning. Guv really has little or no bearing on shall-issue CCW and other post-McDonald issues; AG has more direct involvement here. All Guv can do is veto bad/unconstitutional law (and here only likely done by Brown, who has the law background to understand the implications - Whitman is a milquetoast political creation by CA/US GOP); they are otherwise generally powerless on our issue. Remember that CA has the least powerful executive in the nation.

vantec08
06-16-2010, 11:07 AM
We are sacrificial - - - - she knows darn well the voting strength is in the inner cities/major metropolitan areas, and they choose to demon inanimate objects rather than hold each other accountable for behavioral and cultural issues.

USAFTS
06-16-2010, 11:11 AM
I would have no Problem voting for Meg if she can prove in writing she is pro 2A. until then I will vote for Jerry Brown.

Seems that if we get too focused on one issue, we could find ourselves in the same or even worse situation.

IMHO, Whitman is not a (R) or even a conservative. I believe she is a Lib and possibly even a progressive who is merely seeking power. I hope I am wrong and if I am, I will proclaim the fact, loudly.

Even if her ebay policy was not made out of anti beliefs, it clearly shows her willingness to quickly cave to political correctness or at the very least political pressure.

She has also voiced her praise for Van Jones. If people are unaware who Van Jones is, they should probably not be voting.

Meg Whitman on Van Jones and Climate Change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSn37TMXZO8&feature=player_embedded)

This is one election that demands very close examination of ALL of the candidates.

bwiese
06-16-2010, 11:15 AM
Barkoff,

This is what I worry about when a noob tries something like this, and why I cautioned you that other folks were likely better to touch base.

You sold us out when you said "50K". Nobody cares about 50k that much.

Calguns has a far greater reach than its membership - look at the somewhere around 300K OLLs - that's a direct product of Calguns.
Calguns has 'view-thru' - people

And NRA membership in CA is somewhere around ~500K-600K.

So you ended up probably minimizing us and perhaps even doing harm.

hnoppenberger
06-16-2010, 11:31 AM
DOH!
my 2 cents: she is full blown lib, in disguise, trying to gain power.
she will cave immediatly to the left in power currently, just as arnold has done. She will not help 2a AT ALL.

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 11:34 AM
Bwiese nailed it; pols have essentially zero incentive (there's no upside) to communicate with non-players, especially those who don't have the experience to provide positive, nuanced feedback to the general public (and even more especially those representing a non-core issue to their platform and public interest polling). Guns are not an issue she or any JB will want to campaign on (nor do we want them to - work effectively but quietly and let everyone keep talking about our budget issues, which helps us in the building).

Donny1
06-16-2010, 11:51 AM
DOH!
my 2 cents: she is full blown lib, in disguise, trying to gain power.
she will cave immediatly to the left in power currently, just as arnold has done. She will not help 2a AT ALL.

:iagree:

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 11:58 AM
Words, words, words.

Is there a method to her madness? Her deeds have proven her stance. A single issue, 2nd amendment voter would never vote for her regardless of the noise that comes out of her mouth or her camp.

You won't hear me argue against that point, but what should the game plan be if she is elected, treat her as nothing but an enemy, or try to change her thought process? Jerry Brown has changed, anyone who has half a brain can be persuaded.

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 12:00 PM
I'm not sure I understand the line of questioning. Guv really has little or no bearing on shall-issue CCW and other post-McDonald issues; AG has more direct involvement here. All Guv can do is veto bad/unconstitutional law (and here only likely done by Brown, who has the law background to understand the implications - Whitman is a milquetoast political creation by CA/US GOP); they are otherwise generally powerless on our issue. Remember that CA has the least powerful executive in the nation.

VETO power over Ammiano and his merry band.

bwiese
06-16-2010, 12:01 PM
You won't hear me argue against that point, but what should the game plan be if she is elected, treat her as nothing but an enemy, or try to change her thought process? Jerry Brown has changed, anyone who has half a brain can be persuaded.

JB has never really 'changed' on general background firearms matters - for 25+ years.

And playing both sides of an subissue or race has not done us well - that's how we got the safe handgun list.

Please in the future do not act like you represent 'Calguns' or "California gun owners", etc. in your representations
to her campaign, and speak only for yourself. You've already done more harm than any good.

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 12:05 PM
Barkoff,

This is what I worry about when a noob tries something like this, and why I cautioned you that other folks were likely better to touch base.

You sold us out when you said "50K". Nobody cares about 50k that much.

Calguns has a far greater reach than its membership - look at the somewhere around 300K OLLs - that's a direct product of Calguns.
Calguns has 'view-thru' - people

And NRA membership in CA is somewhere around ~500K-600K.

So you ended up probably minimizing us and perhaps even doing harm.

Tries something like what? I didn't go in as a spokesman for this site, or the NRA I went in as a pissed off firearm owners looking to voice an opinion...sold you out, then call him and correct me.

I'm getting real tired of all the whining when somebody gets off their *** and tries to do something, it is not my way to come to a site with like minded and whine and complain, and then do nothing.

Anything I said to the guy you disagree with, you are free to call him, voice your opinion and correct my mistake. You want the number?

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 12:09 PM
OK, several points if I may?

1. Barkoff did not (IIRC) show up representing anyone but himself. He at least went and made the contact.

2. Barkoff is offering the contact to CGF to make the desired better representation of the RKBA. He is obviously not trying to present himself as our rep.

3. I think the contact should be pursued, but what I would do is for CGF to say, OK, we want to meet - but if you think we are going to take time from our busy schedules to meet with a low-level adviser you're nuts. You meet with Whitman herself and a few of her top advisers or don't meet at all. I'd get 4-5 people from both the NRA and the CGF and point out that you represent 1/3 of a million California voters who probably on average influence the votes of probably something on the order of 2-5 million. What's more is I'd point out that gun owners are generally Republican base (my apologies to our smaller Democrat contingent) and if she ends up with the NRA endorsing Jerry Brown she is going to be significantly hurt.

4. I'd bet that he (the low-level adviser) met previously with Gun Owners of California. Admittedly similar concerns to those of CGF and NRA but not really the best representative of RKBA interests. Net effect is that if CGF and NRA are not making solid contact with Whitman and she wins - then if GOC has endorsed her and supported her it will be GOC who has the ability to advise the Governor. No offense to GOC, but I'd far rather have the NRA and CGF serving as resources to our governor - so I'd advise making the contact.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 12:11 PM
Tries something like what? I didn't go in as a spokesman for this site, or the NRA I went in as a pissed off firearm owners looking to voice an opinion...sold you out, then call him and correct me.

I'm getting real tired of all the whining when somebody gets off their *** and tries to do something, it is not my way to come to a site with like minded and whine and complain, and then do nothing.

Anything I said to the guy you disagree with, you are free to call him, voice your opinion and correct my mistake. You want the number?

Personally, I'm glad you did what you did.

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 12:19 PM
Personally, I'm glad you did what you did.


Well I appreciate that, and in reality the opportunity fell into my lap. When I wrote to Whitman I did not ask for a meet or express my desire for a meet, I just simply put down my thoughts as to why this conservative might not vote for Whitman. I was surprised to be contacted at all in return. At that point my first thought was to get the Whitman camp (no matter how low level) to recognize and maybe hook up with those more educated on the subject.

It was made clear to him that I have only been interested in gun law for a short period of time, and made the point that I used to be a bit anti-gun without realizing it. The more I took the time to look at both sides, the more I became appalled at how I was being mislead. I told him that CG and 24hrCF is where I have learned a great deal, but strongly suggested he get together with those more in the know... He agreed he would like to do that.

Take it or leave it.

Nodda Duma
06-16-2010, 12:24 PM
Thank you Barkoff, very informative post.

Bweise: Bad taste to publicly berate a gun owner for being proactive when otherwise gun owners are being encouraged to be proactive. Respect is a two-way street, and this is not the way to go about gaining it. Didn't say exactly what you wanted? With all due respect, gun owners are not the employees of CalGuns, and I would hope that forum members are not being divided up between an elitist group and the rest of us unwashed masses. As long as he's not presenting himself as a representative of Calguns (which I see no indication that he did), then there should be no issue at all.

Has a Calguns Rep been in contact with Whitman? I have seen no indication of that effort. If you want to "minimize damage", then be proactive and talk to the candidates for us!!

-Jason

bwiese
06-16-2010, 12:28 PM
His 'proactivity' and lack of forethought in his statements about size were extremely unhelpful.

Volunteerism only goes so far.

N6ATF
06-16-2010, 12:31 PM
Is there ANYTHING, anyone can do to help the cause (rather than donate) and not receive 40 lashes for it?

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 12:38 PM
His 'proactivity' and lack of forethought in his statements about size were extremely unhelpful.

Volunteerism only goes so far.

Well my friend, if I have to choose between being a CalGun member and following a strict line of code set forth, or a voter, and gun owner who wishes to speak his mind and have a voice, then I'll be happy to go if I should.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 12:43 PM
His 'proactivity' and lack of forethought in his statements about size were extremely unhelpful.

Volunteerism only goes so far.

OK, I'm willing to accept that.

That being the case, however, I am assuming that CGF and the NRA have been engaged in reaching out to the Whitman camp? I'd also assume that there is a plan underway to repair whatever damage Barkoff may have caused?

BTW, I'm a noob on Calguns but I've been on the good old Earth for a long time and have met over the years with people at many levels of government (city council on up to the ministerial level - but no governors or heads of state). I head a county delegation for a not-politically-insignificant organization, etc. This despite the fact that I really have no desire to meet any of them and have tried to quit the delegation I head.

Point is that while I don't know many of the players you know, I've got a pretty good idea about how things work and one of those things is that if you don't want individual volunteers to mess things up for you - then you get out there and make the professional contact with impact and repeatedly so that an organization such as Whitman's doesn't end up being unduly influenced by the volunteerism.

If CGF and NRA have not made the contact with Whitman's camp to provide appropriate background information (other than harassing her campaign worker's at the Cow Palace?) then CGF and NRA should be feeling chagrined at their failure rather than incensed at Barkoff.

stan
06-16-2010, 12:46 PM
Is there ANYTHING, anyone can do to help the cause (rather than donate) and not receive 40 lashes for it?

organize a UOC get-together



























too soon? :p

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 12:46 PM
CGF can't get involved with elections.

As individuals, however, some of us work within various circles to fact-find etc.

The most relevant info generally isn't printed on a flag and flown; it helps if you can read between lines.

There are plenty of ways to contribute productively; most of the time people spin wheels or worse when they don't seek out guidance from knowledgeable and experienced friendlies and 'wing it'. Many of us make our phone numbers available to those interested in helping or are curious about a particular issue.

bwiese
06-16-2010, 12:49 PM
That being the case, however, I am assuming that CGF and the NRA have been engaged in reaching out to the Whitman camp?


I myself see no need for CGF board members (as representing CGF) to contact Whitman. I think we're best off in litigation areas.

Based on comments and background also, I do not believe a relationship any of us form with Whitman camp would really prevent Meg from signing bills esp in 'tradeoff' situations. If you already have banned holster sales on EBay, there's not much further you can fall.

I cannot speak for NRA + CRPA liaison. I do believe NRA has contacts in a variety of areas in the food chain, as the NRA always has the ability to 'walk into the room' in most any campaign. The new CRPA legislative liaison, Tom Pedersen, is well-respected in a variety of circles and has similar ability as well.

I believe such 'access' in a governor's race is best achieved thru the professional liaisons of the state rifle organization and NRA for these matters.

CGF is best for just going out and suing the sh*t outta everybody and continuing "aggressive compliance".

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 12:49 PM
OleCuss, H Paul Payne of NRA takes calls from NRA members regularly. He would be a great place to start.

If someone doesn't know who HPP is, they are probably too uninformed to discuss gun politics with campaigns for statewide office.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 12:52 PM
I myself see no need for CGF board members (as representing CGF) to contact Whitman. I think we're best off in litigation areas.

I cannot speak for NRA + CRPA liaison. I do believe NRA has contacts in a variety of areas in the food chain, as the NRA always has the ability to 'walk into the room' in most any campaign, and the respected new CRPA legislative liaison does as well.

I understand your approach but IMHO (as an admitted relevant noob) is that you're diminishing your influence. CGF may have a primary role in the litigation arena but it seems to me that being available to advise on the legalities of the RKBA could be a useful component.

bwiese
06-16-2010, 12:55 PM
I understand your approach but IMHO (as an admitted relevant noob) is that you're diminishing your influence. CGF may have a primary role in the litigation arena but it seems to me that being available to advise on the legalities of the RKBA could be a useful component.

Yes, CGFers are bright folks with a lotta background. But please understad that these other folks understand all these issues too.

The value of a few long-term consistent faces cannot be underrated.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 1:01 PM
OleCuss, H Paul Payne of NRA takes calls from NRA members regularly. He would be a great place to start.

If someone doesn't know who HPP is, they are probably too uninformed to discuss gun politics with campaigns for statewide office.

Wonderful!

So has the NRA/HPP made the call? Sometimes we have to actually go out and say that we're not just happy to yell at your staff for what I think is at best lukewarm RKBA support but we're willing to sit down with you and civilly exchange information and (maybe) threats.

And yes, I honestly think the Whitman campaign is "probably too uninformed to discuss gun politics. . .". I think it is time for the NRA to fix that (if they aren't already doing that).

I'd like the CGF to be at least somewhat available as a resource on the legal issues of the RKBA for 'most any state politician regardless of their political affiliation. If the politician badmouths you, then you consider not taking their calls but as long as they're polite and it doesn't interfere with higher priorities I'd be in favor of working with them.

But again, my point is that going after Barkoff when it looks like the only other pro-RKBA contact they're getting is with GOC just might not be warranted.

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 1:03 PM
OleCuss,

When it's prudent or an opportunity exists for us to advise (generally to express potential consequences of certain actions), trust that we do and will. However, the 'politics' are best handled -as Bill mentions- by a few consistent faces that return some Pavlovian responses by savvy political consultants and chiefs of staff.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 1:04 PM
Yes, CGFers are bright folks with a lotta background. But please understad that these other folks understand all these issues too.

The value of a few long-term consistent faces cannot be underrated.

I'd heartily agree with you. But the fact that they felt the need to meet with Barkoff would tend to suggest that they haven't been seeing those "few long-term consistent faces".

navyinrwanda
06-16-2010, 1:04 PM
I'm with Bill. 50K severely lowballs the number of California voters whose decisions are influenced by gun rights issues. A more realistic number would be over 1 million, and could easily approach 2-3 million. That's big enough to affect a close election.

And while you (and many others here) no doubt believe that shall issue CCW is the sine qua non of gun rights in California, it is nonetheless a politically explosive issue that in all likelihood would result in a net loss of voters in a statewide election. If I was running for governor (or advising a candidate), I'd certainly recommend against taking a public position on CCW policies. In fact, appearing “ignorant” would be a pretty smart tactic.

And it's very naïve to think that a sit-down in-depth conversation on gun rights with a gubernatorial campaign adviser won't be perceived as representing all gun owners.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 1:05 PM
OleCuss,

When it's prudent or an opportunity exists for us to advise (generally to express potential consequences of certain actions), trust that we do and will. However, the 'politics' are best handled -as Bill mentions- by a few consistent faces that return some Pavlovian responses by savvy political consultants and chiefs of staff.

I'm glad that you do - and will.

navyinrwanda
06-16-2010, 1:07 PM
Is there ANYTHING, anyone can do to help the cause (rather than donate) and not receive 40 lashes for it?
Vote.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 1:15 PM
I'm with Bill. 50K severely lowballs the number of California voters whose decisions are influenced by gun rights issues. A more realistic number would be over 1 million, and could easily approach 2-3 million. That's big enough to affect a close election.

I think that the 2-3 million may still be significantly low-balling the influence. I'm betting that I'll personally influence at least dozens if not hundreds for the November election. I won't tip the scales for even 1/2 that number but every bit of influence counts. That cumulative effect is why they buy lots of ads. . .

And while you (and many others here) no doubt believe that shall issue CCW is the sine qua non of gun rights in California, it is nonetheless a politically explosive issue that in all likelihood would result in a net loss of voters in a statewide election. If I was running for governor (or advising a candidate), I'd certainly recommend against taking a public position on CCW policies. In fact, appearing “ignorant” would be a pretty smart tactic.

I'd agree with you on this one. The problem Whitman has is that her previous actions and even her current official statement (if reasonably parsed) would suggest that she is unfriendly to the RKBA.

And it's very naïve to think that a sit-down in-depth conversation on gun rights with a gubernatorial campaign adviser won't be perceived as representing all gun owners.

I'd tend to both agree and disagree with you. If no one else who clearly represents large numbers of gun owners is sitting down with the campaign, then Barkoff will be perceived as representing all gun owners. But if the NRA and such are sitting down with them consistently and giving meaningful information and data - then Barkoff will be considered nearly irrelevant. As it is, the only other gun owner representation given to the Whitman campaign would seem to be GOC - and I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer Barkoff. . . I admit to near total ignorance as to any NRA contact with the Whitman campaign - but the implication of Barkoff's contact is that they have had little to none.

N6ATF
06-16-2010, 1:15 PM
Vote.

That appears to have worked soo well with no lashes meted out at all... :rolleyes:

... did we even unseat a single treasonous sheriff in this election cycle?

SigSoldier
06-16-2010, 1:28 PM
Seems that if we get too focused on one issue, we could find ourselves in the same or even worse situation.

IMHO, Whitman is not a (R) or even a conservative. I believe she is a Lib and possibly even a progressive who is merely seeking power. I hope I am wrong and if I am, I will proclaim the fact, loudly.

Even if her ebay policy was not made out of anti beliefs, it clearly shows her willingness to quickly cave to political correctness or at the very least political pressure.

She has also voiced her praise for Van Jones. If people are unaware who Van Jones is, they should probably not be voting.

Meg Whitman on Van Jones and Climate Change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSn37TMXZO8&feature=player_embedded)

This is one election that demands very close examination of ALL of the candidates.
This is just as concerning as her aparent opinions on 2A if not more so. This video needs to make the rounds so everyone knows how she feels about Van Jones and what he was/is doing. I wouldn't vote for this clown if she built an AR15 with a calguns lower. Who needs prop 14 when we already have 2 liberals running against each other.

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 1:54 PM
Well folks be assured of one thing, in the past I have always been a letter writer and opinion caller, in the future I will assuredly go back to doing so in my own way, and never again make public, or try to convince anyone to seek out a exchange with Calguns. Never did I dream that I would become the debate. If I would have never joined this site, I still would have met with the guy and expressed my opinions; to me it means something that the guy even bothered to hear my opinions and then seek out more. The next time I do so you have my word that Galguns will not be mentioned.

I don't think I understand the philosophy of refusing to make an effort or build a relationship with a possible future governor, I guess CG is happy in a exclusively adversarial role, and has no interest in changing minds, rather opting for force through judicial. In the long run (in my opinion) that usually only works short term, just until your adversary gains enough strength to bastardize what has been gained through the court. To this day we argue over what many believe was set in stone by our Constitution.

I offer Gay marriage as an example, they have yet to win much in court that has stood the test of time, but they have succeeded in eroding opposition to the point that when they do win over the majority of the electorate, there will be no going back. They are winning (or making gains) in public opinion, that which they have not been able to maintain through the legal system. It seems as if GalGuns believes the only way to operate is by forcing their beliefs (which I agree with) by way of short term court victories. Even the big victories such as Heller come with conditions that will always be argued, but winning over public opinion is long term.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 2:11 PM
Well folks be assured of one thing, in the past I have always been a letter writer and opinion caller, in the future I will assuredly go back to doing so in my own way, and never again make public, or try to convince anyone to seek out a exchange with Calguns. Never did I dream that I would become the debate. If I would have never joined this site, I still would have met with the guy and expressed my opinions; to me it means something that the guy even bothered to hear my opinions and then seek out more. The next time I do so you have my word that Galguns will not be mentioned.

I don't think I understand the philosophy of refusing to make an effort or build a relationship with a possible future governor, I guess CG is happy in a exclusively adversarial role, and has no interest in changing minds, rather opting for force through judicial. In the long run (in my opinion) that usually only works short term, just until your adversary gains enough strength to bastardize what has been gained through the court. To this day we argue over what many believe was set in stone by our Constitution.

I offer Gay marriage as an example, they have yet to win much in court that has stood the test of time, but they have succeeded in eroding opposition to the point that when they do win over the majority of the electorate, there will be no going back. They are winning (or making gains) in public opinion, that which they have not been able to maintain through the legal system. It seems as if GalGuns believes the only way to operate is by forcing their beliefs (which I agree with) by way of short term court victories. Even the big victories such as Heller come with conditions that will always be argued, but winning over public opinion is long term.

I still appreciate what you did.

But I think you're taking it a bit too far now. There have been a number of people irritated by what you did but I don't think you should take it too personally.

Frankly, being chastised is one way we learn and then modify our efforts to be more productive.

If all you get is a fairly mild rebuke from bwiese and wildhawker (both of whom I've come to respect a whole lot in my short sojourn here) then I think you've done pretty well.

But the NRA is probably the better place to try to stir up political action - there are structural/legal problems for CGF in that arena and CGF seems to be pretty cautious in this area (for which I commend them).

Anyway, I see it as both a right and a duty for you to speak out as an individual. The pro-RKBA organizations can hold their own and help the various campaigns put our individual voices into the proper context.

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 2:31 PM
Well I'm a simpleton, I figure who needs it?

Not taking it personally, just avoiding future angst. I will continue to express opinion, however it seems a waste of time to argue over finer points with those who you agree with. I think myself and CalGuns are in agreement over the issues, but have a different philosophy on how you go about change.

I'm am willing to bet that if my original letter would have contained facts, figures and nothing but an argument for gun rights I would not have heard back. Whitman (like any other politician) is more concerned with how she is perceived, I believe that is the way you reach them. More than making the argument up front, you approach them with how you percieve them.

Maybe sometimes a candidate hearing from a non-affiliated voter gives them certain insight that spokesmen throwing facts and figures doesn't fill. I don't doubt that this guy was interested in perspective and how Whitman is perceived by "Joe Blow" as opposed to getting a lecture on gun control. Either way, I'd rather do my own thing and not open myself to critical critiuqe, that way I'm allowed to spew off opinion without worry of stepping over any lines.

Mike's Custom
06-16-2010, 2:36 PM
It would seem to me that any politician that lies (they all do) to get elected by saying they support something and the turn around and do just the opposite, like Arnold did with his firearms laws and bans, that we the people that voted for them could then sue them for breach of promise. We see more and more flat out lies, like Obama' "Hope and Change" where the only HOPE actually performed was to get socialists ideals and CHANGE the USA into a socialist/communist state.

Whitmans failure to actually answer YES ot NO to the firearms issue tells me volumes. Sure, she sends others to give lip service but she has not actually said one way or the other. She can be FOR the 2nd Amendment but with so many restrictions that she is not actually FOR the 2nd Amendment. I think ANYONE willing to spend $100 million dollars (and will by the end of the general election) of their own money has ot have some ulterior motives.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 2:43 PM
.
.
.
We see more and more flat out lies, like Obama' "Hope and Change" where the only HOPE actually performed was to get socialists ideals and CHANGE the USA into a socialist/communist state.
.
.

I think there has been a profound proofreading problem which is now only beginning to dawn on people. What Obama was trying to say was not "Hope and Change" but "Hoax and Chains".

BigDogatPlay
06-16-2010, 2:45 PM
I'd heartily agree with you. But the fact that they felt the need to meet with Barkoff would tend to suggest that they haven't been seeing those "few long-term consistent faces".

And I'd say that assumes fact not in evidence.

Barkoff met with, using his description, a junior staffer. Typically NRA will access the top staff level, if not the candidate themselves. That is the kind of weight they can swing.

I am appreciative that Barkoff, as a concerned voter, took the bull by the nuts and got himself a sit down. At least the issues are out there. But, and this is a personal opinion based on a half century plus of living here and observing how things work politically, the firearms rights issue is largely lost on pretty much all candidates for statewide office except for the the Attorney General. It matters the world to us, but it scares the pee water out of a lot of urbanites and yuppies.

While I certainly want a governor who will look to the constitution concerning civil rights, that person's ability to influence largely ends at the tip of their pen.

To be brutally honest, Meg's vacuous rhetoric about "fixing" education scare the pee water out of me.... let alone her apparent long term chugging of the green Kool Aid, but that's a subject for another board.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 2:55 PM
And I'd say that assumes fact not in evidence.

Barkoff met with, using his description, a junior staffer. Typically NRA will access the top staff level, if not the candidate themselves. That is the kind of weight they can swing.

I am appreciative that Barkoff, as a concerned voter, took the bull by the nuts and got himself a sit down. At least the issues are out there. But, and this is a personal opinion based on a half century plus of living here and observing how things work politically, the firearms rights issue is largely lost on pretty much all candidates for statewide office except for the the Attorney General. It matters the world to us, but it scares the pee water out of a lot of urbanites and yuppies.

While I certainly want a governor who will look to the constitution concerning civil rights, that person's ability to influence largely ends at the tip of their pen.

To be brutally honest, Meg's vacuous rhetoric about "fixing" education scare the pee water out of me.... let alone her apparent long term chugging of the green Kool Aid, but that's a subject for another board.

Might I point out that you are also assuming facts not in evidence (that the adviser is low level and that the proper organizations have been making contact at a higher level)? Not an attack, mind you, but the point is that so far as I can tell the best information we have about any actual formal or semi-formal meetings with the Whitman campaign are coming through Barkoff. Well, there may be something on the GOC site but I don't really frequent it.

But I generally agree with you on Whitman. I have real problems voting for a Demorat but as time goes on my problems with the idea of voting for Whitman over JB are only increasing. I really can't think of any aspect of what the governor does in which I am confident Whitman would do as good a job as JB.

Oh, Whitman has better rhetoric (and maybe better intentions) on some political issues - but she generally won't have the ability to actually do anything useful about those issues.

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 2:57 PM
Actually, I quite applaud someone for being motivated enough to do *something*. I think many of our posts are less directed to the poster than the audience (for those reading this now or in the future, hopefully giving them some context for their own efforts). If it weren't for the fact that I'm honeymooning I'd love to chat with Barkoff, but if I were to steal away for more than just a few moments you may have one less CGF board member (my wife is an excellent shot).

The trick is to learn how to be productive, sometimes by experiences like this one. I hope Barkoff would call me when I return as I'd love to chat with he and anyone willing to do real work for gun rights. We have much of it ahead of us.

Legasat
06-16-2010, 2:58 PM
I for one applaud Barkoff's effort. I would love to see more people get involved "in the political process", myself included.

hasserl
06-16-2010, 3:02 PM
Has a Calguns Rep been in contact with Whitman? I have seen no indication of that effort. If you want to "minimize damage", then be proactive and talk to the candidates for us!!

They won't do that because the fix is already in, you are supposed to support Jerry Brown. Take your marching orders and shut up.

zinfull
06-16-2010, 3:19 PM
If your facts are correct than there is no harm. We are about 50k members. Saying we are worth 500k because we have friends and that there were 300k OLL in CA is a political lie in my opinion. I have 3 OLL and mostly liberals in my house hold. Sitting on your butt and not asking is far worse than asking. Good job and thats for checking Meg out.

jerry

bwiese
06-16-2010, 3:19 PM
They won't do that because the fix is already in, you are supposed to support Jerry Brown. Take your marching orders and shut up.

Well, speaking as an individual, I couldn't have said it better :)

JimWest
06-16-2010, 3:21 PM
...If you already have banned holster sales on EBay, there's not much further you can fall...

I've seen this brought up before and please excuse my ignorance but I see holsters for sale on Ebay:
http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m570.l1313&_nkw=glock+holster&_sacat=See-All-Categories

I'm not criticizing your reference here Bill, but I don't understand the basis.

dfletcher
06-16-2010, 3:25 PM
I met with One of Whitman’s advisors in Morgan Hill on Monday. Here are some of my impressions.

When we got to her eBay policy, he mentioned that he didn’t think her being anti was the reasoning behind the eBay policy. I mentioned I believe that this was just another over reaction (by somebody who believes guns to be evil) to the VT shooting. He said he is pretty sure the policy was not a reaction to VT.

Really? I asked. This guy goes on a rampage, the press makes a big deal over the fact he bought his extra mags on eBay, then just a few weeks later eBay announces their new policy…that dog don’t hunt! If Whitman is not anti gun, then she needs to explain herself.



I think your conclusion on this point is accurate and important, as is the rep's assertion otherwise and (I presume) inability to attribute the change to anything else.

I allow that a person may make a business decision contrary to their personal beliefs. And if after many years of selling gun related items EBay determined it makes no money and there are a few unremarkable lawsuits floating about so "why bother?" I suppose that's fine.

But the mentality of a knee jerk response - banning items for all because a few folks misuse them - is one I neither understand nor abide by. It is paternalistic, it treats adults as though they are one bad day away from harming themself or others. It is in line with the gun control mentality that brought us the AW ban and that briefly raised the prospect of hi cap magazine serialization when a criminal killed 4 cops in Oakland. It is a "one strike and your all out" policy that leaves us at the mercy of the fool on the street and the fool in the Governor's chair. I am not a child, I'm a responsible adult and if someone thinks they are going to treat me otherwise they are mistaken. I suppose when it comes right down to it that's why Whitman, on the gun issue, can not get my vote.

bwiese
06-16-2010, 3:29 PM
I've seen this brought up before and please excuse my ignorance but I see holsters for sale on Ebay:
http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m570.l1313&_nkw=glock+holster&_sacat=See-All-Categories

I'm not criticizing your reference here Bill, but I don't understand the basis.

EBay surveillance bans various firearms accessories for no reason at all.
Sometimes the let them be sold, other times a 'moderator' pulls them.

It's quite common for 'assault rifle' parts to be banned.

Think of Sportsmen's Guide idiocy, with a political agenda.

gbp
06-16-2010, 3:32 PM
bwiese,,,, i hate to say it but you definitely need a life if all you can do is berate someone that is acting on their own behalf trying to get information and in a way better firearms owners.
between comments in this thread and your unrelenting pimping of brown you are pushing people the other direction.

as always these are just my opinions and my $0.02
YMMV

ThanX again Barkoff
I don't know exactly why I feel I need to apologise for some here on the site, but I do.
Pitty

Glock22Fan
06-16-2010, 3:49 PM
bwise,,,, i hate to say it but you definitely need a life if all you can do is berate someone that is acting on their own behalf trying to get information and in a way better firearms owners.
between comments in this thread and your unrelenting pimping of brown you are pushing people the other direction.

as always these are just my opinions and my $0.02
YMMV


Bill (bwiese) isn't pushing me away from JB - but then I can spell his name. At least his pushing JB is based on incontrovertible pro-gun behavior exhibited by Jerry. Some contributors with just a couple of dozen posts simply seem to be berating JB and his supporters purely because they don't like JB. They are in effect pushing MW with absolutely no apparent reason for thinking she would do a better job.

bwiese
06-16-2010, 3:54 PM
bwise,,,, i hate to say it but you definitely
need a life if all you can do is berate someone that is acting on their own behalf trying to get information and in a way better firearms owners.

1.) I have a very nice life.

2.) But then who says he bettered us if he misrepresented the
size of CA gunowners, or confused other efforts at much higher
levels?

between comments in this thread and your unrelenting pimping of brown you are pushing people the other direction.

I merely state the technical details of how Brown helped gunnies, how Meg has a documented antigun past - and in opposition to the usual CA Republican shills that seem to hit every gun site around election season begging for undeserving support.

gbp
06-16-2010, 3:56 PM
oh good god the spelling police
I'll edit it and make the change if it all makes you happy
(see above)

don't get me wrong, i am not necessarily a meg supporter, but then again I'm not a sheep to follow the brown parade without looking at options. my issue is bill's presentation of 'my way or the highway' which to me and possibly a few others comes off abit mmmmmm pushy (p.c.)

bwiese
06-16-2010, 3:58 PM
oh good god the spelling police
I'll edit it and make the change if it all makes you happy
(see above)

don't get me wrong, i am not necessarily a meg supporter, but then again I'm not a sheep to follow the brown parade without looking at options. my issue is bill's presentation of 'my way or the highway' which to me and possibly a few others comes off abit mmmmmm pushy (p.c.)


One man's pushiness is another's recounting of factual information.

gbp
06-16-2010, 4:07 PM
i don't see how he misrepresented the membership of "calguns". if you can show where the actual membership is more than indicated please upgrade the site to reflect same.

i am not saying that the site has not had an impact on more people than it's membership but i do not see how he could in honesty quote more (when referring to the site) than what is reflected in membership

Re. Republican Shills
Yes i do see where it appears every other week we get some new member promoting their candidate "of choice" and it is mostly BS. There is a lot at stake in the up-coming election. And i urge all members of this site to do due-diligence and become informed themselves before voting.

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 4:10 PM
bwise,,,, i hate to say it but you definitely need a life if all you can do is berate someone that is acting on their own behalf trying to get information and in a way better firearms owners.
between comments in this thread and your unrelenting pimping of brown you are pushing people the other direction.

as always these are just my opinions and my $0.02
YMMV

ThanX again Barkoff
I don't know exactly why I feel I need to apologise for some here on the site, but I do.
Pitty

bwiese doesn't need me to defend him but I want to add just a little more from my own perspective.

Personally, I consider bwiese to be a pretty moderate fellow. He goes a bit further with his language at times than I might wish but if you look at what happens on some other forums - he's a kitty cat. It is not wise to take too much offense at what he says at times - the guy is almost always right on the money and sometimes uses a more aggressive tone to make a point. I find no real malice in the guy (maybe I would if I met him in person but so far it's all been CGN).

We really need all kinds on this forum. We need lots of new people coming in to learn and we need the old warriors as well to teach us the finer points (and for some of us, the broader points). Unfortunately, sometimes we need a slap upside the head to bring the reality into focus for us. Sometimes we need a more gentle touch.

So when one of the most informed and wise among us is willing to correct me I'm usually grateful - even if I should still disagree.

IIRC, politically speaking, bwiese is one of the most single-issue among us. I'll probably never share that single-minded focus, but I admire his and see it as a reminder that the RKBA is worthy of that kind of devotion and he has moved me closer to being single-issue on the RKBA (it truly is a sentinel issue).

We need to welcome all who are devoted to the RKBA as long as they are willing to engage in civil discourse. If we were all like me this place would be worthless.

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 4:16 PM
gbp,

Firstly, I'm not aware of anyone who can speak 'for' Calguns except its owner.

Secondly, knowing what cards you have to play (and when to play them) is an important feature of a productive political communicator.

bwiese
06-16-2010, 4:25 PM
i don't see how he misrepresented the membership of "calguns". if you can show where the actual membership is more than indicated please upgrade the site to reflect same.

i am not saying that the site has not had an impact on more people than it's membership but i do not see how he could in honesty quote more (when referring to the site) than what is reflected in membership


Magazine ads, TV ads etc are all measured by their 'eyeballs'.
Many more people see a magazine ad, for example, than the actual subscribers to the magazine - they sit around dentists offices, in family living rooms, JiffyLube waiting rooms, etc. Plus there's the word of mouth factor from these ads. This 'indirect viewership' is highly important, desirable quantifiable, and in fact justifies ad pricing way in excess of what the actual subscriber count would otherwise warrant.

CG lnternet traffic reveals a LOT of folks visit/look/lurk, way more in number than the folks that actually sign up and get an ID or that actually use that ID.



Yes i do see where it appears every other week we get some new member promoting their candidate "of choice" and it is mostly BS. There is a lot at stake in the up-coming election. And i urge all members of this site to do due-diligence and become informed themselves before voting.

That's all I do, and the details essentially speak for themselves.

D.M.C.
06-16-2010, 4:29 PM
*cough cough* Ahem... some animals are more equal than others... :whistling:

Bruce
06-16-2010, 4:32 PM
Two things stood out in the OP; the 50k voter comment and the statement that Ebay became anti gun after the VT shhotings. Ebay was anti long before that. 50K pro-gun voters based on Calguns membership is inaccurate, especially when you consider that many members don't vote their guns. The 2008 Presidential election "discussions" proved that.
The question is, did Barkoff come across as knowing what he was about. Some of us don't think so.

Glock22Fan
06-16-2010, 4:44 PM
oh good god the spelling police
I'll edit it and make the change if it all makes you happy
(see above)



I do the odd typo myself, but I usually try to get people's names correct. That's a minimal courtesy, don't you think?

And much of my ire is directed against another of the "JB has done nothing for us and never will" crowd. He has repeatedly promoted MW for, apparently, no better reason than he thinks people such as Bill don't know what they are talking about. In fact, I don't think he even reads Bill's posts; he certainly doesn't appear to absorb them for more than a few seconds.

taperxz
06-16-2010, 4:54 PM
I have mentioned this in a previous post but, there seems to be a lot of younger folks here who did not live through Jerry Browns past governership. YES, he was moonbeam then. However, As far as liberals go today he is actually very moderate. Meg is not a politician. She is a BS artist!! I am not even talking about just gun issues either. If you were not alive when Brown was govenor, I suggest you get to doing a little research on him and find how he works things out instead of listening to your parents just moan " oh Moonbeam" For the record i am a repub. In this state you have to draft the best player available though!! JMO

USAFTS
06-16-2010, 5:17 PM
I have mentioned this in a previous post but, there seems to be a lot of younger folks here who did not live through Jerry Browns past governership. YES, he was moonbeam then. However, As far as liberals go today he is actually very moderate. Meg is not a politician. She is a BS artist!! I am not even talking about just gun issues either. If you were not alive when Brown was govenor, I suggest you get to doing a little research on him and find how he works things out instead of listening to your parents just moan " oh Moonbeam" For the record i am a repub. In this state you have to draft the best player available though!! JMO

JB was definately different but he got the nickname "Moonbeam" from political cynics who questioned his plan for California to use a space satellite for emergency communications. At the time the idea seemed "out there" but now he's credited with being ahead of his time.

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 5:40 PM
Two things stood out in the OP; the 50k voter comment and the statement that Ebay became anti gun after the VT shhotings. Ebay was anti long before that. 50K pro-gun voters based on Calguns membership is inaccurate, especially when you consider that many members don't vote their guns. The 2008 Presidential election "discussions" proved that.
The question is, did Barkoff come across as knowing what he was about. Some of us don't think so.

Well maybe I need to clarify. In my efforts to get him to contact CalGuns or address Whitman on sitting down with CG, I told him it was a site with 50K voting members. I was not suggesting he sit down with all gun owners in CA or the NRA

On our discussion in regards to ebay I was discussing with him the ban on all gun parts after the VT shooting and the over reaction to it.

http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y07/m07/i31/s02

eBay revisited its "Firearms, Weapons and Knives" policy after learning that some items purchased on eBay may have been used in the tragedy at Virginia Tech in April 2007. eBay currently bans guns and other weapons from its site (see its "Prohibited and Restricted Items list), and is now adding any firearm part that is required for the firing of a gun.

The tragedy referenced in eBay's announcement was a school shooting in Virginia in which a student killed 32 people. eBay wrote of its decision in part, "After much consideration, the Trust & Safety policy team - along with our executive leaders at eBay Inc. - have made the decision to further restrict more of these items than federal and state regulations require. This new update continues to encourage safety among our community members and brings our policies in the U.S. and Canada in closer alignment with our existing policies in other markets around the globe."

Once these changes take effect in mid-August, sellers will be prohibited from listing on eBay.com and eBay.ca such items as bullet tips, brass casings and shells, barrels, slides, cylinders, magazines, firing pins, trigger assemblies. Sellers should click on the "Some Examples" link on eBay.com's Firearms, Weapons and Knives Policy for details on what the company prohibits.

Barabas
06-16-2010, 5:45 PM
For those of you who seem to be confused about why CGF doesn't go consult with politicians as an organization, you might want to find out why (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html).

I swear, it's no wonder, to this young stud, why things got to the point they are in this state. Half of you don't seem to be able to read, do your own research or form your own opinion without a talking head telling you what to think.

Kudos to the OP for participating in a rare opportunity engage the political machine, but you weaseled out by even giving the impression that there is a bloc of voters whose interests you represent. You are likely right, but you weren't there in that capacity. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all that. There's a twist in the board members' panties because Calguns was mentioned.

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 5:56 PM
it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Does this mean CalGun representatives could not sit down with a candidate who asks to hear their opinion?

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 6:08 PM
Does this mean CalGun representatives could not sit down with a candidate who asks to hear their opinion?

OK, I'm not the expert so I could be very wrong.

But as I understand it, they can educate them all day on the legal aspects of the RKBA. But if they are advising a candidate about how they should run their campaign or how to attract pro-RKBA voters then there may be an issue.

The NRA has more freedom in the matter.

sandman21
06-16-2010, 6:20 PM
With the vast influence CG has I guess they can get any sheriff they want elected? After all 300k, 1mil, 3mil or more people is nothing to look down on. (All fake numbers, it assumes you can get the whole lot to vote a single way)
I guess the next time CGF is doing a fund raiser, someone is looking for participant in a lawsuit, or others are seeking election for CRPA seats, the noobs should sit down and shut up because they are going to harm the cause. Also only people with 5000+ post should act like they talk for "California gun owners". :rolleyes:

HondaMasterTech
06-16-2010, 6:23 PM
Wow.

Barabas
06-16-2010, 6:28 PM
I think the only people who should speak for California gun owners are those who are elected to the various member organizations' boards. CGF is for winning legal battles, not playing politics. If you want that, go play with GOA or the NRA. I think there's an attorney in Sacramento that wouldn't mind playing rugby with you too, if that's your thing.

Familiarize yourself with the history of firearms law in California and you'll understand why the "party line" is what it is. Seriously, the road to this hell we're in was paved with good intentions.

elSquid
06-16-2010, 6:34 PM
Does this mean CalGun representatives could not sit down with a candidate who asks to hear their opinion?

You need to be clear - a representative of Calguns-The-Foundation ( CGF ) or Calguns-the-website ( CTW ;) ). Since CGF can't do it in any official capacity and the CTW 'Political Action Committee' doesn't exist, there might be a problem!

As long as you didn't represent yourself as an official of the 'calguns community' I don't see what real damage was done. If CRPA and the NRA aren't engaging Whitman, GOC is talking with her staff, there is no Calguns political body ( and hence, no voting bloc ), and the personal opinion of many of the the CGF board is to be dismissive of Whitman, frankly I'm not sure what damage you could actually do.

Calguns-the-website is made up of individuals. Some folks here support Brown, others Whitman. It would be interesting to have an active thread ( heavily moderated, or course ) where Whitman campaign staff and calguns members could have an open dialogue. Now, I can't say how productive it would be - or whether any minds would be changed. :shrug:

-- Michael

-hanko
06-16-2010, 6:36 PM
I swear, it's no wonder, to this young stud, why things got to the point they are in this state. Half of you don't seem to be able to read, do your own research or form your own opinion without a talking head telling you what to think.

Kudos to the OP for participating in a rare opportunity engage the political machine, but you weaseled out by even giving the impression that there is a bloc of voters whose interests you represent. You are likely right, but you weren't there in that capacity. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all that. There's a twist in the board members' panties because Calguns was mentioned.
And the "twist" should have been explained to OP off-line, not in public.

You may pm me if you'd like to discuss further, but the public dissing has created a bit of uneasiness that could have been avoided with a pm or private meeting, in my opinion (which is often wrong;) ).

I've been here as long as Bill W., but I'm not sure if he was speaking for himself, Calguns.net, or the CGF.

I don't disagree with the message, a small group of us in ID is working with the NRA and our state legislature with similar goals in mind. I definitely have issues with the manner in which the message was conveyed.

My 0.0002 centavos.

-hanko

OleCuss
06-16-2010, 6:41 PM
With the vast influence CG has I guess they can get any sheriff they want elected? After all 300k, 1mil, 3mil or more people is nothing to look down on. (All fake numbers, it assumes you can get the whole lot to vote a single way)

They're not exactly fake. IIRC, 300,000 is the NRA's California membership. Other guesstimates have to do with the number of people who are likely to vote with the NRA and CalGuns or who will be influenced by NRA and CalGuns types. And actually, the NRA in particular may be grossly underestimated. If the NRA says you are anti-RKBA then if your base is conservative you may have irreparable damage to your campaign. So at this point it just isn't clear how important to Whitman or JB the NRA and CalGuns are. It could turn out that they are worth around 500,000 votes (which I think is likely) or it could turn out to be as high as 5 million. Either vote count could be decisive in a statewide election.

But the thing about the sheriffs is mostly a crock. The bad sheriffs won because they are in counties where the populace generally wants bad sheriffs - the pro-RKBA'ers aren't terribly influential there. But that doesn't mean the NRA doesn't make the difference in lots of other county, district, statewide, and national elections. It's a matter of the proper application of statistics and is a large part of why the Democrat party has not been pushing a nationwide gun ban.

I guess the next time CGF is doing a fund raiser, someone is looking for participant in a lawsuit, or others are seeking election for CRPA seats, the noobs should sit down and shut up because they are going to harm the cause. Also only people with 5000+ post should act like they talk for "California gun owners". :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I missed that one and thought I'd read the entire thread. I disagreed with bwiese's approach to the matter but he didn't try in any way to restrict his free speech or his free association.

We can all learn here. And if someone is a little cranky or pushes a bit harder than we might wish, well, that's just not a big deal.

bwiese
06-16-2010, 6:49 PM
But the thing about the sheriffs is mostly a crock. The bad sheriffs won because they are in counties where the populace generally wants bad sheriffs...

Binog. Most people voting for sheriffs are Ma & Pa Kettle who generally vote for consistency and a 'don't rock the boat' attitude. That, combined with the powerful advantage of incumbency, is why CA sheriff's elections turn out the way they do.

Judging by # of CCW apps in counties where CCWs are relatively easy to get, it's still only 1%-2% of registered voters. [Gun positions in general - pro vs anti - in these elections probably have more sway than just the actual CCW issue.]

Afterburnt
06-16-2010, 7:15 PM
JB has never really 'changed' on general background firearms matters - for 25+ years.

And playing both sides of an subissue or race has not done us well - that's how we got the safe handgun list.

Please in the future do not act like you represent 'Calguns' or "California gun owners", etc. in your representations
to her campaign, and speak only for yourself. You've already done more harm than any good.

have you contacted her?

Barkoff
06-16-2010, 7:21 PM
lease in the future do not act like you represent 'Calguns' or "California gun owners", etc. in your representations
to her campaign, and speak only for yourself. You've already done more harm than any good.
__________________

You know, I missed that first go around...what a load of crap. You know, I'll do you a favor, I'll be seeing you around.

Shotgun Man
06-16-2010, 7:36 PM
You know, I missed that first go around...what a load of crap. You know, I'll do you a favor, I'll be seeing you around.

Stick around.

bweise was impolitic in his remarks. You obviously have a lot of drive and a genuine interest in advancing CA gun rights.

I applaud you for that. You are an asset to our side.

I highly doubt you did any harm to our side. You did not purport to represent anybody. You were probably talking to flunky. That said, we all got to row together.

dapster
06-16-2010, 7:53 PM
Well my friend, if I have to choose between being a CalGun member and following a strict line of code set forth, or a voter, and gun owner who wishes to speak his mind and have a voice, then I'll be happy to go if I should.
Don't go, please. First, you'd miss all the sanctimonious crap that seems to show up here. We are where we are notwithstanding Calguns' existence.

So, I applaud your having taken what you perceived to be constructive action.

thebronze
06-16-2010, 8:18 PM
I won't give either one of these turds my vote.

I honestly believe Whitman has a split personality. And anger issues. Not someone we need as our Governor. Aside from her RINO politics.

BigDogatPlay
06-16-2010, 8:30 PM
Might I point out that you are also assuming facts not in evidence (that the adviser is low level and that the proper organizations have been making contact at a higher level)?

The OP mentioned a junior staffer in his post so I think no assumption there. As to higher level contact by the larger orgs we belong to, I did not say that they had made contact. I pointed out, as did bweise using different words, that when the NRA calls on a candidate's staff they tend to start much closer to the top of the pyramid.

Not an attack, mind you, but the point is that so far as I can tell the best information we have about any actual formal or semi-formal meetings with the Whitman campaign are coming through Barkoff. Well, there may be something on the GOC site but I don't really frequent it.

And I wasn't taking anything you said as an attack. This is the free exchange of ideas and I am happy to be a part.

Barkoff did mention that the staffer (or the campaign?) had met with another group that he couldn't quite remember the name of .... but it sounded suspiciously like GOC, which makes me itch a little bit. Not uncomfortable, just itchy.

Oh, Whitman has better rhetoric (and maybe better intentions) on some political issues - but she generally won't have the ability to actually do anything useful about those issues.

Like you I have misgivings, as I've noted prior. I have a hunch she is going to try to play the "turnaround CEO" role if she is elected, similarly to what our current governor tried to do with a splash of his "star power" thrown in. And we've seen just how well that's worked out, eh?

That mindset is, I believe, ignorant of how things really get done in Sacramento. A majority is going to have to want to truly change things for the better, as no governor can accomplish a thing on their own in this state without the Legislature coming along. Sadly, I don't see the Legislature as it is currently or foreseeably constituted as wanting to change anything for the better as there is neither money nor power in that for them.

Equally sadly I am starting to resign myself to the notion that it's going to take (at least) the rhetorical version of the John and Ken mantra.... "Heads On Sticks!!!" for real change to happen in the state I was born in and have called home for my entire life.

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 8:45 PM
With the vast influence CG has I guess they can get any sheriff they want elected? After all 300k, 1mil, 3mil or more people is nothing to look down on. (All fake numbers, it assumes you can get the whole lot to vote a single way)
I guess the next time CGF is doing a fund raiser, someone is looking for participant in a lawsuit, or others are seeking election for CRPA seats, the noobs should sit down and shut up because they are going to harm the cause. Also only people with 5000+ post should act like they talk for "California gun owners". :rolleyes:

Thanks for the false arguments.

Do you ask your shoe shiner for legal advice? Does your grocer also work on your teeth? Those who work within and are intimately familiar with the nuances of the political process *might* just be in a better position to extract relevant data.

I'm all for people getting involved; indeed, I'll continue to volunteer my time to assist those who would be interested in managing or volunteering for productive grassroots and other strategic efforts. However, I cannot see it as unreasonable to ask that a) people reach out before high-diving into the often-shallow political pool and b) folks not represent yourself as someone who speaks for a community for entity (NRA, CRPA, SAF, CGN, CGF, etc.).

I'd be happy to address your concerns directly if you'd prefer; PM me if you are interested in having a conversation.

hasserl
06-16-2010, 8:48 PM
I do the odd typo myself, but I usually try to get people's names correct. That's a minimal courtesy, don't you think?

And much of my ire is directed against another of the "JB has done nothing for us and never will" crowd. He has repeatedly promoted MW for, apparently, no better reason than he thinks people such as Bill don't know what they are talking about. In fact, I don't think he even reads Bill's posts; he certainly doesn't appear to absorb them for more than a few seconds.

I've been relentlessly anti-JB, probably moreso than anyone else, so maybe you're pointing at me. BUt if you are there's one problem, I've not been pro-MW, in fact I don't think you'll find where I've supported her by name at all. I have however promoted supporting one political party, giving support to one party, trying to use the power of a voting bloc. I do believe that is the correct thing to do.

For the record, I am not a shill for the Republicans, I did not come around here for the purpose of promoting the Republicans, I lurked around here for quite awhile before becoming a member. It was the threads in support of JB that made me become a member so I could argue against those that are promoting him in these threads. The guy is a flaming left wing wacko and it would be the worst thing you could do to hire him as the gov.

Everyone keeps spouting how pro-gun he is, the problem is, as I've pointed out several times, there is no evidence to support that. It appears to be an internet/urban myth that has taken on a life of it's own, and everyone just keeps repeating it. Brown's brief in the Heller case was not a pro gun statement as much as it was a declaration of fact and a request for clarification of application of the 2A, whether it applies to the states or not and how far the states can go in restricting gun rights. You rightly can, and probably should, perceive it not as a brief in support of 2A rights, but a feeler for how far rights can be restricted. IF you are basing your perception that he is pro-gun based on that brief I think you are making a huge mistake, and you probably ought to go back and read it again, with a critical eye.

The deplorable condition our state is in right now can be directly attributed to Gerry Brown and the policies he enacted and supported as governor. Even considering him for governor again is absurd and irrational.

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 8:51 PM
This is in *no way* directed at the OP, but your comments need to be corrected for accuracy:

We are where we are notwithstanding Calguns' existence the enduring and almost certain miscues on the part of gun owners.

When you research the history of gun politics (especially in California), you come to understand that we've often [unintentionally] been our own worst enemy.

Let's not forget the most important rule: first, do no harm.

hasserl
06-16-2010, 8:56 PM
JB was definately different but he got the nickname "Moonbeam" from political cynics who questioned his plan for California to use a space satellite for emergency communications. At the time the idea seemed "out there" but now he's credited with being ahead of his time.

And that's not correct either, but is another one of the internet/urban myths. Brown acquired the moonbean tag before his satellite plan. He acquired it because his personality, his thoughts, his presentation of himself was so far out of the mainstream. And the damage he did as governor last time has brought us to the miserable state of affairs we now have.

curtisfong
06-16-2010, 9:00 PM
Sigh. Here we go again.

At risk of going far off topic...


Everyone keeps spouting how pro-gun he is, the problem is, as I've pointed out several times, there is no evidence to support that.

You are wrong.

It appears to be an internet/urban myth that has taken on a life of it's own, and everyone just keeps repeating it.

Not just "everyone". People I trust that have a far better grasp on the political realities of being pro RKBA in CA than the average poster here.

Brown's brief in the Heller case was not a pro gun statement as much as it was a declaration of fact and a request for clarification of application of the 2A, whether it applies to the states or not and how far the states can go in restricting gun rights.

Your interpretation is incorrect, again, considering there are people far closer to (and better informed of) the issues than you that have confirmed as much, ad nauseum. The brief was written in that way for a reason. You can't read between the lines because you weren't meant to.

You may not like JB personally (and you can agree to disagree on other issues with JB backers), but the fact is, on RKBA matters, I have no doubt you are wrong.

IF you are basing your perception that he is pro-gun based on that brief I think you are making a huge mistake, and you probably ought to go back and read it again, with a critical eye.

You don't seem to have any idea why others perceive JB as pro RKBA.

curtisfong
06-16-2010, 9:01 PM
And that's not correct either, but is another one of the internet/urban myths.

Citation?

Shotgun Man
06-16-2010, 9:08 PM
[...]

The deplorable condition our state is in right now can be directly attributed to Gerry Brown and the policies he enacted and supported as governor. Even considering him for governor again is absurd and irrational.

JB was gov from 1975–1983.

CA was a lot better back then that it is now.

I question your assertion that he is responsible for our current brink of bankruptcy.

N6ATF
06-16-2010, 9:16 PM
And that's not correct either, but is another one of the internet/urban myths. Brown acquired the moonbean tag before his satellite plan. He acquired it because his personality, his thoughts, his presentation of himself was so far out of the mainstream. And the damage he did as governor last time has brought us to the miserable state of affairs we now have.

As far as I can tell, the origin of moonbeam came from the U.S. scientific satellite program, Project Moonbeam. I'd like to see a source identifying Jerry Brown's nickname as anything other than because of his satellite plan, which would have had its technological history in Project Moonbeam...

http://web.archive.org/web/20071011045828rn_1/www.arrl.org/news/features/2007/09/28/03/?nc=1

USAFTS
06-16-2010, 10:12 PM
And that's not correct either, but is another one of the internet/urban myths. Brown acquired the moonbean tag before his satellite plan. He acquired it because his personality, his thoughts, his presentation of himself was so far out of the mainstream. And the damage he did as governor last time has brought us to the miserable state of affairs we now have.

I agree that Brown played a role in our current condition...as did most of the other "representatives" that WE put into that office.

As far as his nickname... I believe that's pretty much what I said. Does it really matter how he got it? Really?

At the risk of sounding adversarial...regardless of how long you spent as a "lurker", you have come into this forum and made your presence known in a rather adversarial manner and you seem to have an "I'm correct and the rest of you are stupid", attitude. Welcome to CGN....but that attitude won't get you very far here as there are several very well qualified people in this room. You may be well qualified also but perhaps if you allow yourself to communicate with us rather than AT us, you might just learn as well as teach. Again, Welcome.

Mstrty
06-16-2010, 10:16 PM
You know, I missed that first go around...what a load of crap. You know, I'll do you a favor, I'll be seeing you around.

I had this thread so multi-quoted I ran over the character limit (almost). So I just picked one.

Letter to Barkoff:
Stick around a little longer. You have more to offer CG. I can sense it in your passion. I also have a similar passion. I agree with you that the legislature needs more b#$%h-slapping than they currently are getting form CRPA and the NRA. The negative attitude that Senior Members and other like tactics have its place but for them to constantly poo-poo other tactics is just un-constructive. I perceive their attitude as I am General and you are Private, do as I say or drop and give me 50. I have yet to meet any of the "Senior members" at the State Capital trying to explain the lunacy of these bills to State representatives during public committee meetings. Maybe they go now and then but I have yet to meet them at any of the last 6 or 7 major bills that they have so adamantly been opposed to. I absolutely hate a coat and tie yet wear one for the cause. The same cause they claim to be doing something good for.
So keep doing that great legwork you did. If nothing else you educated another Californian to firearm issues facing our State.

You can also be assured that I was that life CRPA member that didnt nominate some of those that berated you. Mainly due to a difference of opinion on tactics.
So stick around there is still work to do.
I could of just Pm'ed this to you but I wanted others to see that they are not alone. Future posts by myself in this thread may not be constructive so I will not be posting any rebuttals in this thread. I have said what I wanted to say on this topic.

sandman21
06-16-2010, 10:45 PM
Thanks for the false arguments.

Do you ask your shoe shiner for legal advice? Does your grocer also work on your teeth? Those who work within and are intimately familiar with the nuances of the political process *might* just be in a better position to extract relevant data.

False argument yet you have to put a big might in your counter, seems a little weak to me. PM to be sent tomorrow.

PS I see nothing from the OP about representing himself as anything other than an average citizen.

OleCuss
06-17-2010, 2:56 AM
The OP mentioned a junior staffer in his post so I think no assumption there.
.
.
.

I should probably point out that Barkoff did not find out where the guy was on the organizational chart? He came to a tentative conclusion and we all ran with it. I think it was a good guess on his part, but I don't think any of us really know. . .

D.M.C.
06-17-2010, 3:41 AM
The attitudes on this entire thread have been a mixture of patronizing sympathy and really rude cliquishness. I feel for Barkoff, and I admit that as a quiet listener here, I am very turned off by the negative crap that came his way. He never claimed to represent CGF, and his actions didn't deserve the reprimands that came his way, nor was it appropriate that such vitriol came so publicly. My feelings are now very negatively inclined towards the CRPA members and haranguing they make about how they help "us gunowners' with martyred fervor. I'll be looking at the claims they make over the next year with a great deal of critical circumspection.

slappomatt
06-17-2010, 5:12 AM
I have to agree a bit. One thing that most seem to be missing here in this thread is that no matter what you feel Meg's stance is on 2A and who you want to vote for, she WILL win. look at the last vote. She was out in front by a lot. People say hey, she used to work at Ebay. I know what that is. I'll vote for her. Its that simple. And I don't even think she will be that bad for the state other than her most likely negative stance on 2A. So the OP came in here looking for some advice on how to approach our next Governor with our concerns. Good on him. Lets give him some support instead of arguing over who we should pointlessly vote for instead.

OleCuss
06-17-2010, 5:20 AM
Hmm. . . I'd note that I was not too happy about the initial responses to Barkoff but let's keep a bit of perspective here?

Barkoff was told by a CalGuns board member that he may have caused more harm than good and that he should not represent himself as CalGuns.

Now consider that I think this was done by a CalGuns board member? Consider that if CalGuns is perceived as having assisted in the Whitman campaign that it could have serious corporate, political, and legal consequences for CalGuns?

You can dislike whomever you want as much as you want, but it helps to think just a bit about why there might have been objections and why someone might need to go on the record with those objections?

OleCuss
06-17-2010, 5:24 AM
One other thing. Did y'all pay attention to the bit on Whitman and Van Jones?

Whitman's claim to conservatism is tenuous at best. So far as I can tell, JB is more conservative.

mofugly13
06-17-2010, 5:28 AM
... However, I cannot see it as unreasonable to ask that a) people reach out before high-diving into the often-shallow political pool and b) folks not represent yourself as someone who speaks for a community for entity (NRA, CRPA, SAF, CGN, CGF, etc.).

I'd be happy to address your concerns directly if you'd prefer; PM me if you are interested in having a conversation.

You mean like postingg here on Calguns about what he is going to do, giving us all a heads-up, and a chance to comment.. That would've been the right thing to do, right. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=310336&highlight=whitman+adviser+monday)

I applaud Barkoff's efforts.

hasserl
06-17-2010, 6:05 AM
JB was gov from 1975–1983.

CA was a lot better back then that it is now.

I question your assertion that he is responsible for our current brink of bankruptcy.

The policies he enacted or were enacted during his administration have resulted in the conditions we suffer under now. It has taken decades to get to this point, but it started with him.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=163253

California was the envy of the world – the Golden State. Higher education was essentially free – and the best in the world. We had the newest and best freeways, abundant, cheap electricity and water so abundant and cheap that many communities didn't bother to meter it. New affordable housing communities sprang up every week as millions moved here for the fun, sun and the opportunity California promised.

State and local government taxes were low, less than half of today's taxes even after adjusting for inflation and population growth. A business friendly environment produced unemployment rates always lower than the national average.

Today, California is a third-world basket case. The K-12 system is collapsing under rising dropout rates and ever poorer performance by the students who remain. The university system is top heavy with expensive bureaucrats, riddled with politically correct "classes" and excludes the poor with ever-rising student "fees."

The state has stopped building new freeways, halted new power plants and created a man-made "dust bowl" in the fertile Central Valley by blocking water for humans in favor of water for fish. Business is evil incarnate, requiring ever more regulation. Taxes are the highest in the nation, unemployment higher. Millions of productive Californians are leaving for the opportunities in neighboring states. And for those who remain here, the livin' ain't easy.

How did this happen? It started with the 1974 election of new-age, radical leftist Jerry Brown and liberal majorities in the state Legislature.

Brown preached a vision of an "era of limits" translating widespread 1970s public concern about air and water pollution and the countryside being paved over by suburbia into big government central planning. New environmental standards helped the environment but delayed and made more expensive everything from hospitals to housing.

Brown canceled the freeway program with some routes abandoned that were already under construction. He canceled dam projects and new aqueducts. He established the California Energy Commission to block new power plants. He expanded the role of the Air Resources Board to the point that bakeries were required to install expensive scrubbers on their exhaust fans to protect the public from the "polluting" smell of freshly baked bread.

In a psychedelic fusion of European socialism and Jeffersonian agrarianism, Brown earned the title "Moonbeam" for espousing the notion that "if we don't build it, we won't need it" and the now (after Obama) familiar notion that every area of life could be improved with more government rules.

Radical environmentalism continues as a major theme in California politics. Under Arnold Schwarzenegger, California has already passed "cap and trade" and required the utility companies to get 20 percent of their electricity from "alternative sources" by 2020. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (a municipal utility) has estimated that utility rates in L.A. will have to increase by 28 percent to meet this goal.

That is, if the "alternate" plants are even allowed to be built. A proposed solar electrical generating plant in the Mojave Desert (where the suns shines more than any other spot in North America) has been blocked by Sen. Diane Feinstein because of the adverse impact on the fragile desert environment!

Perhaps even more damaging to California was 1978 legislation signed by then Gov. Brown allowing collective bargaining for public employees. No single act has changed California for the worse more than this one.

That's a pretty good analysis of the damage he inflicted on us. YEah it was better back then, he screwed us big time, and now you're considering allowing him back in office.

taperxz
06-17-2010, 6:24 AM
LMAO on the article written above!!! AND WHO WRITES THAT ARTICLE?? There is no credibility in an article written for propaganda from a tea bag/right wing perspective. We live in CA

hasserl
06-17-2010, 6:38 AM
Your interpretation is incorrect, again, considering there are people far closer to (and better informed of) the issues than you that have confirmed as much, ad nauseum. The brief was written in that way for a reason. You can't read between the lines because you weren't meant to.

Legal documents don't have meanings in between the lines. The very first part of the brief states that it is not intended to prejudice either party. If it was supportive of 2A right being applied to the states, then it would prejudice one of the parties. It is ridiculous to assert there was some hidden meaning behind what was written that only "those in the know" are able to ascertain. How gnostic.

You don't seem to have any idea why others perceive JB as pro RKBA.

No one is able to articulate any logical reasons why; they only repeat that he is, but no one has any reasons why, other than that someone else on the forum has said he is.

hasserl
06-17-2010, 6:40 AM
LMAO on the article written above!!! AND WHO WRITES THAT ARTICLE?? There is no credibility in an article written for propaganda from a tea bag/right wing perspective. We live in CA

That's known as an ad hominem argument, you're attacking the person not the argument. Each one of the allegations is factual, refute them if they are not.

taperxz
06-17-2010, 6:45 AM
In order for me to refute them you must show me more info that in fact that article is fact and not propaganda for the extreme right wing conservatives. I am a republican also!

taperxz
06-17-2010, 6:52 AM
In fact your theory that Brown has messed up this state with his policy holds no water what so ever. After Brown left office. He was followed by two republican govenors who under your claims did nothing to reverse Browns ideas, one dem and now another repub.

Its so bent on ridiculous that you would have to make the same claim that because of Jimmy Carter, Our country is where it is today and only because of him.

OleCuss
06-17-2010, 6:54 AM
.
.
.
No one is able to articulate any logical reasons why; they only repeat that he is, but no one has any reasons why, other than that someone else on the forum has said he is.

I don't think you've been paying attention. The following is from a post i made in another thread from less than one week ago.

OK, here is some of what he has done as AG. Understand that it is a rough compilation of information from posters such as hoffmang, bwiese, and artherd. Also note that I'm pretty sure it's not all-inclusive and that it concentrates on his tenure as AG. I should also mention that at least artherd has had serious conversation with Jerry Brown and that dyed-in-the-wool RKBA advocate has a very favorable impression of JB on our issues.

Anyway, here's a list:

1.Divison of Firearms was reduced to a bureau – meaning there is staffing to handle harassing bad guys but not normal law-abiding citizens.

2.Iggy Chin and Randy Rossi were sent packing.

3.Allison Merrilees found it better to work elsewhere.

4.The DOJ Bureau of Firearms has not lobbied for gun control.

5.Brown seems to have discouraged the legislature from passing more restrictions.

6.“Permanence” rule-making is gone.

7.Brown filed the amicus to which you referred.

8.Brown killed an anti-gun brief which was headed out the door for Heller.

9.He may have been instrumental in arranging for microstamping to die

10.New regulations seem to have been killed during his AG tenure. Note that OLL's and bullet buttons mean that “AW” style weaponry has proliferated despite the ban.

11.Tried to stop AB962 (quietly, though).

12.Effectively killed a lot of cases against individual citizens. The DA decides to prosecute and the DOJ simply didn't show up to provide the testimony the DA needed for a conviction.

13.Note that the net effect of certain individuals leaving the BOF has been that it is now not a very political organization and is simply people doing the processing of paperwork, requests and the like according to regulations rather than trying to re-interpret to our disadvantage.

N6ATF
06-17-2010, 7:26 AM
You mean like posting here on Calguns about what he is going to do, giving us all a heads-up, and a chance to comment.. That would've been the right thing to do, right. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=310336&highlight=whitman+adviser+monday)

I applaud Barkoff's efforts.

LOL I was wondering when someone would mention that prep thread!

Glock22Fan
06-17-2010, 7:31 AM
No one is able to articulate any logical reasons why; they only repeat that he is, but no one has any reasons why, other than that someone else on the forum has said he is.

With all due respect, it has all been articulated many times. The assertations that have been made are all facts in the public realm. If you choose not to believe them that is your right, but personally I can think of other things for you to do. You do yourself no favors with your (apparently) mindless repetition of your blindness towards and dislike for JB.

Go away and vote for Meg if you wish, but don't expect me to be happy when she signs every damn anti-gun bill the legislature puts in front of her while expecting the pols in Sacramento to do her bidding as if they work at her discretion and not at the voters').


Legal documents don't have meanings in between the lines. The very first part of the brief states that it is not intended to prejudice either party. If it was supportive of 2A right being applied to the states, then it would prejudice one of the parties. It is ridiculous to assert there was some hidden meaning behind what was written that only "those in the know" are able to ascertain. How gnostic.



In some ways you are correct, legal documents' meanings is in their text. However, the way legal documents are written is not the same way as ordinary documents are written. Things said in legal documents have very specific meanings, understood as such by other lawyers but sometimes not so clear to laypeople. Therefore, "reading between the lines" of a legal document is no more than extracting the meaning from it in terms that laypeople can readily understand. If you are not a lawyer, there may well be a meaning that is not clear to you. That is not ridiculous but you imagining that you have a crystal clear understanding of any and every legal document you read might be. Also, the very issuing of such a document might well have a hidden meaning not expressed in the written language in that document; "Now, why did he write this, when he could just have sat back and done nothing?"

And, regarding the first part of the brief, it is like DanTodd says in his sig line: "When people start by saying 'With all due respect,' it means they don't have any for you." This is like saying "I don't plan to take sides, but . . ." If the document isn't going to help either side, what's the point in submitting it? That wording is just style and protocol.

Furthermore, an amicus brief of this type is not primarily directed at smashing one of the parties. The intent is to help the judges clarify the law and make sure that all aspects of the law and previous relevant judgements are brought into court for examination and consideration. If that helps one party over the other, then so be it, but that isn't the legal intent.

JeepFreak
06-17-2010, 7:50 AM
DOH!
my 2 cents: she is full blown lib, in disguise, trying to gain power.
she will cave immediatly to the left in power currently, just as arnold has done. She will not help 2a AT ALL.

Why would a liberal disguise themselves as a conservative in order to become Governor of CALIFORNIA???
Billy

OleCuss
06-17-2010, 8:00 AM
Why would a liberal disguise themselves as a conservative in order to become Governor of CALIFORNIA???
Billy

She would have no chance at the nomination in the Democrat party. Means that the Republican party is her only viable option - and Ahnold has adequately demonstrated that Republicans will vote for someone who will act against their interests.

dfletcher
06-17-2010, 8:25 AM
As far as I can tell, the origin of moonbeam came from the U.S. scientific satellite program, Project Moonbeam. I'd like to see a source identifying Jerry Brown's nickname as anything other than because of his satellite plan, which would have had its technological history in Project Moonbeam...

http://web.archive.org/web/20071011045828rn_1/www.arrl.org/news/features/2007/09/28/03/?nc=1

I know nothing of Operation Moonbeam, I do know from following and voting in the Presidential primaries & elections he ran in that the name was given to him based on his unconventional ideas and lifestyle. Regardless of origin, I presume it stuck because it seemed appropriate.

spaceburger
06-17-2010, 8:29 AM
….Personally, I consider bwiese to be a pretty moderate fellow. He goes a bit further with his language at times …
We really need all kinds on this forum. We need lots of new people coming in to learn and we need the old warriors as well to teach us the finer points (and for some of us, the broader points). Unfortunately, sometimes we need a slap upside the head to bring the reality into focus for us. Sometimes we need a more gentle touch....
Ditto
You know, I missed that first go around...what a load of crap. You know, I'll do you a favor, I'll be seeing you around.
Emotional.
.. Letter to Barkoff: Stick around a little longer. You have more to offer CG. I can sense it in your passion. …So stick around there is still work to do.
Agreed – Listen to your elders. Stick around.
Barkoff made an effort, he engaged others prior to taking his action, and made an effort. His approach wasn’t perfect but then again none of us are perfect.
I agree with Barkoff, you have to be proactive and contact prospective candidates and attempt to educate, but don’t assume you speak for everyone who contributes to Calguns. Calguns has stated thier mission goals..accept it.
With age comes wisdom and it is always better to shut up, take your time, listen to what others are saying, learn from it, and don’t assume you were the only one God sent here to carry the torch to save the world.
Remember the scene in the movie “Sargent York” ? He made that gobbling noise to get the enemy to stick their heads up?
The enemies to RKBA are out there gobbling away waiting for us to stick our heads up. Do not assume the enemy is stupid. They read these posts to learn about their enemy too.
As for Jerry vs. Meg…listen, learn, and assess the risks before you decide you can never change your mind.

N6ATF
06-17-2010, 8:43 AM
I know nothing of Operation Moonbeam

Of course not. :rolleyes:

I do know from following and voting in the Presidential primaries & elections he ran in that the name was given to him based on his unconventional ideas and lifestyle. Regardless of origin, I presume it stuck because it seemed appropriate.

So there is still no source other than the one I provided.

dfletcher
06-17-2010, 8:58 AM
I have to agree a bit. One thing that most seem to be missing here in this thread is that no matter what you feel Meg's stance is on 2A and who you want to vote for, she WILL win. look at the last vote. She was out in front by a lot.

She took about 65% of the Republican primary votes - Brown took about 85% of the Democratic primary votes. Granted, there was no Poizner running against him, but the Democrats cast more votes than the Republicans and I'd expect the same will hold true in Nov. So I don't think "running away" with it in the primary is any indication of how well a person does outside their party.

I won't vote for her, but absent some sort of exciting discovery about one of the candidates would expect the race to be fairly close. That Brown and she are close in polls at this point I think breaks in Brown's favor - most folks already know why they don't like Brown but Whitman has not had that exposure yet.

rkt88edmo
06-17-2010, 9:07 AM
CGN, please! we don't need another acronym (like CTW)

unless maybe it is somehting like CGNtbwithotifae
calgun.netthebestwebsiteinthehistoryoftheinternetf oreverandever

JeepFreak
06-17-2010, 9:48 AM
CGN, please! we don't need another acronym (like CTW)

unless maybe it is somehting like CGNtbwithotifae
calgun.netthebestwebsiteinthehistoryoftheinternetf oreverandever

http://www.slicky.net/smilies/werd.gif
Billy

Kestryll
06-17-2010, 11:37 AM
Congratulations one and all.

I received a PM from Barkoff asking that his account be deleted on Calguns.NET due the oh so civil responses he received.

You took someone who was willing to engage and step up and ridiculed him and ran him off instead of trying to educate him and teach him how to be more effective next time.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts there WILL be a next time, you just won't know about it.

Way to build that support and garner advocates... :rolleyes:

OleCuss
06-17-2010, 11:39 AM
Congratulations one and all.

I received a PM from Barkoff asking that his account be deleted on Calguns.NET due the oh so civil responses he received.

You took someone who was willing to engage and step up and ridiculed him and ran him off instead of trying to educate him and teach him how to be more effective next time.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts there WILL be a next time, you just won't know about it.

Way to build that support and garner advocates... :rolleyes:

I'm sorry to see him go. I thought he was an asset.:(

tiki
06-17-2010, 11:44 AM
I need to hear something out of Whitman’s mouth to be convinced she is not an anti.

I need a more than that. A lot more.

Foulball
06-17-2010, 11:47 AM
The attitudes on this entire thread have been a mixture of patronizing sympathy and really rude cliquishness. I feel for Barkoff, and I admit that as a quiet listener here, I am very turned off by the negative crap that came his way. He never claimed to represent CGF, and his actions didn't deserve the reprimands that came his way, nor was it appropriate that such vitriol came so publicly. My feelings are now very negatively inclined towards the CRPA members and haranguing they make about how they help "us gunowners' with martyred fervor. I'll be looking at the claims they make over the next year with a great deal of critical circumspection.

Well said!!! The reply's to Barkoff by the "senior" statesmen around here is absolutely pathetic! Next time how about a friendly PM to the guy instead of a pissing match in the forum.


You mean like posting here on Calguns about what he is going to do, giving us all a heads-up, and a chance to comment.. That would've been the right thing to do, right. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=310336&highlight=whitman+adviser+monday)

Exactly! Barkoff did ask in a thread for some direction.

This thread is a perfect example of why so many more people don't volunteer or help out CGN or CGF.

--

tacticalcity
06-17-2010, 11:47 AM
I met with One of Whitman’s advisors in Morgan Hill on Monday. Here are some of my impressions.

Whitman sees three important issues in this race, and guns law is not one of them. She seems to be focused on the CA debt, education and jobs. It seems as if our gun laws are secondary. I explained to him that maybe a group of over 50K voters should be considered.

He was pretty well versed in gun law; he and his family are pro-gun and commented that his family at one time had over 150 firearms. He understood why we perceived Brown as being friends to gun owners, but seemed surprised that so many see Whitman as anti-gun.

When we got to her eBay policy, he mentioned that he didn’t think her being anti was the reasoning behind the eBay policy. I mentioned I believe that this was just another over reaction (by somebody who believes guns to be evil) to the VT shooting. He said he is pretty sure the policy was not a reaction to VT.

Really? I asked. This guy goes on a rampage, the press makes a big deal over the fact he bought his extra mags on eBay, then just a few weeks later eBay announces their new policy…that dog don’t hunt! If Whitman is not anti gun, then she needs to explain herself.

I brought up the point of her ignorance for her not seeming to know the issues of “shall issue” and CCW. His explanation was that she does know of these issues, but to people who do not spend a lot of time with guns as their life or hobby, or a lot of times on gun boards, the terms are not instantly recognizable. Whitman has stated she is pro-second.

I then asked, what does that mean…exactly? Arnold told us he was pro-gun, and then he signed this BS. I then gave him that last few gun laws Arnold hand signed…he already knew these laws by designation and what they entailed.

I asked him what Whitman meant when she said “CA does not need anymore gun laws at this time”….at this time?

So he asked me, so many gun owners take “at this time” as a threat that she may be open for more laws in the future”? ABSOLUTLY! Meg Whitman was raised in NY, she went to school in NY, then moved out here to CA, everything that has formed Whitman’s opinions on guns, she has learned in NY and CA, couple in her ebay and paypal policy and you tell me why we should not be concerned?

I told him, "look, she can throw some vanilla soundbite out there, but we want to know how she feels about “shall issue”, how she feels about these ammo bans, anyone can spew out a sound bite".

He was up on Heller and McDonald, but not Nordyke or Sykes, so I gave him a brief explanation and some reading on both those cases. He asked me how I thought Nordyke and Sykes would be influenced by McDonald, and how I believe McDonald would impact CA? I told him I was not qualified to answer; I am not an attorney, nor an expert in law.

He told me that he had also met with a gentleman who was the President of a group called “California Gun owners” or something to that effect. I asked him what their concerns were, and he replied, “Pretty much, they mirror yours”.

I asked him if Whitman would be interested with meeting with CalGun leadership and giving them a chance to voice the concerns of gun owners? He said, he didn’t know for sure, but that he would have to meet with them first, and hear what they wished to discuss, and then pass it on, and see if Whitman is interested. I asked if he had an open line to Whitman, he told me he wouldn't call her out of the blue, rather he would send her a personal email...this says Jr. Adviser IMHO.

He told me I have an open line anytime, and to pass on his email and phone number to anyone from GalGun leadership who would like to talk. He does seem real interested on McDonald and the possible ramifications for CA.

So, over all impressions? I need to hear something out of Whitman’s mouth to be convinced she is not an anti. I believe the guy, although up on the issues, was not a Sr. Adviser, but one who does the legwork for the senior advisers. I will leave it up to Calgun leadership if they want to try to take advantage of a door cracked that might be opened wider, or to just let it go.

My opinion is that CalGuns has a much better chance of getting a hold of her ear now, more so than if she actually becomes our governor. I don’t think it could hurt to hedge our bets, maybe form a couple of personal relationships, even if you still intend to support Brown. If Brown loses, then what do we have, and what are our chances of being heard by Whitman, then?

It’s easy to get pissed and write her off, but I think CalGuns should consider a disciplined effort at hedging their bets, just in case Brown loses. Personally I left the AWB out of the conversation, choosing small steps instead of big ones. IMHO “shall issue carry” is an easier game to sell up front without stoking the fear among the sheep that the AWB seems to. Better to open the door and be invited in first.

Who will I vote for? I still don’t know, there is a lot of time before I have to commit, and hopefully some debates where this subject will come up. Can’t say is if I will be a one issue voter or not, I have to hear their ideas on immigration and taxes. If Brown comes out in support of AZ’s law (which CA already has in their law) and says he supports CA enforcing what is already on our books, he just might be my guy.

If anyone from CG leadership wishes this Jr. adviser's phone or email, feel free to PM me.

This was a GREAT post and seemed like you made a little headway with Whitman's advisor. I would have asked the same questions in your place, and come to the same conclusions. No where near ready to vote for her, but hoping she'll come around so I can. I am not sure what inspired so much static over this post. If you or anyone else was misstreated as a result, I appologize. Not all of us are like that. Most, in fact, are nothing like that.

This is indeed a frustrating election. As a life long Republican the idea of having to possibly vote for a Democrat for the fist time in my life, because his views on gun rights more closely mirrors my own is literally heart breaking. This is a very strange situation we find ourselves in. A gun friendly Democrat and a proven non-gun friendly Repulican (her company record is her only record and must be taken as her views baring any other evidence). Perhaps some of the negative responses you received have more to do with people's own frustrations with their party, and with themselves, than over you and your post. I realize that is no excuse, but for gun owning Republicans, this is a very disturbing time. I wish you the best Barkoff and I hope you reconsider your decision to leave us. I for one welcome you and your views.

OlderThanDirt
06-17-2010, 12:24 PM
Congratulations one and all.

I received a PM from Barkoff asking that his account be deleted on Calguns.NET due the oh so civil responses he received.

You took someone who was willing to engage and step up and ridiculed him and ran him off instead of trying to educate him and teach him how to be more effective next time.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts there WILL be a next time, you just won't know about it.

Way to build that support and garner advocates... :rolleyes:

You might want to have a conversation with your fellow CGF Board members. The level of condescension from "the right people" seems to be increasing daily, with little or no tolerance of conflicting viewpoints. Not everyone here is a "one issue voter" and have significant reservations about both candidates. These same people have probably donated money to CGF and are still valuable contributors to the cause. Regardless of what one thinks of Barkoff's post, constructive (or private) criticism would have been a lot more helpful. Instead, two CGF Board members ridiculed his efforts and essentially chased the guy away. This situation is starting to smell like an organizational meltdown. CGF would not be the first organization to collapse due to infighting or the appearance of a "caste system."

gbp
06-17-2010, 12:52 PM
Sorry to see him go
He's a good man,,,,,, and we need all we can get
Another apology,,,,Pity
we lost a true trooper on that one

bigcalidave
06-17-2010, 1:14 PM
This thread is a perfect example of why so many more people don't volunteer or help out CGN or CGF.

--

PLEASE don't associate this thread with volunteering for CGN. Our C3 chapters are growing daily, we have excellent success at all of our events, huge things are in the works and will be released shortly. We are a happy bunch, and will accept all help from volunteers with a smile and open arms. Nobody has been or will be shunned for helping out or volunteering time for one of our Calguns events.

If ANYONE would like to find out what we are doing, PM any of the people with C3 in their title and ask, myself included. We can get you lined out with the opportunities to really help RKBA in California.

Calguns C3 is THE MOST PROACTIVE group supporting RKBA outreach and education in California. If you want to be a part of the change, join up!

adrenalinemedic
06-17-2010, 1:31 PM
You might want to have a conversation with your fellow CGF Board members. The level of condescension from "the right people" seems to be increasing daily, with little or no tolerance of conflicting viewpoints. Not everyone here is a "one issue voter" and have significant reservations about both candidates. These same people have probably donated money to CGF and are still valuable contributors to the cause. Regardless of what one thinks of Barkoff's post, constructive (or private) criticism would have been a lot more helpful. Instead, two CGF Board members ridiculed his efforts and essentially chased the guy away. This situation is starting to smell like an organizational meltdown. CGF would not be the first organization to collapse due to infighting or the appearance of a "caste system."

This.

I know that I'm Joe Nobody, a new guy with few posts...but thats the point. This thread, and the conduct within, is what the new membership is seeing, and speaking for myself, it makes me hesitate to get involved with the CalGuns organization.

I imagine others new to the site feel similarly.

Snaps
06-17-2010, 1:35 PM
Congratulations one and all.

I received a PM from Barkoff asking that his account be deleted on Calguns.NET due the oh so civil responses he received.

You took someone who was willing to engage and step up and ridiculed him and ran him off instead of trying to educate him and teach him how to be more effective next time.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts there WILL be a next time, you just won't know about it.

Way to build that support and garner advocates... :rolleyes:

You might want to have a conversation with your fellow CGF Board members. The level of condescension from "the right people" seems to be increasing daily, with little or no tolerance of conflicting viewpoints. Not everyone here is a "one issue voter" and have significant reservations about both candidates. These same people have probably donated money to CGF and are still valuable contributors to the cause. Regardless of what one thinks of Barkoff's post, constructive (or private) criticism would have been a lot more helpful. Instead, two CGF Board members ridiculed his efforts and essentially chased the guy away. This situation is starting to smell like an organizational meltdown. CGF would not be the first organization to collapse due to infighting or the appearance of a "caste system."

Agreed.

Note: I appreciate all that CGF have done for the rights of Californians. I just don't want to see someone decapitated for exerting more effort then 90% of the people out there.

dsmoot
06-17-2010, 2:03 PM
Congratulations one and all.

I received a PM from Barkoff asking that his account be deleted on Calguns.NET due the oh so civil responses he received.

You took someone who was willing to engage and step up and ridiculed him and ran him off instead of trying to educate him and teach him how to be more effective next time.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts there WILL be a next time, you just won't know about it.

Way to build that support and garner advocates... :rolleyes:

You might want to have a conversation with your fellow CGF Board members. The level of condescension from "the right people" seems to be increasing daily, with little or no tolerance of conflicting viewpoints. Not everyone here is a "one issue voter" and have significant reservations about both candidates. These same people have probably donated money to CGF and are still valuable contributors to the cause. Regardless of what one thinks of Barkoff's post, constructive (or private) criticism would have been a lot more helpful. Instead, two CGF Board members ridiculed his efforts and essentially chased the guy away. This situation is starting to smell like an organizational meltdown. CGF would not be the first organization to collapse due to infighting or the appearance of a "caste system."

Agreed, it seems to be the CGN moderators and CGF board members that are the ones deriding Barkoff. They seem to be upset that he did not "get all the facts first," but he did have another thread asking for suggestions about what to talk about at this meeting. This sense of only the "elite" and "knowledgeable" can stand up for their rights is getting a little out of hand here, especially when he *asked* for help prior to his meeting.

-hanko
06-17-2010, 2:39 PM
Barkoff deserves a public apology.

Period.

NO excuse for the dumping he received.:mad:

If I wished to visit a CA legislator instead of the few in ID I know, from whom in the "right-people" caste would I get permission?

-hanko

Glock22Fan
06-17-2010, 3:10 PM
I think that Barkoff, whatever his faults and mistakes (and they don't seem to be that serious to me), was a far more productive member than some of the other people on this board.

At least he was trying.

willm952
06-17-2010, 3:23 PM
I personally think talking with Whitman wouldn't do much good. Those anti-gun views aren't going to change. She has no reason to change. We need to remember she's a billionaire. This is simply a power play for her ego. She has money. So needed something else to do. That being said, I think Barkoff was really trying. Just because he's new and a not CGF board member, does that mean he or anyone else cannot express differing view points without being hanged?

Ever been to a gun range (indoor/outdoor) and run into a few persons you wouldn't want to get to know period? I have. Most people are nice, but there's always a few. It just seems like there's a vocal few in this thread. Not sure exactly who they are in this thread since its filled with some fairly long posts, but's its getting elitist on this post and several others. That just seems contrary to gun rights for all.

Kestryll
06-17-2010, 3:34 PM
Agreed, it seems to be the CGN moderators and CGF board members that are the ones deriding Barkoff. They seem to be upset that he did not "get all the facts first," but he did have another thread asking for suggestions about what to talk about at this meeting. This sense of only the "elite" and "knowledgeable" can stand up for their rights is getting a little out of hand here, especially when he *asked* for help prior to his meeting.

For the record, the only CGN Staff members that have posted in this thread are rkt88edmo joking about yet another acronym and myself.
None of the CGN Moderators commented on or to Barkoff.

I honestly do not think the intent was to drive him off, I think it's more a case of after having been in the fight for so long and having won victories new concerns come up.
At first it's 'winning' but as you win more you start being concerned about not just winning ground but holding what you've already won.
This concern might well have been expressed more tactfully, and should have been, but I do not believe the intent was malicious.

Either way there was no derision of Barkoff by the CGN Staff.

gbp
06-17-2010, 3:43 PM
well i for one am ashamed of the way this board treated him. i know that he has personally fought a multitude of battles on other forums defending this state, our rights and to have him come here and be driven into the ground is amazing to me. If you don't know who he is go to 24hour and search his name and see how he relentlessly defends this state when its attacked

This is just too much for me to comprehend
Unless this board changes you get what you deserve
AS ALWAYS JMTC, MOO, YMMV, ETC., ETC
I'M done with this thread

gbp
06-17-2010, 3:45 PM
For the record, the only CGN Staff members that have posted in this thread are rkt88edmo joking about yet another acronym and myself.
None of the CGN Moderators commented on or to Barkoff.

I honestly do not think the intent was to drive him off, I think it's more a case of after having been in the fight for so long and having won victories new concerns come up.
At first it's 'winning' but as you win more you start being concerned about not just winning ground but holding what you've already won.
This concern might well have been expressed more tactfully, and should have been, but I do not believe the intent was malicious.

Either way there was no derision of Barkoff by the CGN Staff.

Previsely, the only one that could ever tell him not to use the "CalGuns" name is you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
aparently some of the members do not have the same opinion, you own the site, you rule and i have no issues with that, and i believe you would welcome someone who is willing to go out on a limb by themselves to try and make contact, but between these two threads i personally am ashamed of this site. Why is it we eat our own????
it appears that some want to express their opinion as RULE

mcsoupman
06-17-2010, 4:01 PM
Congratulations one and all.

I received a PM from Barkoff asking that his account be deleted on Calguns.NET due the oh so civil responses he received.

You took someone who was willing to engage and step up and ridiculed him and ran him off instead of trying to educate him and teach him how to be more effective next time.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts there WILL be a next time, you just won't know about it.

Way to build that support and garner advocates... :rolleyes:

Sad, really sad guys.

BusBoy
06-17-2010, 4:03 PM
For the record, the only CGN Staff members that have posted in this thread are rkt88edmo joking about yet another acronym and myself.
None of the CGN Moderators commented on or to Barkoff.

I honestly do not think the intent was to drive him off, I think it's more a case of after having been in the fight for so long and having won victories new concerns come up.
At first it's 'winning' but as you win more you start being concerned about not just winning ground but holding what you've already won.
This concern might well have been expressed more tactfully, and should have been, but I do not believe the intent was malicious.

Either way there was no derision of Barkoff by the CGN Staff.

Yea but I think most people are confusing CGF with CGN. I think that this is the point that people are trying to drive home.

FOUNDATION Members publicly flogged this guy.

dsmoot
06-17-2010, 4:34 PM
For the record, the only CGN Staff members that have posted in this thread are rkt88edmo joking about yet another acronym and myself.
None of the CGN Moderators commented on or to Barkoff.

I honestly do not think the intent was to drive him off, I think it's more a case of after having been in the fight for so long and having won victories new concerns come up.
At first it's 'winning' but as you win more you start being concerned about not just winning ground but holding what you've already won.
This concern might well have been expressed more tactfully, and should have been, but I do not believe the intent was malicious.

Either way there was no derision of Barkoff by the CGN Staff.

You're correct, my mistake. They people doing the berating were CGF board members, not CGN moderators.

LiquidFlorian
06-17-2010, 4:58 PM
Barkoff deserves a public apology.

Period.

NO excuse for the dumping he received.:mad:

If I wished to visit a CA legislator instead of the few in ID I know, from whom in the "right-people" caste would I get permission?

-hanko

Seriously, why bother if you're just going to get **** on for your efforts...

-hanko
06-17-2010, 5:19 PM
Seriously, why bother if you're just going to get **** on for your efforts...
LF, the question was rhetorical;), I don't expect an answer.

I bother in ID with a few others, as this is a relatively open state...that said, there's a major influx of Californians and Oregonians, so the chance exists that things may change. Our efforts involve making sure we keep what we have and don't approach a slippery slope.

I still await an answer as to whom in the "right people" group rule in the background.

The arrogance exhibited in the shots taken at Barkoff border on what I see in the current Presidential administration.

I agree w/ your comment...why do anything if you're dead before you start?

Sad to me to see a side of CGF I've never experienced.

-hanko

Barabas
06-17-2010, 5:50 PM
Did I stumble into a "get in touch with your inner child" meeting in this thread? Are your egos so fragile that the first stumbling block you run into knocks you out of the running entirely? Thicken the skin a little folks, we aren't having a tea party with lace and doilies, this is a strategic battle that has to be coordinated in order to be successful.

There are no lone-wolf heroes on the battlefield. It's all about the teamwork.

I question the motivations of anyone who comes into any circumstance and thinks that he is uniquely equipped to deal with the powers that be in a way those who have been there and proven themselves can't. FNG syndrome...

taperxz
06-17-2010, 6:28 PM
This is the problem with our state!! Everyone wants to be right! No team work! Even if you don't agree with the op's questions he is allowed under the 1A to speak freely. Doesn't matter if you agree with Meg or Brown he has a right to ask. In my opinion certain higher ups could have cut him some slack on their opinion. If i had the chance i would have done what he did and ask questions!! Why not? It's his vote!! JMO

D.M.C.
06-17-2010, 6:33 PM
Did I stumble into a "get in touch with your inner child" meeting in this thread? Are your egos so fragile that the first stumbling block you run into knocks you out of the running entirely? Thicken the skin a little folks, we aren't having a tea party with lace and doilies, this is a strategic battle that has to be coordinated in order to be successful.

There are no lone-wolf heroes on the battlefield. It's all about the teamwork.

I question the motivations of anyone who comes into any circumstance and thinks that he is uniquely equipped to deal with the powers that be in a way those who have been there and proven themselves can't. FNG syndrome...

Get over yourself. Barkoff pitched in with a before and after post, asking for input and 'teamwork' and got monkey-crap thrown at him. The people who think they are the lone-wolf heroes here are the elitists who are telling everyone that their way is the only way.

elSquid
06-17-2010, 6:33 PM
I question the motivations of anyone who comes into any circumstance and thinks that he is uniquely equipped to deal with the powers that be in a way those who have been there and proven themselves can't. FNG syndrome...

That would seem to me to be a complete mischaracterization of Barkoff.

-- Michael

LiquidFlorian
06-17-2010, 6:41 PM
Did I stumble into a "get in touch with your inner child" meeting in this thread? Are your egos so fragile that the first stumbling block you run into knocks you out of the running entirely? Thicken the skin a little folks, we aren't having a tea party with lace and doilies, this is a strategic battle that has to be coordinated in order to be successful.

There are no lone-wolf heroes on the battlefield. It's all about the teamwork.

...so we have to filter everything through the gilded few? Who might these "only ones" be?

The Dude had a thread up asking for advice, he posted his results and got **** on for his trouble. Yeah, that's some great teamwork you've got there. If he made a mistake their is more then enough opportunity to make corrections and move on.


I question the motivations of anyone who comes into any circumstance and thinks that he is uniquely equipped to deal with the powers that be in a way those who have been there and proven themselves can't. FNG syndrome...

I think you're assuming too much of Barkoff here. He wanted answers from the Whitman campaign, he sought guidance from this site on this board, and showed some initiative and opened up a dialog as a potential voter with someone on her staff. He was promptly excoriated for doing so. No "FNG syndrome" at all.

advocatusdiaboli
06-17-2010, 7:48 PM
JB has never really 'changed' on general background firearms matters - for 25+ years.

And playing both sides of an subissue or race has not done us well - that's how we got the safe handgun list.

Golden quote above. Bill is, as usual, cutting through the fluff on this one.

Meg dispatched (or likely one her minions dispatched) one of the minions (second level minions) to deal with you and placate you with false implications she cared about your positions. She won't touch RKBA or any accompanying issue as she views it as a "third rail" as in death to her messages to the main stream.

Face it folks, the majority of Californians are now malleable anti-gun sheep and with Whitman's ego and wealth driving her grasping for power, right or wrong isn't in the equation, she wants the crown--Queen Meg. She'll throw us under the bus in a heart beat.

-hanko
06-17-2010, 8:20 PM
Did I stumble into a "get in touch with your inner child" meeting in this thread? Are your egos so fragile that the first stumbling block you run into knocks you out of the running entirely? Thicken the skin a little folks, we aren't having a tea party with lace and doilies, this is a strategic battle that has to be coordinated in order to be successful.

There are no lone-wolf heroes on the battlefield. It's all about the teamwork.

I question the motivations of anyone who comes into any circumstance and thinks that he is uniquely equipped to deal with the powers that be in a way those who have been there and proven themselves can't. FNG syndrome...
Point completely and utterly missed.;)

Read my first post.

No conflict here with the message, serious concerns as to the way it was delivered.

If you think the response to Barkoff's post was acceptable from the standpoint of generating a unified consensus, continue along that line and see how unified CA gun owners become.

FNG indeed...Thanks for revealing that brief slice of your inner child.

-hanko

Barabas
06-17-2010, 9:13 PM
No problem -hanko, happy to share. Us gun owners don't seem to have any problem with being fractious, CGN or no, but to take your ball and go home over a difference of opinion, sounds a lot like the GOC.

I'm not going to speak for Bill, he can do that for himself.

I want to know, if Barkoff is some new messiah from other forums, where were his disciples preparing the way for him? If he required rose petals strewn before him, why weren't we told ahead of time? He made the decision to leave and have his account deleted, because he was expecting a different result. That's when the pitchforks and torches came out. Who's driving the wedge again?

Even Paul has admitted that voting Republican in this gubernatorial election isn't going to be wise WRT the 2nd. If Bill and Paul can agree on something, shouldn't we be paying attention?! Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the delivery.

D.M.C.
06-17-2010, 10:01 PM
I want to know, if Barkoff is some new messiah from other forums, where were his disciples preparing the way for him? If he required rose petals strewn before him, why weren't we told ahead of time?

Guess you were too busy patting yourself on the back to see this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=310336&highlight=whitman+adviser+monday)? :p

trashman
06-17-2010, 11:14 PM
I received a PM from Barkoff asking that his account be deleted on Calguns.NET due the oh so civil responses he received.

You took someone who was willing to engage and step up and ridiculed him and ran him off instead of trying to educate him and teach him how to be more effective next time.

I'm just catching up here, and I don't have any "inside baseball" on this thread, but it seems to me that it's worth pointing out to folks that if you have a chance to make substantive contact with someone within any political campaign you should NOT post it on the Internet unless you're coordinating with NRA, CRPA, or CGF. This kind of contact should be through private email or PMs.

It's worth remembering that politics in California is a hell of a lot closer to 1960's Chicago than 2010 Silicon Valley.

And that having been said - if you're not comfortable getting some sharp elbows from all sides, then trying to publicly mediate between political campaigns and groups like CGF isn't the right place to spend your valuable effort. A lot of hard work goes on that isn't broadcast in public, and for good reason.

We're still the underdogs.

--Neill

HUTCH 7.62
06-17-2010, 11:45 PM
[QUOTE=willm952;4471585]I personally think talking with Whitman wouldn't do much good. Those anti-gun views aren't going to change. She has no reason to change. We need to remember she's a billionaire. This is simply a power play for her ego. She has money. So needed something else to do. That being said, I think Barkoff was really trying. Just because he's new and a not CGF board member, does that mean he or anyone else cannot express differing view points without being hanged?QUOTE]

Jerry Brown for Life Essay:cool2:

JohnJW
06-18-2010, 12:38 AM
Congratulations one and all.

I received a PM from Barkoff asking that his account be deleted on Calguns.NET due the oh so civil responses he received.

You took someone who was willing to engage and step up and ridiculed him and ran him off instead of trying to educate him and teach him how to be more effective next time.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts there WILL be a next time, you just won't know about it.

Way to build that support and garner advocates... :rolleyes:

I thought Barkoff got the standard net flame treatment. Very discouraging, but nothing special, certainly not to the point where he had to PM the ultimate authority to have his account deleted. Politics is not for the thin skinned. . . . .

D.M.C.
06-18-2010, 12:57 AM
Just remember that the next time you guys go begging for votes and memberships, that you told willing newcomers "Old/Big Boy Rules Only" and they voted with their feet. *shrug*

gd-bh
06-18-2010, 5:14 AM
I feel bad for the guy...no one should be roasted for trying to help. However, I think something that seems to be missing is that CGF is a C3 corporation. That means that the money being donated is tax exempt (good for us!), BUT they cannot actively as a corporation "lobby" politicians. So, I wouldn't expect that any of the CGF board members to meet with any of the candidates, as I think a "reasonable" person would conclude that to be a lobbying effort.

On the other hand, the first thing anyone should know about entering any type of controversial issue like this is that you can't make everyone happy. You will have some folks who strongly disagree with you, and you should expect some negative feedback. Use it to gauge your actions, and alter your actions as needed, but don't ever expect everyone to pat you on the back for everything you do.

Hopefully the OP will let this roll off his back, and come back, and keep pitching in for the fight against the evil deeds of stupidity. I applaud all who do..:)

BusBoy
06-18-2010, 5:21 AM
Just remember that the next time you guys go begging for votes and memberships, that you told willing newcomers "Old/Big Boy Rules Only" and they voted with their feet. *shrug*

+1 :iagree:

Willing newcomers that had the initiative to engage the political machine, ask for an interview, ask for input from a community, then, provide output from that engagement.

Doesnt sound like a thin skinned individual if you ask me JohnJW. It sounds like the guy (Barkoff) didnt want to have his efforts (which even Kes seems to have lamented is a loss of a potential trooper) Shat upon publicly.

Thin skinned or Elephant hide, you give me an example of where someone stepped up with initiative and was publicly flogged and then said... More please.:rolleyes:

Barabas
06-18-2010, 7:26 AM
I don't want to multi-quote so I'm going to single you out DMC, hope you don't get offended since you weren't the only one trying to prove a point by linking Barkoff's earlier thread. I read that thread, I think I even participated in it, and saw where advice was given that it might not be in everyone's best interests to approach the campaign in such a manner. He said he was going to do it anyway, advice be damned.

In the snippet you quoted, I was specifically referring to an earlier post suggesting that since Barkoff posts on another forum, we should take him seriously. I can no longer find the post, but the poster did not provide any sort of corroboration or link, NOT LIKE SUPPORTING LINKS EVER GET READ AROUND HERE ANYWAYS. Point being, Barkoff was asking in the earlier thread for background information on the CGF members he was suggested to contact, but doesn't appear to have given any of his own. Which brings us to the FNG comment.

I have four arms, DMC, I can pat myself on the back while writing essays on the meaning of life and crocheting you a doily.

Guess you were too busy patting yourself on the back to see this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=310336&highlight=whitman+adviser+monday)? :p

Bad Voodoo
06-18-2010, 7:44 AM
Is there ANYTHING, anyone can do to help the cause (rather than donate) and not receive 40 lashes for it?


elitism

e·lit·ism

noun
Definition:

1. belief in concept of superiority: the belief that some people or things are inherently superior to others and deserve preeminence, preferential treatment, or higher rewards because of their superiority

2. belief in control by small group: the belief that government or control should be in the hands of a small group of privileged, wealthy, or intelligent people, or the active promotion of such a system

3. control by small group: government or control by a small, specially qualified, or privileged group

e·lit·ist noun, adjective


As gun owners, AND members of this community, any one of us should be able to discuss these issues, with anyone we care to, just as the OP did.

Gawd forbid someone wants to educate themselves about the candidates available to the citizens of this state vs. just swallowing the party line, hook and all. :rolleyes:

Barabas
06-18-2010, 8:03 AM
I agree with that sentiment, to a point. Own your words, do not presume to represent anyone other than yourself. IMO he invited criticism when he started representing himself as a contact for CGF/CGN.


I asked him if Whitman would be interested with meeting with CalGun leadership and giving them a chance to voice the concerns of gun owners? ...
He told me I have an open line anytime, and to pass on his email and phone number to anyone from GalGun leadership who would like to talk. ... I will leave it up to Calgun leadership if they want to try to take advantage of a door cracked that might be opened wider, or to just let it go. ...
My opinion is that CalGuns has a much better chance of getting a hold of her ear now, more so than if she actually becomes our governor. ...
It’s easy to get pissed and write her off, but I think CalGuns should consider a disciplined effort at hedging their bets, just in case Brown loses. ...
If anyone from CG leadership wishes this Jr. adviser's phone or email, feel free to PM me.

There's an awful lot of mention of CGF/CGN in there.

Bad Voodoo
06-18-2010, 8:18 AM
I agree with that sentiment, to a point. Own your words, do not presume to represent anyone other than yourself. IMO he invited criticism when he started representing himself as a contact for CGF/CGN.



There's an awful lot of mention of CGF/CGN in there.

He does represent Calguns. We all do. CGF? Not so much.

Sgt Raven
06-18-2010, 8:19 AM
I agree with that sentiment, to a point. Own your words, do not presume to represent anyone other than yourself. IMO he invited criticism when he started representing himself as a contact for CGF/CGN.



There's an awful lot of mention of CGF/CGN in there.


+1 If Barkoff wanted to talk to a MW staffer he represented himself, he didn't have the right to infer he represented me. :rolleyes:

Sgt Raven
06-18-2010, 8:22 AM
He does represent Calguns. We all do. CGF? Not so much.

No he doesn't. Kes can represent CGN and he can delegate that to someone, but no one 'Jack' has that right other wise. :TFH:

Barabas
06-18-2010, 8:32 AM
He does represent Calguns. We all do.
In a metaphysical sense, I suppose you are right, but not in a legal sense and that's the rub.

CGF? Not so much. Certainly. At some point this CGF/CGN dichotomy is going to become a liability. There are lines being drawn, right here in this very thread and it's starting to look partisan.

Barkoff
06-18-2010, 8:45 AM
Well I learned via email this thread is still raging on, I never meant for this thing to blow up as it has.

I just read a lot of characterization of motive and facts..allow me to respond.

I’ll say this one more time for the benefit of those who missed it. I never passed myself off as a spokesman from CG.

Almost anywhere you go, any forum you visit, aren’t members of a common interest encouraged to write letters, voice your opinion for the cause? So what do you do when one time out of a hundred, you actually get a response back that says "I’m interested in hearing more of what you have to say?" F.U, I don’t have anything to say to you?


Some suggested I take this person or that person, well, I didn’t want to go through the hassle of trying to line up schedules deciding who I should ask, who I should contact, who is who. I did not want to be inter-twined in a Whitman-CalGun dialog, I wanted nothing more than to express MY views, and suggest a place where he could talk to people better educated on the subject than myself.

I showed up to a meeting in which HE asked for, not me, I told him I come to CG to learn a lot about gun law. When he asked me about specifics on some of the pending litigation and ramifications, I told him I wasn't qualified, maybe it would be good for him to contact CG. Maybe if Whitman wanted to sit down with CG leadership it could be beneficial to both sides. I mentioned that CalGuns had a lot of sharp people in leadership, and that is was a site of 50K members. I’m still bewildered as to why that is a problem?


In my last post I expressed what I learned about the adviser, and what I learned about Whitman. Well let’s take a different look at what I hope the adviser came away with.

1. “I am pro-second amendment” is not flying with some gun owners, they don’t believe Whitman, some gun owners need more details on her views.
2. eBay policy is completely rejected by some gun owners, they hold Whitman responsible, most believe her anti views and over reaction lead to this policy.
3. There are a few legal challenges ongoing at this time, the legal ramifications are unknown, but there is a group out there called CalGuns that could provide more information if Whitman seeks to learn. Sitting down with the NRA will mean big headlines, sitting down with CG and hearing their opinions could be helpful in understanding the outlook and concerns of the firearm community.
I say "some" because I am only one man talking, he can only infer from that, "some".


I have been writing letters for quite some time, when contrasted with the responses I get from Ammiano, it was a welcome change to actually be asked for more opinion. I never had any idea a simple sit-down and referral could spark into such a firestorm.

At this point it is unclear to me just what CG policy is, but I have always been one to exercise my 1st amendment right, and have no plans of stopping. I figured CG does things their way, I do them mine, it seems as if the two don’t mesh, I don’t want to deal with a hierarchy that decides when and if, so maybe it's better I don't share the experience here…

It’s nothing more than a philosophical difference, I believe in dialog and the effort to change minds, which I believe is long term; some here believe in holding your enemy at arms length and achievement through force, which I believe to be short term. It is pretty perplexing that it this point I don’t know if Whitman were to call CalGuns, if they would even answer the call, if they can answer the call. In all honesty I figured it was a no brainer, I just assumed (I know) CG would welcome the chance to share their view is asked by a possible future governor, if I was wrong, then I know I'm not a fit.

I will continue to write letters, and if asked again, I would meet again, but I’ve learned that doing so and sharing the experience on this site is a pretty big mistake.


I did not “ride in on a white horse with rose pedals at my feet, I did not storm off in a huff over this, I PM’d the administrator and told him I thought CG was a great site, that they do good work, and that I have learned a lot, but that maybe it’s not for me and the way I choose to do things, it is time for me to move on. I have never taken the effort involved running a website lightly, and I always believe in thanking those who run the site for their efforts when I leave. There is no angst on my end, CG is a great site with or without me, I'm just stuck in my ways.

Carry on gents..

Bad Voodoo
06-18-2010, 8:51 AM
Sgt Raven/Barabas, I'm a 'Veteran Member.' You're both 'Senior Members.' That at least implies your words and actions, like it or not, represent this community of gun owners. And now there's a whole different level of 'paid' membership that gains you certain membership benefits. If a member's opinions somehow conflict with a central political message Calguns prefers to proffer on its behalf, then perhaps we'd be better defined as 'participants.'

Don't confuse membership representation w/ legal representation.

trashman
06-18-2010, 9:09 AM
I figured CG does things their way, I do them mine, it seems as if the two don’t mesh, I don’t want to deal with a hierarchy that decides when and if, so maybe it's better I don't share the experience here…

[...]

I will continue to write letters, and if asked again, I would meet again, but I’ve learned that doing so and sharing the experience on this site is a pretty big mistake.


I don't think anybody's asking you to curb your first amendment rights; but if you are fortunate enough to land a meeting with a campaign official about gun rights, I do think that (as a rule of thumb) folks ought to keep the "sharing" bit to a minimum -- let the CGF board know what your learned/discussed from your meeting, and keep the rest off the Internet!

Re: 'hierarchy', nobody, especially in our pro-gun world, likes to do anything resembling "asking permission" - we all understand that. But give CGF a chance to make the message cohesive and build on your meeting.

"The better part of valor is discretion".

--Neill

Barabas
06-18-2010, 9:25 AM
Barkoff, I want to be clear to you that I don't fault you for exercising your right to speak your mind. I'm glad that you have the initiative to reach out and engage the political process, I think I'm repeating myself here, but you DID make mention of Calguns repeatedly and there still seems to be some confusion about the difference between CGF and CGN and their respective aims. You brought that confusion into the conference room with you. That can be cured with a little education and clarification by the respective parties. This thread may well be the impetus necessary to put the relationship between the entities and why CGF doesn't do politics into writing and a sticky up on every forum.

CGF CAN'T get into the habit of conferring with campaigning politicians without drawing scrutiny into their non-profit status. CGF board members, however, don't give up their right to free speech with their membership on the board which is reflected in their posts here on CGN. Paul, the owner of CGN and a board member of CGF, has made clear that the two entities are not intertwined and won't be held responsible for the views or actions of each others' membership.

This is probably a good thing.

Bad Voodoo, your membership status with CGN, other than a paid membership, signifies squat other than the number of posts you have under your screen name. Any representation without sanction is illegitimate, doubly so when it was discouraged. Each of us speaks for one alone, unless someone has given up their right to speak for themselves to another. CGN/CGF as entities did not do so.

Edit: Someone once told me that a great writer is one who can write something in as few words as possible, yet make it entirely comprehensible. I think Neill just did what I was trying to do throughout this entire thread. You have my admiration.

OleCuss
06-18-2010, 9:40 AM
Barkoff:

I'm glad you're still here.

Again, I've got no problem with what you did and I'm glad you're active and willing to educate yourself and express your opinion.

Personally, I hope that if you talk to another staffer that you'll educate us afterward - we all need to learn.

Don't worry overly much if people critique you somewhat harshly. In the case of CGF they actually need to officially distance themselves from you because if they ever give the impression that they are participating in a politician's campaign or advising them except in very limited fashion - it causes problems.

But if they jump your case a little, just don't worry too much. As long as you never claim to be representing anyone but yourself, you're good.

Again, I'm glad to see you around.

BigDogatPlay
06-18-2010, 9:45 AM
I'm glad Barkoff is still here as well. Debate is about the free exchange of ideas, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. As I've said before, I'm happy that Barkoff took some initiative and reached out. We can freely debate from now until the cows come home what he could have said or might have said, but the bottom line is still that he sacked up and did something.

Can't take that away.

spaceburger
06-18-2010, 9:46 AM
Barkoff, I PMed you and asked you not to quit. I have lurked here for over four years now generally keeping my mouth shut. The treatment you got is nothing new – many very opinionated people here – some surprisingly stupid IMO .. but that is what an open forum is all about.
Well I learned via email this thread is still raging on, I never meant for this thing to blow up as it has….. At this point it is unclear to me just what CG policy is,
It should be clear by now that CGF must be careful engaging in what may be construed as “political speech” and as such they have stated that their mission will not duplicate NRA CRPA, etal.
As for CG, …we participate in a public forum …case closed. You do not represent CG….you participate, you contribute, and you learn.
.. It’s nothing more than a philosophical difference, I believe in dialog and the effort to change minds, …..
You did a good job but you made one minor mistake...you choose not to listen to someone trying to say to you “be careful what you say”. You are a visual person and as such you engaged some political minion in an attempt to “see” your point using CG info. Some people saw that as you representing CG..some didn’t... water under the bridge now – doesn’t matter...but did you learn something?
..There is no angst on my end, CG is a great site with or without me, I'm just stuck in my ways. Carry on gents..
What matters to me is:
You have what it takes to participate and contribute around here – and yes – to sometimes counter or check the stupid comments made…Are you going to stick around now, engage minds, learn more about the issues and about yourself, contribute, and fight on? Or are you going to turn tail and quit?

6172crew
06-18-2010, 10:06 AM
Agreed, it seems to be the CGN moderators and CGF board members that are the ones deriding Barkoff. They seem to be upset that he did not "get all the facts first," but he did have another thread asking for suggestions about what to talk about at this meeting. This sense of only the "elite" and "knowledgeable" can stand up for their rights is getting a little out of hand here, especially when he *asked* for help prior to his meeting.

I know the owner already addressed this but I just wanted to let you know I was offended, but as you can see CGN is a forum, CGF is a foundation.

The only reason I am beating the dead horse is because a lot of members are getting it wrong.

Glock22Fan
06-18-2010, 10:13 AM
I agree with that sentiment, to a point. Own your words, do not presume to represent anyone other than yourself. IMO he invited criticism when he started representing himself as a contact for CGF/CGN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkoff http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4463753#post4463753)
I asked him if Whitman would be interested with meeting with CalGun leadership and giving them a chance to voice the concerns of gun owners? ...
He told me I have an open line anytime, and to pass on his email and phone number to anyone from GalGun leadership who would like to talk. ... I will leave it up to Calgun leadership if they want to try to take advantage of a door cracked that might be opened wider, or to just let it go. ...
My opinion is that CalGuns has a much better chance of getting a hold of her ear now, more so than if she actually becomes our governor. ...
It’s easy to get pissed and write her off, but I think CalGuns should consider a disciplined effort at hedging their bets, just in case Brown loses. ...
If anyone from CG leadership wishes this Jr. adviser's phone or email, feel free to PM me.

There's an awful lot of mention of CGF/CGN in there.


There is indeed an awful lot of mention. But, in every case, he distanced himself from the leadership, he repeatedly said things like:

Pass it on to the leadership
If the leadership wants to talk
I will leave it to the leadership


How do these imply anything other than he is speaking as one of the members of CalGuns and not as its leadership? Where does he imply he is any kind of official spokesman?

If I was talking to someone like that, I might well say something like "And a lot of other gunowners agree with me." Does that make me into a self-appointed leader?

Furthermore, the majority of what you quote was addressed to us, not to Whitman's advisor. Only this bit was addressed to him.


I asked him if Whitman would be interested with meeting with CalGun leadership and giving them a chance to voice the concerns of gun owners? ...
He told me I have an open line anytime, and to pass on his email and phone number to anyone from GalGun leadership who would like to talk. ...

GutPunch
06-18-2010, 10:22 AM
My god how do you expect to attact people to this cause when you absolutely trash someone who isn't in the "elite" membership for doing his civic duty. If the staffer infered he was some sort of direct contact for CGN/CGF then its his mistake. Unless Barkoff handed him some fake business cards with the CGN/CGF logo etc, then staffer was speaking with a citizen who wanted to emphasize a particular issue.

Between the marching orders from the "elite" to vote for JB based on a single issue and this trashing of a member who did what you wanted him to do - namely GET INVOLVED -, I'm left wondering about continuing my support for CGF. Could he have done better? Sure. Was it worth crucifying him? **** no. Someone quoted "do no harm". Look in a freaking mirror before you post.

Barabas
06-18-2010, 11:01 AM
John, can you boil your argument down for me? I don't understand where I was unclear in meaning.

It is never okay to say you have invisible collaborators when having a discussion with power brokers, unless there is a real relationship there and you factually represent those you claim to.

Barkoff may be a "representative" gun owner and participant in the forums, but that doesn't empower him to represent anyone other than himself or those who have requested that he speak for them. CGF boardmembers specifically suggested that might not be wise.

The confusion about WHO CGN/CGF are does no favors either. If participants in the forum don't know the difference and why CGF can't get involved in politics (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html), then how is some flunky on a campaign going to understand?


There is indeed an awful lot of mention. But, in every case, he distanced himself from the leadership, he repeatedly said things like:

Foulball
06-18-2010, 11:35 AM
...but you DID make mention of Calguns repeatedly and there still seems to be some confusion about the difference between CGF and CGN and their respective aims. You brought that confusion into the conference room with you.

I just reread the entire Original Post and could find no mention of CGF. How can there be any confusion when he never mentioned CGF?

I'm just wondering about the confusion between CGN & CGF and who brought it up because it sure doesn't seem like the Foundation was ever mentioned during his meeting.

--

Glock22Fan
06-18-2010, 11:43 AM
John, can you boil your argument down for me? I don't understand where I was unclear in meaning.

It is never okay to say you have invisible collaborators when having a discussion with power brokers, unless there is a real relationship there and you factually represent those you claim to.

Barkoff may be a "representative" gun owner and participant in the forums, but that doesn't empower him to represent anyone other than himself or those who have requested that he speak for them. CGF boardmembers specifically suggested that might not be wise.

The confusion about WHO CGN/CGF are does no favors either. If participants in the forum don't know the difference and why CGF can't get involved in politics (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html), then how is some flunky on a campaign going to understand?

Well, if you don't understand what I said, try reading it with your lips moving.

Just a couple of examples where I think you are wrong:

1) tell me exactly where Barkoff in Post # 1 risks confusing the rep by mentioning the CGF.

2) Apart from perhaps saying something on the lines of "There's a lot of gun owners who feel like I do," tell me where he claims to represent either the leadership or the membership of CalGuns. Indeed, he makes it plain (by offering to put Whitman in touch with the leadership) that he does not represent them. I could offer to put someone in touch with the HSUS without claining to represent them.

I'm not saying that Barkoff did a flawless job, but at least he tried, he did seek advice beforehand and he does not deserve this manure heaped on him.

elSquid
06-18-2010, 11:49 AM
It is never okay to say you have invisible collaborators when having a discussion with power brokers, unless there is a real relationship there and you factually represent those you claim to.


Exactly. And this is why CGF cannot be having political discussions with those same power brokers, since the foundation is legally prohibited from doing so. CGF cannot claim to represent the voting interests of those persons who participate in CGN, nor can CGF shape or otherwise filter political discourse between candidates and the CGN membership. CGF exists as an informational resource to any and all candidates, and cannot express a preference or show bias to any one in particular.

If campaign staff wish to engage CGN members, they cannot do it with CGF as the intermediary.

While Kes does own CGN, he cannot claim to represent the political will of the membership either. And to his credit, he never has. Witness that during the 2008 Presidential cycle we had a "Politics" forum where members were encouraged to debate the issues and the candidates.

Is it time to start a "2010 MidTerm Election" temporary forum?

-- Michael

Foulball
06-18-2010, 12:04 PM
He does represent Calguns. We all do. CGF? Not so much.

No he doesn't. Kes can represent CGN and he can delegate that to someone, but no one 'Jack' has that right other wise.

Anyone can represent Calguns. All you need is a business card........

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=233976

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7376/pf4v.jpg



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See, here's the thing, Wildhawker toured California last year and called for meetings all across this great state to get people motivated to get out and spread the word about Calguns and the CGF. We were asked to go and talk to as many people as we could about Calguns and the 2A in California. Now, however, we are being told to check with someone before talking to anyone in a political arena. How can you tell people to spread the word about Calguns and then blast the **** out of them when they do?

--

USMC JW
06-18-2010, 12:14 PM
I am curious as to why those of you who feel Meg is "a liberal in disguise" feel this way. Frankly her public positions on the issue do not support that theory. And furthermore how can anyone think that Jerry Brown is less liberal than Whitman. The Dems have been in control in this state for over 20 years and look at the condition of our state...I am as concerned as everyone else on here about the candidates views regarding the 2nd amendment but I don't know how anyone who has been living in this state can even think about voting for a Democrat. Does endless social programs and a 20 billion dollar deficit ring a bell for anyone? Dems have chased more jobs from this state due to over regulation than any other state in America and have run the CA economy into the ground. Just because Arnold let his liberal family ties take over doesn't mean Meg is going to be an Arnold. CA has twice the population of the state of NY and FIVE TIMES as many people on welfare!! Do your homework and vote for Whitman if you truly care about our state.

Glock22Fan
06-18-2010, 12:16 PM
Anyone can represent Calguns. All you need is a business card........

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=233976

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7376/pf4v.jpg

See, here's the thing, Wildhawker toured California last year and called for meetings all across this great state to get people motivated to get out and spread the word about Calguns and the CGF. We were asked to go and talk to as many people as we could about Calguns and the 2A in California. Now, however, we are being told to check with someone before talking to anyone in a political arena. How can you tell people to spread the word about Calguns and then blast the **** out of them when they do?

--

Hear hear!

Did anyone give Wildhawker permission to do that? Did anyone lambast him for not so doing?

Barabas
06-18-2010, 12:20 PM
Well, if you don't understand what I said, try reading it with your lips moving.

I tried that, it didn't work. I think we're operating off of entirely different bases, but I can't figure yours out, thus the question.

Just a couple of examples where I think you are wrong:


I respect your difference of opinion, but I think it's more nuanced than you are admitting. It was pretty clear that Barkoff made no distinction between CGF and CGN. He said he could put the campaign staffer in touch with the leadership of CalGuns. What does that mean to Meg Whitman's campaign? Do you think they care about getting in touch with the administrator of a forum unless he's a member of the BOD, which incidentally happens to be the case here?

Offering to put someone in touch with a third party implies standing. If Meg Whitman's campaign was interested in getting in touch with CGF, they would have. For all we know they already did, which is irrelevant in any case given the restrictions a 501c3 non-profit like CGF has. This is not the focus of CGF.

Foulball
06-18-2010, 12:22 PM
It was pretty clear that Barkoff made no distinction between CGF and CGN. He said he could put the campaign staffer in touch with the leadership of CalGuns. What does that mean to Meg Whitman's campaign? Do you think they care about getting in touch with the administrator of a forum unless he's a member of the BOD, which incidentally happens to be the case here?

Offering to put someone in touch with a third party implies standing. If Meg Whitman's campaign was interested in getting in touch with CGF, they would have. For all we know they already did, which is irrelevant in any case given the restrictions a 501c3 non-profit like CGF has. This is not the focus of CGF.

He never mentioned CGF!!!!! How hard is this to understand??? Of course there would be no distinction if he didn't even mention one of them.

Glock22Fan
06-18-2010, 12:29 PM
I tried that, it didn't work. I think we're operating off of entirely different bases, but I can't figure yours out, thus the question.



I respect your difference of opinion, but I think it's more nuanced than you are admitting. It was pretty clear that Barkoff made no distinction between CGF and CGN. He said he could put the campaign staffer in touch with the leadership of CalGuns. What does that mean to Meg Whitman's campaign? Do you think they care about getting in touch with the administrator of a forum unless he's a member of the BOD, which incidentally happens to be the case here?

Offering to put someone in touch with a third party implies standing. If Meg Whitman's campaign was interested in getting in touch with CGF, they would have. For all we know they already did, which is irrelevant in any case given the restrictions a 501c3 non-profit like CGF has. This is not the focus of CGF.

We have a de facto leadership and a de jure leadership. In my view, the de jure leader is Kes (Paul) because he owns the site. I think that we could all agree on a small number of people that we would be prepared to see as our de facto leaders as representing our view as forum members, and I think that there would be an overlap of members with CGF. People are allowed to belong to more than one organization, as long as it is clear who they speak for at any one time. And, even if we did have a recognized leadership, I'd hate to think I would have to stop saying "Well, the gunowners I talk with on Calguns generally feel that . . . ."

Under your rules, we should not have CalGuns booths. I certainly never agreed that they could represent me, but I'm sure that the people at those booths are willing to tell passers by what the average member thinks on gun issues. As said in a post above, should Wikdhawker shut up?

And I still don't know, beyond your assumption, whether CGF got mentioned or not. Maybe it did, but you must have a crystal ball that is hidden to me if you know that is the case from evidence offered here.

Barabas
06-18-2010, 12:34 PM
I think I'm starting to see the distinctions that are/aren't being made here. Calguns Foundation, calguns.net, and the grass roots organization that has sprouted as a result of the efforts of those two entities, which some members identify as being CALGUNS in toto.

Perhaps we should ask Barkoff which one he was referring to when he said CG, instead of assuming? That's the crux of the argument isn't it?

Foulball
06-18-2010, 12:38 PM
Perhaps we should ask Barkoff which one he was referring to when he said CG, instead of assuming? That's the crux of the argument isn't it?

Yes I think it is.

--

OleCuss
06-18-2010, 12:43 PM
I am curious as to why those of you who feel Meg is "a liberal in disguise" feel this way. Frankly her public positions on the issue do not support that theory. And furthermore how can anyone think that Jerry Brown is less liberal than Whitman. The Dems have been in control in this state for over 20 years and look at the condition of our state...I am as concerned as everyone else on here about the candidates views regarding the 2nd amendment but I don't know how anyone who has been living in this state can even think about voting for a Democrat. Does endless social programs and a 20 billion dollar deficit ring a bell for anyone? Dems have chased more jobs from this state due to over regulation than any other state in America and have run the CA economy into the ground. Just because Arnold let his liberal family ties take over doesn't mean Meg is going to be an Arnold. CA has twice the population of the state of NY and FIVE TIMES as many people on welfare!! Do your homework and vote for Whitman if you truly care about our state.

You might want to do a quick search about Meg Whitman and Van Jones.

6172crew
06-18-2010, 12:49 PM
I think I'm starting to see the distinctions that are/aren't being made here. Calguns Foundation, calguns.net, and the grass roots organization that has sprouted as a result of the efforts of those two entities, which some members identify as being CALGUNS in toto.

Perhaps we should ask Barkoff which one he was referring to when he said CG, instead of assuming? That's the crux of the argument isn't it?

Thats is what 2 CGN members (Bill and Brannon) who happen to be CGF are saying.

If I was invited to a sit down with a political adviser I would have called Bill and ran it by the staff here....but thats me.

I also have all of the phone numbers to call them. As a CGN member/moderator Im here to do my best to educate gun owners but most of the time I just refer them to this forum.

OleCuss
06-18-2010, 12:59 PM
Thats is what 2 CGN members (Bill and Brannon) who happen to be CGF are saying.

If I was invited to a sit down with a political adviser I would have called Bill and ran it by the staff here....but thats me.

I also have all of the phone numbers to call them. As a CGN member/moderator Im here to do my best to educate gun owners but most of the time I just refer them to this forum.

Maybe I should point out that Barkoff did start a thread stating his intentions and there was CGF participation? I think the initial CGF advice was to kick Meg Whitman in the teeth?

I think someone said in this thread that he was asked not to meet with the staffer but I don't remember that to be the case (I could be wrong though).

But in any case, his intentions were made abundantly clear and at least one or more CGF member participated in the thread. I do not remember any of them offering to sit down with him and go over a list of things he should not say in order to avoid representing CGF or in order to avoid misrepresenting the legal status of the RKBA.

BusBoy
06-18-2010, 1:01 PM
Wait... If a staffer from a campaign wanted to talk with a CGF member they would be told "No" sorry cant do it? Why cant a CGF member voice his or her opinion as the Foundation?? They arent assisting them, directing them, consuling <sp?> them right?? Why cant CGF members speak/question political peoples?? Im really interested to know.

Dragunov
06-18-2010, 1:04 PM
His 'proactivity' and lack of forethought in his statements about size were extremely unhelpful.

Volunteerism only goes so far.

Then make contact with Whitmans people and CORRECT it instead of complaining about someone who has shown he "Has a pair".

I'm tired of seeing the gun community skulking around in the shadows while our rights are trampled on. Last year, I had the opportunity to speak with Dan Lungren on 2A (He was on crutches, so he was kind of a captive audience) I started asking him questions about gun rights in CA. and he just turned white and acted very uncomfortable. I also told him if he wanted my vote, my family and friends vote, He needs to make his stand known. Make no mistake, I AM a ONE ISSUE voter. If you're pro 2A, You have my vote.

EDIT: BTW, He was there to answer questions by concerned citizens and I was in no way anything other than professional.

OleCuss
06-18-2010, 1:08 PM
Wait... If a staffer from a campaign wanted to talk with a CGF member they would be told "No" sorry cant do it? Why cant a CGF member voice his or her opinion as the Foundation?? They arent assisting them, directing them, consuling <sp?> them right?? Why cant CGF members speak/question political peoples?? Im really interested to know.

Hmm. . . The impression I've gotten is that if the staffer wanted to discuss the legal status of the RKBA there is a good chance CGF would talk to them. If I were CGF I wouldn't bother with low-level staffers, though.

Individual CGF board members can have and express any opinion they want about most anything as long as it is clear that they are in no way speaking for CGF. I suspect (but do not know) that a CGF board member could actually participate in a politician's campaign as an individual - but I think that would be most unwise and a way to just beg for trouble.

There could be any number of legalities on the issue that escape me but that's my impression.

USMC JW
06-18-2010, 1:12 PM
You might want to do a quick search about Meg Whitman and Van Jones.

I just watched the video....THAT'S IT?? That's what makes you think you ought to swing over to Brown??? She doesn't even mention a specific policy or organization of his that she supports. It sounds more to me like she is a fan of some of his community work and even more than that his passion for what he believes in. I would place a heck of a lot more stock in each candidates stated positions on the issues than something that is more than likely being blown way out of proportion.

OleCuss
06-18-2010, 1:22 PM
I just watched the video....THAT'S IT?? That's what makes you think you ought to swing over to Brown??? She doesn't even mention a specific policy or organization of his that she supports. It sounds more to me like she is a fan of some of his community work and even more than that his passion for what he believes in. I would place a heck of a lot more stock in each candidates stated positions on the issues than something that is more than likely being blown way out of proportion.

Oh, for Pete's sake. . . Of course that's not all. The point is that if you start searching you'll start figuring out that Whitman does not have a conservative record to stand on.

Frankly, I don't have the time nor the inclination to hunt down all the warning signs. But when she is a "huge fan" of Van Jones (a truly radical fascist) you ought to be concerned. And when in the same short video she voices belief in "global warming" (clearly meaning man-made global warming) she exhibits the typical leftist acceptance of a ludicrous theory.

Oh, and if you want to challenge me on the global warming thing, I have an undergraduate degree in Physics and a postgraduate in another scientific field - I don't have to respect the opinions of Gore and the pseudo-scientists pushing the idea.

USMC JW
06-18-2010, 1:44 PM
OleCuss,

I am familiar with what I refer to as the global warming scam from the left and we would have few disagreements discussing that topic. My point is that if you don't believe she is the lesser of two evils then you need to look further into both candidates.

OleCuss
06-18-2010, 1:57 PM
OleCuss,

I am familiar with what I refer to as the global warming scam from the left and we would have few disagreements discussing that topic. My point is that if you don't believe she is the lesser of two evils then you need to look further into both candidates.

Oh, I expect to enjoy the next several months. . . Unfortunately, I'll still probably be stuck voting for a Democrat for the first time in decades.

Note, however, that I can remember when JB was in office (didn't live in Kalifornia at that time though). I've had contact with people who have pretty significant memories of Whitman from her eBay days as well as having done a bit of research. . .

Thing is, I think that Whitman just might be more fiscally conservative than Brown is, and may be more conservative on a few other points as well. That said, I think Whitman would be run over by the unions and the legislature and we'll end up with a far worse mess than with JB. Whitman does sorta OK if she is given a set-piece situation but there's a reason why she doesn't like talking to ordinary citizens. She won't have any luck at all dealing with an out-of-control legislature.

But the really big problem? I think Whitman is politically underinformed and unformed. She was told she had to be conservative to win the Republican nomination so she took the positions but she has no convictions. She is one whom I'd bet hasn't read the U.S. Constitution in decades and has probably never read the California constitution. So she is a creature of what feels good at the moment - and that is the sign of the fascist follower.

D.M.C.
06-18-2010, 2:08 PM
The Calguns Foundation is a California non-profit corporation whose goals are to support the California Firearms Community by promoting education for all stakeholders about California and Federal firearms laws, rights and privileges, defending and protecting the civil rights of California Gun Owners, and supporting the unique public discussion forum at Calguns.net.

Education of any citizen, office-holder or not is still within the mission statement of the CGF. Given that there is no posted mission statement for the CGN, I'll presume for the sake of the argument that Barkoff meeting with Whitman's rep was a 'no-no' that CGN has a likewise mission of education and truthful information. Barkoff's AAR with the rep stated that he went there as a individual member not representing the CGF or the CGN but mentioning them as an educational resource and continually referring to other better-informed senior members as the 'go-to source' when he discussed Whitman's perspectives. None of that goes against the grain of insuring that misinformation and FUD are not being held and repeated by someone in the public spotlight like Whitman. Giving the benefit of the doubt that she might simply be ignorant and parroting what she's been told by other agendas, informing and educating her staff is the first step towards making a meaningful improvement in our state. IF she *chooses* to willfully ignore what she's been taught and to continue to repeat falsehoods, myths, and FUD then we know she is choosing to lie, and can judge accordingly. But the gesture can and should be made at every opportunity to educate those who are not informed citizens of what the laws and rights regarding firearms in California are. This includes staffers, flunkies, and anyone else because they are potential gunowners for the future too. Barkoff did right by trying to educate and inform. Those of you who continually claim that he exceeded any mandate as a forum 'member' simply need refer to the mission statement above.

wildhawker
06-18-2010, 2:49 PM
Anyone can represent Calguns. All you need is a business card........

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=233976

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7376/pf4v.jpg



Actually, those cards were very much designed specifically to avoid the perception that you *could* speak for Calguns.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See, here's the thing, Wildhawker toured California last year and called for meetings all across this great state to get people motivated to get out and spread the word about Calguns and the CGF. We were asked to go and talk to as many people as we could about Calguns and the 2A in California. Now, however, we are being told to check with someone before talking to anyone in a political arena. How can you tell people to spread the word about Calguns and then blast the **** out of them when they do?

--

See below.


Hear hear!

Did anyone give Wildhawker permission to do that? Did anyone lambast him for not so doing?

At the time I was a part-owner of CGN and had permission to create and run the C3 program. So, yes.


Exactly. There are idiots who should not be trusted to do this - and we have a few on this board. However, most of us should be free to express our opinions without clearing them with CalGuns central. Is it advisable to make sure we are saying the right thing? Yes, of course. But it seems as if Barkoff did actually do this in another thread.

I generally follow 2A pretty closely here at CGN; however, I haven't been as the wife and I have been gone on our delayed honeymoon and only catching up a few minutes every day. As such I totally missed his first thread and didn't have the proper context for this one. That's my fault, and for that I'd like to apologize to Barkoff.

Glock22Fan
06-18-2010, 2:49 PM
Education of any citizen, office-holder or not is still within the mission statement of the CGF. Given that there is no posted mission statement for the CGN, I'll presume for the sake of the argument that Barkoff meeting with Whitman's rep was a 'no-no' that CGN has a likewise mission of education and truthful information. Barkoff's AAR with the rep stated that he went there as a individual member not representing the CGF or the CGN but mentioning them as an educational resource and continually referring to other better-informed senior members as the 'go-to source' when he discussed Whitman's perspectives. None of that goes against the grain of insuring that misinformation and FUD are not being held and repeated by someone in the public spotlight like Whitman. Giving the benefit of the doubt that she might simply be ignorant and parroting what she's been told by other agendas, informing and educating her staff is the first step towards making a meaningful improvement in our state. IF she *chooses* to willfully ignore what she's been taught and to continue to repeat falsehoods, myths, and FUD then we know she is choosing to lie, and can judge accordingly. But the gesture can and should be made at every opportunity to educate those who are not informed citizens of what the laws and rights regarding firearms in California are. This includes staffers, flunkies, and anyone else because they are potential gunowners for the future too. Barkoff did right by trying to educate and inform. Those of you who continually claim that he exceeded any mandate as a forum 'member' simply need refer to the mission statement above.


Exactly. There are idiots who should not be trusted to do this - and we have a few on this board. However, most of us should be free to express our opinions without clearing them with CalGuns central. Is it advisable to make sure we are saying the right thing? Yes, of course. But it seems as if Barkoff did actually do this in another thread.

wildhawker
06-18-2010, 2:52 PM
Barkoff,

How about this: I return to California on 6/21. If you're amenable, why don't I drive down to you and we grab coffee or lunch? I'll extend my apology in person and we can talk a little about the future of gun rights advocacy in California.

My phone number is coming over via PM; since I'm not in the U.S. my coverage is iffy but, again, I will be back on 6/21 in the afternoon.

-Brandon

Glock22Fan
06-18-2010, 3:03 PM
At the time I was a part-owner of CGN and had permission to create and run the C3 program. So, yes.

Brandon, sorry if my statement made it seem as if you were on a mission on your own, that wasn't my intent. However, if we assume that you had permission of the owners (including yourself), does that mean that no one else can express an opinion? In other words, should the owner(s) appoint some P.R. staff to meet with politicians? Should the owners ban the use of the words CalGuns except by such appointees? (these are serious questions by the way, even if the last appears impractical - never make a rule you can't enforce). Remember, Kestryl might own the meeting place, and can expel anyone he likes, but he doesn't own the collective thoughts of thousands of members.

The truth is that many of us may come into contact with politicians from time to time. No way can we all be expected to say "I'm not authorized to comment." So, maybe what's needed is a written set of guidelines and notes, so that we all know what we should and should not say.

Barkoff is being scolded for not following the script, when there is no script to follow.

OleCuss
06-18-2010, 3:04 PM
I'm an old married guy. I recommend you stay off CalGuns until your honeymoon is over. . . Generally much safer that way.

Glock22Fan
06-18-2010, 3:12 PM
Actually, those cards were very much designed specifically to avoid the perception that you *could* speak for Calguns.



See below.




At the time I was a part-owner of CGN and had permission to create and run the C3 program. So, yes.




I generally follow 2A pretty closely here at CGN; however, I haven't been as the wife and I have been gone on our delayed honeymoon and only catching up a few minutes every day. As such I totally missed his first thread and didn't have the proper context for this one. That's my fault, and for that I'd like to apologize to Barkoff.

That's a handsome offer, Brandon. Not my place to speak for Barkoff, but I appreciate it.

Why don't we let all the arguments lapse here now, and (after your honeymoon - which I hope is all you could hope for) sort it out so that if this happens again, we'll have some guidelines?

OlderThanDirt
06-18-2010, 3:15 PM
Rodney King should be logging on any minute now.

NightOwl
06-18-2010, 3:30 PM
The sad part is that this is the standard treatment for most new people on these forums, to some degree. That's why many open carry people came here, looked around, and left never to return. I can only imagine how many people lurk, see something like this, and never register in the first place.

Barabas
06-18-2010, 4:52 PM
The good here far, far outweighs the bad. I lurked for four years before I grew a thick enough skin to post. You should see some of the off-road forums if you think calguns.net is brutal. Bunch of kittens, here.

OleCuss
06-18-2010, 5:01 PM
The good here far, far outweighs the bad. I lurked for four years before I grew a thick enough skin to post. You should see some of the off-road forums if you think calguns.net is brutal. Bunch of kittens, here.

Truth!

Sgt Raven
06-18-2010, 6:04 PM
The good here far, far outweighs the bad. I lurked for four years before I grew a thick enough skin to post. You should see some of the off-road forums if you think calguns.net is brutal. Bunch of kittens, here.

Go ask a newbie question in the wrong area of P4x4, you better have your flame suit on. :p

gbp
06-18-2010, 6:09 PM
The good here far, far outweighs the bad. I lurked for four years before I grew a thick enough skin to post. You should see some of the off-road forums if you think calguns.net is brutal. Bunch of kittens, here.

nevermind not worth it

OleCuss
06-18-2010, 6:30 PM
Go ask a newbie question in the wrong area of P4x4, you better have your flame suit on. :p

If bwiese used the language he used about the idea of selling Colt AR-15 A2's on P4x4 he might have been derided for his ridiculous level of sensitivity to the OP.

This place at its most raucous is Tame!

Afterburnt
06-18-2010, 6:33 PM
have you contacted her?

Maybe I should have asked who is running this show before I sent money and encouraged others to do so. If I missed the reply to my question forgive me. I dont have the time right now to read every post. Who is the front man for calguns? If a member gets there first its on you. How about an orginalzational chart, so I can know who is doing what with my contributions?

Sgt Raven
06-18-2010, 6:51 PM
If bwiese used the language he used about the idea of selling Colt AR-15 A2's on P4x4 he might have been derided for his ridiculous level of sensitivity to the OP.

This place at its most raucous is Tame!
Tell BRB to go suck a lemon. :p