PDA

View Full Version : Why aren't Calif. politicians afraid of us like national ones are of the NRA?


dchang0
07-23-2012, 2:56 AM
It's because we don't have an organized "political victory fund" like the NRA-PVF.

The Calguns Foundation fights mostly in the courts. We need a parallel organization that fights California politicians where they fear it most: at the ballot box.

To some degree, all of Calguns is doing this, but not to the point where Calif. anti-gun politicians are afraid for their jobs.

Case in point: today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Diane Feinstein was there proudly bringing out her old, tired argument against magazines with more than 10 rounds capacity. All this while even Obama is too cowed by the NRA to even mention the word "gun" in his first public statement about the Aurora shooting. Why the difference? Because Feinstein has no fear about us Calif. pro-gun voters. She knows she's got a lock on her office.

But we've taken down anti-gunner politicians before--Roberti and Roos were defeated after their infamous gun ban, but not until after the damage was done.

We need to organize and communicate with each other better and form up a much more united front against anti-gun politicians running for office. This past election, I posted a question about the gun position of Judge Deborah Chuang--nobody had a damned clue (me included) about whether she had been pro-gun or anti-gun.

That simply means we need to be paying far more attention to what's going on in our own backyard. We've got to vet all candidates (like Yee) and remind them that we're watching their votes and bills. We've got to back pro-gun candidates with dollars and votes and grassroots get-out-the-vote programs. And we've got to be doing this all the time.

It starts here at calguns.net. We can start sharing info about local politicians who have proven to be anti-gun. Call it "situational awareness." It might be as simple as using sticky threads to compile ongoing info on politicians and their challengers. Somebody, somewhere, has to have read something about Judge Chuang or actually encountered her position on guns, but that info was kept to themselves.

The next step could be getting the CRPA's election guide out to people in a bigger way and early enough to matter. I remember once getting the CRPA election guide AFTER I'd already voted absentee.

Someone might say to me: well, if you care so much about this, go do it yourself. Well, that's not how grassroots movements work. It's not one or a handful of people--it's only when there are gazillions of people that the politicians get scared. We can all do this together if we each take a small bite.

I keep thinking that somebody has to have read something about St. Sen. Yee's anti-gun tendencies long before he caught us off guard. All it takes is posting that little something--maybe a link to an article--on Calguns and spreading the word. Now, a bit late, investigative journalists are digging up dirt on Yee--that stuff could've been seen earlier had we been actively looking.

So that's what I'm calling for--we need to be far more vigilant and vocal moving forward about our state and local politicians, all towards the goal of eventually gaining the political clout the NRA enjoys at the national level.

That's a good point too--if we did it there, at nationals, we can do it here, at the state level. We can follow the NRA's template and playbook and win at home! We can later create a CGF-PVF: the Calguns Foundation Political Victory Fund and start stuffing it with money (in addition to funding the regular CGF). First, we'll start by helping to dig up dirt on anti-gun politicians. Then, we'll support pro-gun opponents of these anti-gunners (yes, even if they are liberal Democrats--all we really have to do is show the incumbent we have the power to replace them, even if we don't like the replacement any better). Eventually we'll groom some pro-gun politicians of our own.

Bit by bit, we'll get there to critical mass and reclaim our rights!

nicki
07-23-2012, 3:14 AM
The reality is most assembly and senate seats are safe seats, we are not going to take an incumbent out. Fortunately they do get term limited out.

The reality is where we need to be active is in the local city council races and county board of supervisors. Those races are the farm teams for higher office.

We may have 100K people on Calguns, but only 23K are active and what percentage of those are active in second amendment issues?

The only way you can make a politician afraid of you is if you had the power to take one down.

If we had a political termination fund where the purpose of the fund was to be used to take someone's head off and if we could deliver say 1000 man hours of volunteer time and say 100,000 dollars to go with it we would have respect.

That may be enough to take out a city council member or county board of supervisors.

If we could deliver 10,000 man hours and say 1 million dollars to go with it, no one would want to screw with us.

That may be just enough to take out an assemblyman or state senator although IMHO, it would have to be justified because it is a major effort.

If we had 10,000 committed Calgunnners who would pony up 100 dollars, there would be our million. If everyone of them would commit 1 hour, there is our 10,000 hours.

Polticians do feel pain like most human beings. Right now we are not in a position to make threats, that is why they don't fear us.

Nicki

dwtt
07-23-2012, 5:08 AM
The reality is most assembly and senate seats are safe seats, we are not going to take an incumbent out. Fortunately they do get term limited out.

Nicki

This is the reason, gerrymandered districts that lock in Democrat control of the state.

tenpercentfirearms
07-23-2012, 6:33 AM
Sorry man, but until we can get this gerrymandered state's districts redrawn, you will never win in the legislature. Get a big political fund together if you want, it won't mean a damn thing.

Don't you think the NRA's war chest isn't available here?

The politicians aren't afraid because they know they will continue to be voted on by mindless liberals no matter how much anyone else spends. And that is why you don't go mouthing off about your gun rights in California, because you will lose.

microwaveguy
07-23-2012, 6:58 AM
This is the reason, gerrymandered districts that lock in Democrat control of the state.

+1 ....... when 70% of the population will vote for you because you have a D next to the name it doesn't matter.

vantec08
07-23-2012, 6:58 AM
Why aren't Calif. politicians afraid of us like national ones are of the NRA? Mainly because they know how ignorant and arrogant their base is. Throw the base a few emotional frizbies, stroke a couple of liberal G-spots, bad mouth anything that demonstrably works, guarantee that citizen demands on the Treasury get met, and be sure to blame others. Works every time.

mjmagee67
07-23-2012, 7:16 AM
The liberal strongholds of the LA and SF areas control the state. Simple as that they say fk the rest of Kalifornia they know what's best for everyone. Yet they know nothing about the people who live outside the big chitties, we all should live like then, after all they are all so educated and refined.

mag360
07-23-2012, 7:24 AM
Because too many californians swallow the nasty gun control pill to eat their other ideas they view more important. Personal freedoms and marriage equality.

choprzrul
07-23-2012, 7:44 AM
The reality is most assembly and senate seats are safe seats, we are not going to take an incumbent out. Fortunately they do get term limited out.

The reality is where we need to be active is in the local city council races and county board of supervisors. Those races are the farm teams for higher office.

We may have 100K people on Calguns, but only 23K are active and what percentage of those are active in second amendment issues?

The only way you can make a politician afraid of you is if you had the power to take one down.

If we had a political termination fund where the purpose of the fund was to be used to take someone's head off and if we could deliver say 1000 man hours of volunteer time and say 100,000 dollars to go with it we would have respect.

That may be enough to take out a city council member or county board of supervisors.

If we could deliver 10,000 man hours and say 1 million dollars to go with it, no one would want to screw with us.

That may be just enough to take out an assemblyman or state senator although IMHO, it would have to be justified because it is a major effort.

If we had 10,000 committed Calgunnners who would pony up 100 dollars, there would be our million. If everyone of them would commit 1 hour, there is our 10,000 hours.

Polticians do feel pain like most human beings. Right now we are not in a position to make threats, that is why they don't fear us.

Nicki

As usual, Nicki is correct. We are not big enough to take on the establishment as a whole. However, we are big enough to target 1 person in a race for a seat in Sacramento. How much difference that would make is anyone's guess. Additionally, we don't have the infrastructure in place to pursue this.

If you want to know why all of this won't work at this point, Brandon explained it very well Here, (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=586080) despite my best efforts to be completely stubborn.

.

ja308
07-23-2012, 7:46 AM
I agree with nearly every comment above except the term limits .

I the past we had folks who could poisen a democrat anti gun bill by useing procedural tricks to block lots of bad gun laws .UNFORTUNATELY they are gone because of term limits. (Dick Mountjoy )for one .

Further before cali voters were tricked into term limits ,enough pressure could be placed ,by enough people and he would find his job more important than the agenda .
Roberti-Roos were NOT termed out! They were taken out !

Because of term limits the anti's have no threat of losing their job . attitude is so what IM termed anyway .

Those in favor of forced term limits . Please answer , Hows that working out for you ?

Lets face it cali does not have a gun culture ,many have moved to other states and we are left with so many uneducated gun owners who fall for anything ,including the idea state govt is better by kicking out legislators based on how long they have been in.

12voltguy
07-23-2012, 8:04 AM
#s #s

advocatusdiaboli
07-23-2012, 8:04 AM
The liberal bastions of the SF Bay Area and the LA Metro area coupled with gerrymandering districts have given California liberals majority power in the legislature allowing them to put their weight behind key political social issues they use to pander for votes and remain in power: gun control, anti-hunting, fast food bans, anti-smoking, homosexual unions, and support for illegal aliens.

Nota Bene: as a social liberal/quasi-libertarian, I support a person's right to do as they please in their private life if not harming others so I am not opposed to all of the above. Individual freedom of choice for most personal decisions and activities that don't harm other's freedoms or rights is my position.

In brief, I am certain that no amount of campaign money will fix this in the short run and I am skeptical it can be changed easily in the longer run. I believe this is why most of our financial support goes to the court cases in California. That is the best ROI for our dollar.

greybeard
07-23-2012, 8:12 AM
Too many elections, I go to vote and there is only one name on the ballot. Tough to support somebody when they are not running.

Tack
07-23-2012, 8:16 AM
One party state and CRPA (the state nra affiliate) is a limp organization. I work with local candidates but ignore CRPA until it reforms.. and I am a life member in both NRA and CRPA.

ewarmour
07-23-2012, 8:23 AM
To bad there wasn't some kind of rifle and pistol association here in California that could fight.... oh wait a second, there is. They just ain't worth a ****.

DannyInSoCal
07-23-2012, 8:33 AM
They are more afraid of not getting the union money.......

huntercf
07-23-2012, 8:39 AM
Don't forget that a large portion of the state's population are on govt assistance. These people see the 'R' as a threat to their gravy train. Add in hollywood elite liberal support and you have a tough combination to beat. With that said, if the money were focused in toss up areas instead of SF & LA it could be used to defeat anti's who have marginal support and thus make those politicos in the outlying districts a little more nervous, especially if one or two of them are unseated. Also, looking ahead to say Boxer's seat and building momentum and throwing all our support and resources into defeating her would send a strong message to the rest (except DF & NP) but you need to pick and choose your battles carefully.

njineermike
07-23-2012, 8:47 AM
+1 ....... when 70% of the population will vote for you because you have a D next to the name it doesn't matter.

This! They'll vote for the biggest moonbat wingnut as long as they claim Democrat.

zhyla
07-23-2012, 9:36 AM
You guys are mostly out to lunch. Guns aren't popular in CA here. We're outnumbered, way outnumbered. That's why we're suing in court instead of having our representatives relax gun regulations like they have been in most states. The court protects the minority, not the legislature.

IVC
07-23-2012, 10:06 AM
Gun laws in CA have to be addressed the same way desegregation was in Alabama. What is popular among the voters cannot be changed through legislative process.

The good news is that the 2A is now defined as the fundamental, individual, human right and it has been incorporated against the states, which includes CA. To make it happen, though, it will take court actions since the majority is not for it.

There is a glimmer of hope that the masses might start supporting 2A since there are enough kids in LA/SF who play video games and have access to sources of information other than the MSM. However, this will take as long as court battles if not longer.

sholling
07-23-2012, 10:32 AM
Why aren't Calif. politicians afraid of us like national ones are of the NRA? Mainly because they know how ignorant and arrogant their base is. Throw the base a few emotional frizbies, stroke a couple of liberal G-spots, bad mouth anything that demonstrably works, guarantee that citizen demands on the Treasury get met, and be sure to blame others. Works every time.
This is exactly true. But to make things worse California's media is even more reliably pro-Democrat and anti-Republican than the local media in most of the country. You see it during budget battles where big spending Democrats are fawned over during interviews and there is open hostility to Republicans. The big spending Democrats that are bankrupting the state are portrayed as battling mightily for the poor and middle class while the Republicans are portrayed as just stubbornly mean.

With gun issues it's even worse as we saw in the hit-piece that got Yee fired up. The vast majority of the media in California are rabidly anti-gun and would rather french kiss a rattlesnake than own an AK47. Remember that reporters are rarely a state's best and brightest and most get into the business hoping to do battle with "evil" and make the world a giant green group hug. They "know" that guns and Republicans are "purely evil" and everyone that they hang out with or work with "know" the same things and reinforce each others prejudices.

Hard left Democrat politicians are safe and can do pretty much anything they wish without worry of losing elections. They know that the media will cover for them no matter what they do. Even among California gun owners we can see right here that there are some that will reliably vote for anti 2nd Amendment socialists over pro 2nd Amendment Republicans 100% of the time because socialism and/or sucking at the government teat are more important to them than the right to keep & bear arms.

XD40SUBBIE
07-23-2012, 10:51 AM
You guys are mostly out to lunch. Guns aren't popular in CA here. We're outnumbered, way outnumbered. That's why we're suing in court instead of having our representatives relax gun regulations like they have been in most states. The court protects the minority, not the legislature.

Right, as opposed to the national level where the opinions are more diversified.

Uxi
07-23-2012, 10:54 AM
Two reasons:

San Francisco and Los Angeles and specifically their public employee unions.

Interfan
07-23-2012, 12:16 PM
Two reasons:

San Francisco and Los Angeles and specifically their public employee unions.

+1000

The Republican party lost too much traction over the prop 187 debacle with Pete Wilson, alienating 51% of the population is never a good thing. Couple this with Prop 8 and gerrymandered districts and you have a very weak GOP in CA.

The best thing that could happen to CA is a major scandal in the dems. Something that can't be swept under the rug and the main stream media can't ignore.

Also, the people that vote for them and then say that they are for 2A are just misguided and naive. It is like getting Michael Jackson to watch your kids because you like a song from him.

Uxi
07-23-2012, 12:22 PM
Don't believe everything you read. There is a large subset of the legal Latino population who is not sympathetic with illegal aliens. This is particularly true amongst those who completed naturalization and their 1st generation offspring. Much like the black, it's not a group that's particularly sympathetic to homosexuality, as well (Prop 8 probably wouldn't have passed without large black turnout for Barry) or appreciates the racial civil rights analogies. They are generally left of center, particularly with economics, though, but there is some political malleability, particularly on personal responsibility and RTKBA. The gerrymandering problem and the employee unions deluge of political spending on TV are the major culprits and ultimately these two areas overwhelm the rest of the State, which is far more red.

readysetgo
07-23-2012, 12:26 PM
To the OP...

You are right on many accounts, and so are the devil's advocates that responded. I agree with both on most accounts.

Here goes... there will be thousands of "reasons" and hurdles as to why we "can't" get 'er done. We should only need one reason to try, that reason is FREEDOM! If that's not good enough for somebody then what good is it to explain all the other positive reasons why we must maximize our pressure against anti gun politicians.

To answer the maximizing aspect, look to the following

One party state and CRPA (the state nra affiliate) is a limp organization. I work with local candidates but ignore CRPA until it reforms.. and I am a life member in both NRA and CRPA.

To bad the wasn't some kind of rifle and pistol association here in California that could fight.... oh wait a second, there is. They just ain't worth a ****.

^ These are correct, we already have an organization you're looking for, they seem to be consumed with themselves, they are active though, just not as effective as we'd hope.

#1 Start with reform of CRPA

- become a member and voice your opinion
- donate immediately to savecrpa's effort to hold the board and executives accountable and honest @ https://bcombs.net/ see thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=578831&highlight=crpa

We must have legit strong lobbyist in Sacramento.

This in my mind is the highest priority. When CRPA is brought up to speed and kept humming we can work on bills and districts one at a time. We can also do that concurrently but much of the effort is diminished without statewide pressure and organization as you suggested.

IVC
07-23-2012, 12:26 PM
The best thing that could happen to CA is a major scandal in the dems.

Or a challenge from a pro-2A democrat of an incumbent. With the recent changes to the primaries, we might be in position to vote issues rather than parties. Won't know for a while, though...

Uxi
07-23-2012, 12:31 PM
The problem with most of this reasoning is that if it was just weakness of the California Republicans, there would be an opportunity for political inroads by conservative Democrats, if not the Capital-L Libertarians... or even some farther left parties like the Greens to have the Democrats appear more "moderate." Instead, there is no conservative wing in the Democrats to speak of and the fringe parties are even less relevant than the California RINOs...

The problem is cyclical and symbiotic relationship between the public employee unions (most notably CTA and Prison Guards) and their status in the membership and leadership of the State Democrat Party (look how many of their creatures have been Assembly Speakers and State Senate leaders). The Governator had the right idea in going after that, but they emasculated him after trashing his mid-term propositions a few years back, after which he grabbed his ankles. Until the public employee unions have their enormous political power (most ironically funded by the taxpayers) neutralized, this will remain a one party State.

Interfan
07-23-2012, 12:38 PM
True. If you follow the money, you find the source of power. The unions are a major problem and stand in the way of many practical things that would be better for the whole state. CA is, as Uxi adeptly put it, a one party state.

Paul S
07-23-2012, 12:43 PM
The simple answer is because of the numbers. Gunnies..regardless of political persuasion are far outnumbered by anti-gun oriented Californians of all types.
And the liberal political machine continues to tighten its death grip on California.

donw
07-23-2012, 12:45 PM
one factor i haven't seen mentioned yet is the fear of gangs and drug related activities...

deleon and portantino are obsessed with this ... no matter the affect on ALL.

logic has no place in their system; it's that simple.

wildhawker
07-23-2012, 12:50 PM
1. The republicants demanded redistricting and got it. They will likely lose seats for it.

2. Term limits means we have to "re-train" members when they term out. Member turnover is expensive.

3. Gun owners are generally disengaged and unwilling to pay for serious anything, let alone politics.

Oh, and http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-general/02-county-voter-reg-stats-by-county.pdf.

-Brandon

bwiese
07-23-2012, 12:59 PM
The NRA spends a huge amount here just trying to maintain the status quo. That involves not only legislation and legal but "keeping shooting alive" - training, promoting youth shooting, getting compensatory PR for wetlands issues, etc. It's all part of the game.

A lot of CGF work we're doing is to at least stay in place while other work is for advancing.

The NRA also expects a functional state rifle org to exist, and bring about local focus, local pressure and local money dumps. Given California's political context, it is also better that pressure comes from an organization that has "California" in its title and not from "The Evil NRA".

[The NRA can't be responsible for the failure of the CA Republican party to be remotely relevant and not fall at or below 1/3 in legislature. Until the CA GOP fixes itself thru certain policy changes and makes itself appealable to a wider range of voters, districts will be jerrymandered and the CA Dems will move further left. We gunnies are gonna have to think about a state with a "left Dem" and a "right Dem" party that has a few straggling irrelevant Whig-like Republicans, and work to effect change in that environment and assist/develop legislators in the mold of Rod Wright, Lou Correa, Nicole Parra, etc.]

So we also do have the CRPA with now a very good skilled lobbyist, but we need lobbyists with nukes in their holsters. Ideally this means our lobbyists are Honest Brokers that cogently explain our position, negotiate, etc. But this in turn means the state rifle org must move into more PAC-like behavior (or have an offshoot org from it) - so when a lobbyist is told "no", there's an implicit, "OK your opponent is getting cash and discounts from a gun-owner run billboard company."

That requires the state org/PAC to rejigger some funds in vs funds-out organizational financial effectiveness etc and some other rejiggering of staff vs contract work, office location, etc. to minimize overhead. It also means some discipline because not all political spending will lead to immediate results - it takes time to soak in.

When you start dropping $25K - $50K in a few races here and there, that can change the game. All of a sudden people get tamer because they don't want their opponent armed with cash, nor exert more fundraising effort to countermand their opposition. You apply the pressure at lower levels so you don't have to spend big at higher levels.

Some of the problem is also, "We have met the enemy and they is us."

We have ~500K NRA members in CA. But there are millions of CA gun owners and shooters. There are probably 1 million folks that claim NRA membership because they signed up for a 1 year and let it lapse.

We have more people go to a SCI hunter's dinner than work with their local NRA Members' Councils.

We have people all fired up if they're gonna tweak the definition of a pistol grip, but they won't populate a lead ammo F&G hearing, or a city council gunshop ordinance hearing. You have to cover the whole ground and not let up.

We have Californians that donate nicely to gun orgs - but by contrast PORAC members give somewhere around $900 a year for something as trivial as a job/benefits.

Compare that with your $25 NRA membership that covers the magazine a bit and maybe you spend $60 on a ticket to an NRA dinner.

A combination of membership numbers and money count. Everything else is bull***t.

madcatsden
07-23-2012, 1:01 PM
I'd like to be involved with this type of organization but it seems like most of the conversation here is about "those **** heel liberals and democrats." I'm a ****ing democrat but I firmly believe in my right to bear arms.

Want to reach out to people in California? Start by dropping the overall message of "idiot, ignorant, mindless Democrats." Instead of insulting a potential support base, why not try and foster a friendship with those Democrats that are pro-gun and maybe you'll get those extra votes and support that this cause desperately needs.

I do realize that most of the followers of Calguns are hardcore Republicans and I'm cool with that but a little mutual respect goes a long way.

Uxi
07-23-2012, 1:04 PM
I do realize that most of the followers of Calguns are hardcore Republicans and I'm cool with that but a little mutual respect goes a long way.

The general bent is far more libertarian (lower case) than Republican, especially amongst the most... prominent.

bwiese
07-23-2012, 1:06 PM
To the OP...

#1 Start with reform of CRPA

- become a member and voice your opinion
- donate immediately to savecrpa's effort to hold the board and executives accountable and honest @ https://bcombs.net/ see thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=578831&highlight=crpa

We must have legit strong lobbyist in Sacramento.

This in my mind is the highest priority. When CRPA is brought up to speed and kept humming we can work on bills and districts one at a time. We can also do that concurrently but much of the effort is diminished without statewide pressure and organization as you suggested.


WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT CRPA LOBBYIST IN SACTO. His name is Tom Pederson, he's really smart and works his *** off, and he works great with the NRA lobbyist Ed Worley. I know and trust these people.

What we need for him to have is some big guns in his holsters (affiliated PAC). That way when negotiations fail, our opponents know there will be financial consequences as well as Orange Cards going out.

madcatsden
07-23-2012, 1:11 PM
The general bent is far more libertarian (lower case) than Republican, especially amongst the most... prominent.

That's an interesting bit of information. I don't know many Libertarians and those that I do aren't as obviously anti-Democrat so I didn't assume that that was the case here.

Regardless of which party people are a part of it does not invalidate my point about mutual respect and the suggestion to tone down the comments about the "Dems and their liberal agenda."

I have many pro-gun Democrat friends and relatives that would NEVER join the NRA because of the overall attitude about Democrats.

randian
07-23-2012, 1:14 PM
The Democrats don't even need gerrymandered districts anymore. They suckered the voters into voting for an all-party, first two past the post primary system. A Republican can't even get on the ballot unless he or she gets at least the second-most number of votes. That means that most races will now be uncontested. Then the voters compounded this error by voting to give the legislature the right to impose taxes without a 2/3 majority, completely locking the Republicans out of any meaningful legislative input.

Uxi
07-23-2012, 1:18 PM
Pretty much sums it up. Treviņo hits it perfectly in his tweets.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/07/whos-to-blame-for-the-calif-gop-collapse-129801.html

Uxi
07-23-2012, 1:23 PM
The Democrats don't even need gerrymandered districts anymore. They suckered the voters into voting for an all-party, first two past the post primary system. A Republican can't even get on the ballot unless he or she gets at least the second-most number of votes. That means that most races will now be uncontested. Then the voters compounded this error by voting to give the legislature the right to impose taxes without a 2/3 majority, completely locking the Republicans out of all meaningful lesiglative input.

That's not the only problem, though. That would explain single party dominance but not why there's s no competing subfactions in the Democrat Party to take the de facto place of the Republicans (or some other party). The answer, as noted, is to follow the money. This may correct itself on it's own as the Democrats coalition starts to compete against itself (saw a bit of that with the High Speed Rail thing that just passed - the money that will be cut from CSU/UC next year is almost exact to the dollar the amount of the interest for the HSR)... if the ballot initiative on taxes is rejected again (much like Gay Marriage, the increased taxation has appeared on every consecutive ballot initiative, yet continually has the same results. People are fine taxing other people but not themselves, in a big duh moment).

Unfortunately, they're likely to keep bonding and borrowing and deficit spending until they bankupt the State and the taxpayers will be left with the bag. Those that don't migrate to other States, anyways. This has been the real cause behind the cause IMO. Productive elements have been fleeing the State for a decade. The only reason the population hasn't been shrinking is influx of consuming immigrants (both legal and non).

The only silver lining to this situation is that it can't be blamed on the Republicans since they have no voice.

njineermike
07-23-2012, 1:26 PM
That's not the only problem, though. That would explain single party dominance but not why there's s no competing subfactions in the Democrat Party to take the de facto place of the Republicans (or some other party). The answer, as noted, is to follow the money. This may correct itself on it's own as the Democrats coalition starts to compete against itself (saw a bit of that with the High Speed Rail thing that just passed - the money that will be cut from CSU/UC next year is almost exact to the dollar the amount of the interest for the HSR)... if the ballot initiative on taxes is rejected again (much like Gay Marriage, the increased taxation has appeared on every consecutive ballot initiative, yet continually has the same results. People are fine taxing other people but not themselves, in a big duh moment).

Unfortunately, they're likely to keep bonding and borrowing and deficit spending until they bankupt the State and the taxpayers will be left with the bag. Those that don't migrate to other States, anyways. This has been the real cause behind the cause IMO. Productive elements have been fleeing the State for a decade. The only reason the population hasn't been shrinking is influx of consuming immigrants (both legal and non).

The only silver lining to this situation is that it can't be blamed on the Republicans since they have no voice.

Unfortunately, there are STILL some who believe otherwise. They honestly believe the reason things are so bad is not due to excessive overreach bythe democrat leadership, it's due to republicans trying to slow down the speeding runaway locomotive of destruction this state's economy has become.

wildhawker
07-23-2012, 1:34 PM
#1 Start with reform of CRPA

- become a member and voice your opinion
- donate immediately to savecrpa's effort to hold the board and executives accountable and honest @ https://bcombs.net/ see thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=578831&highlight=crpa

I agree, we need a reformed CRPA that engages membership and offers real value, including that of projecting tangible political force.

WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT CRPA LOBBYIST IN SACTO. His name is Tom Pederson, he's really smart and works his *** off, and he works great with the NRA lobbyist Ed Worley. I know and trust these people.

What we need for him to have is some big guns in his holsters (affiliated PAC). That way when negotiations fail, our opponents know there will be financial consequences as well as Orange Cards going out.

Tom is a good man but certainly I think he'd agree that, for example, COHA did it like experienced winning vets would by hiring real pros from the building (while CRPA's decision-making exemplifies their executives' total lack of competence).

Tom is fine because, outside of his having integrity, Ed directs his efforts and is training him up in his image, but both Tom and Ed will retire at some point. Then what? Do you really want Tony Montanarella or John Fields leading gun politics in California?

-Brandon

IVC
07-23-2012, 1:36 PM
I have many pro-gun Democrat friends and relatives that would NEVER join the NRA because of the overall attitude about Democrats.

Such as supporting Harry Reid?

Pro-2A Democrats get full support from the NRA. It's a one-issue organization and the correlation to the Republicans is just that - a correlation.

readysetgo
07-23-2012, 1:46 PM
WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT CRPA LOBBYIST IN SACTO. His name is Tom Pederson, he's really smart and works his *** off, and he works great with the NRA lobbyist Ed Worley. I know and trust these people.

What we need for him to have is some big guns in his holsters (affiliated PAC). That way when negotiations fail, our opponents know there will be financial consequences as well as Orange Cards going out.

Thank you bwiese. I hear you about Tom Pederson. Are my other points invalid though?

bwiese can you clarify what you mean by "affiliated PAC" and "Orange Cards"? I'm not familiar with this.

Can somebody verify, lobbying efforts are through CRPA Foundation, correct?
Even then I don't see them (CRPA and CRPAF) as mutually exclusive, although I understand they are different entities. Don't many of the same people run both?

I still say our FREEDOM, way of life and future are tied into this issue of RKBA and protect those we must. How we do it is literally second to the conscious decision we must make and reinforce on a daily basis that "we WILL protect our freedom".

I 100% agree w/
A combination of membership numbers and money count. Everything else is bull***t.

So then... the answer to the OP is

RECRUIT and DONATE, zero bull***t!

or are we going to Debbie Downer that idea too?

wildhawker
07-23-2012, 2:08 PM
Being called a Debbie Downer usually means that the audience didn't like the facts...

-Brandon

Uxi
07-23-2012, 2:15 PM
Heh, interesting article how the Democrats coopted the redistricting process:

http://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission

Gray Peterson
07-23-2012, 2:17 PM
That's an interesting bit of information. I don't know many Libertarians and those that I do aren't as obviously anti-Democrat so I didn't assume that that was the case here.

Regardless of which party people are a part of it does not invalidate my point about mutual respect and the suggestion to tone down the comments about the "Dems and their liberal agenda."

I have many pro-gun Democrat friends and relatives that would NEVER join the NRA because of the overall attitude about Democrats.

NRA will support a Democrat if they are actually pro-gun and have some chance of winning a particular district (preserving their win/loss ratio).

Gray Peterson
07-23-2012, 2:19 PM
Just to translate the party registration numbers:

44 percent are Democrats, 31 percent are Republicans, 20 percent are DTS (decline to state).

sholling
07-23-2012, 2:45 PM
Something else that was mentioned and is very true is term limits killed us. No one is in office long enough to be wooed to our side. Combine that with California's anti-free speech campaign finance laws and you have a situation when party bosses control the purse strings and finance the most left wing candidates that they can find.

Campaign finance laws need to be struck and term limits ended if we want the gun grabbing to end.

Dreaded Claymore
07-23-2012, 2:47 PM
Just to translate the party registration numbers:

44 percent are Democrats, 31 percent are Republicans, 20 percent are DTS (decline to state).

Are these numbers for all of California, or for California NRA members?

readysetgo
07-23-2012, 2:56 PM
Being called a Debbie Downer usually means that the audience didn't like the facts...

-Brandon

Ugh... precisely because I'm not "satisfied" with the "facts". If I liked the facts of our situation I'd be advocating for high speed rail instead or better yet put no effort into anything. If you're saying the fact is we can't answer the OP's question and put political fear into our politicians, I disagree and refuse to have that attitude, and that is exactly what it is an attitude, no fact required.

wildhawker
07-23-2012, 3:01 PM
Steve,

I'm entirely ready to hear about how wrong I am and my "attitude" is the issue.

Please, explain it to me.

-Brandon

Uxi
07-23-2012, 3:08 PM
Something else that was mentioned and is very true is term limits killed us. No one is in office long enough to be wooed to our side. Combine that with California's anti-free speech campaign finance laws and you have a situation when party bosses control the purse strings and finance the most left wing candidates that they can find.

What? The only reason David Roberti wasn't President Pro Tem longer than 1981-1993 was because he was termed out by Prop 140 which established the Term Limits in 1990. He did lose the reelection, but won the NRA-inspired Recall easily. Lockyer wouldn't have been termed out in 1997, either and would have remained Senate leader for as long as he wanted it. Don Perata was also termed out and would probably still be leader of the Senate, as well, if he wasn't termed out. You really want those guys to still be driving the bus on the off hope that we could be tilting at the windmills put up and controlled by the public employee unions?

The Willie Browns and Fabian Nuņezes and Darrell Steinbergs will always be against us. Allowing them to get perpetually entrenched like it was before the term limits wouldn't help that. As much as the pro RTKBA types want to "train" their politicians, so do the Bradys and gungrabbers, who have more influence in this State than others. We can thank term limits for removing far more influential enemies than for costing us allies with any significant influence in the legislature.



Campaign finance laws need to be struck and term limits ended if we want the gun grabbing to end.

The larger question is if we want California to be a Republic served by citizens or if we want a pure Democracy with a perpetual Aristocratic/Elected-class to go with the Knighthood of LEO Alpha-bet Soup Agencies that can bear arms. Term limits are just fighting a symptom of a larger problem trying to deal with the latter.

huntercf
07-23-2012, 3:23 PM
How about this, why don't CG, CRPA and local NRA, along with the other shooting/hunting organizations form a Super Association for CA?
United We Stand, Divided We Fall!

wildhawker
07-23-2012, 3:35 PM
To do *what* with *what money*?

-Brandon

Wherryj
07-23-2012, 3:42 PM
I agree with nearly every comment above except the term limits .

I the past we had folks who could poisen a democrat anti gun bill by useing procedural tricks to block lots of bad gun laws .UNFORTUNATELY they are gone because of term limits. (Dick Mountjoy )for one .

Further before cali voters were tricked into term limits ,enough pressure could be placed ,by enough people and he would find his job more important than the agenda .
Roberti-Roos were NOT termed out! They were taken out !

Because of term limits the anti's have no threat of losing their job . attitude is so what IM termed anyway .

Those in favor of forced term limits . Please answer , Hows that working out for you ?

Lets face it cali does not have a gun culture ,many have moved to other states and we are left with so many uneducated gun owners who fall for anything ,including the idea state govt is better by kicking out legislators based on how long they have been in.

I'm in favor of term limits, but the Devil is in the details. The problem is giving the politicians ANY terms. NO terms for politicians! They can do less damage that way.

readysetgo
07-23-2012, 3:57 PM
Steve,

I'm entirely ready to hear about how wrong I am and my "attitude" is the issue.

Please, explain it to me.

-Brandon

Me? I'm not Steve btw.

Pit myself against the legendary wildhawker of Calguns fame? Now that would be a losing battle, I surrender! :)
Seriously, I'm not trying to personalize but it feels like you are, maybe I'm wrong about that, dunno.

My original post was just trying to answer the OP's question of what should we do. After dozens of replies in the negative (we can't win), I offered my opinion. bweise seemed to disagree on certain points and clarified others. I did take a slight dig at the end there to what I feel are naysayers. Difference between realist and downer? Is that the question? We could go at it all night (I won't, it's off topic). I'll only offer a quote I try to adhere to:

"Positive thinking won't let you do anything, but it will let you do everything, better than negative thinking will" -Zig Ziglar

The only thing I'd like to prove wrong is that "Californian politicians will not fear us politically, ever, end of discussion". Call me a fool and be done with it if that's your approach.

Meanwhile I've supported other efforts you're involved in that you ask for support because I agree with the goal and remain optimistic. Candidly, it feels like you're shaking my hand and slapping me with the other.

Would you please tell me though, if you'd agree with my original assumption about "recruit and donate"?

Gray Peterson
07-23-2012, 4:00 PM
Are these numbers for all of California, or for California NRA members?

All voters

sholling
07-23-2012, 4:24 PM
What? The only reason David Roberti wasn't President Pro Tem longer than 1981-1993 was because he was termed out by Prop 140 which established the Term Limits in 1990. He did lose the reelection, but won the NRA-inspired Recall easily. Lockyer wouldn't have been termed out in 1997, either and would have remained Senate leader for as long as he wanted it. Don Perata was also termed out and would probably still be leader of the Senate, as well, if he wasn't termed out.
Lets not forget that gun control was popular with the country back then. If you'll remember even the Elmer Fudds within the shooting community supported bans on mean looking guns and full cap magazines. It didn't interfere with their bolt action hunting rifles, over-under shotguns, or their revolvers so they were fine with banning anything that didn't effect them as long as they could still hunt. In Sacramento and DC nearly all of the Democrats and a big chunk of RINO party were pro gun control because there was public support for it. Even some so called "conservative" pundits were for bans.

Times have changed and outside of the major population centers within California, Illinois, and New York (and the mainstream media) there isn't any public support for gun control worth mentioning. Term limits and campaign finance control have done nothing but give us political machine politics. The party bosses decide who will run where and sprinkle money on them and no candidate need fear the NRA or businesses because the power lay with the party bosses and unions and the lefty media. The party boss appointed representatives spend their two terms after which the party bosses to anoint them to a new office. They don't have to care about bankrupting the state or the wrath of the NRA because they won't be around that long.

The larger question is if we want California to be a Republic served by citizens or if we want a pure Democracy with a perpetual Aristocratic/Elected-class to go with the Knighthood of LEO Alpha-bet Soup Agencies that can bear arms. Term limits are just fighting a symptom of a larger problem trying to deal with the latter.
The answer isn't term limits or limits on political speech, the answer is going back to a part time legislature that is so poorly paid that morons and serial failures can't afford to take the job. Limit them to 4 uncompensated weeks every 2 years to approve a fully balanced budget and they won't have time or incentive to do mischief.

wildhawker
07-23-2012, 4:49 PM
Sorry, my mistake on the name. That's what I get for Posting While On the Phone With An Insurance Company.

I don't think anyone said we can't win. I certainly did not. I am saying that the overly-simplistic "PAC = win" and "org = win" theory has no basis in real data, or reality for that matter.

There is much to be said for Volume (organized constituents, members), Capacity (leadership, resources ), and Engagement (grassroots dedication, variable energy investment potential). However, Outcomes do not naturally follow these; it takes much more than that to win. For example, if you gave me the keys to a real racecar, I would be lucky to make it around the track in one piece. No one would care. I am not a race car driver. However, a race car in the hands of a real driver can lead to weekend-long celebrations of positive competition, displays of skill, and millions of people being engaged at the track and at home.

This is a multi-generational issue and the win for our cause will follow the culture curve. We have to 'deal with' uncomfortable political positioning in the meantime. See, e.g. NRA in California; maintenance and doing the best they can to block new laws is the name of that game. Mind you, that is $250Mil/year expenditures NRA, not a minor-league startup with unreliable small-ticket funding.

Notwithstanding that it makes some people "feel" better, throwing good money after bad is not how we're going to maximize our efficiency or deliverables. This is an outcome-oriented game (unless you're playing the wrong one).

-Brandon

Me? I'm not Steve btw.

Pit myself against the legendary wildhawker of Calguns fame? Now that [I]would be a losing battle, I surrender! :)
Seriously, I'm not trying to personalize but it feels like you are, maybe I'm wrong about that, dunno.

My original post was just trying to answer the OP's question of what should we do. After dozens of replies in the negative (we can't win), I offered my opinion. bweise seemed to disagree on certain points and clarified others. I did take a slight dig at the end there to what I feel are naysayers. Difference between realist and downer? Is that the question? We could go at it all night (I won't, it's off topic). I'll only offer a quote I try to adhere to:

"Positive thinking won't let you do anything, but it will let you do everything, better than negative thinking will" -Zig Ziglar

The only thing I'd like to prove wrong is that "Californian politicians will not fear us politically, ever, end of discussion". Call me a fool and be done with it if that's your approach.

Meanwhile I've supported other efforts you're involved in that you ask for support because I agree with the goal and remain optimistic. Candidly, it feels like you're shaking my hand and slapping me with the other.

Would you please tell me though, if you'd agree with my original assumption about "recruit and donate"?

chris
07-23-2012, 5:19 PM
The reality is most assembly and senate seats are safe seats, we are not going to take an incumbent out. Fortunately they do get term limited out.

Nicki

term limits have advantages and disadvantages and we lose good legislators and get bad ones and that sucks. but this state is full of FAIL when it comes to the voters here.


This is the reason, gerrymandered districts that lock in Democrat control of the state.

locked in for life for the party. and if they get 2/3rds this year we are doomed beyond belief.

bwiese
07-23-2012, 5:27 PM
The NRA/CRPA lobby team believe that term limits in CA have greatly harmed the fight for gunrights.

At least under pre-term-limits. you could "train" many legislators thru 'pain'.

They wouldn't become progun but they'd stop throwing up crap after a time - after pressure was applied.

Now you get a new legislator every couple of years and they're throwing up whatever sticks to the wall because they have to run for Senate as an assemblyman, then cycle back and run for County Supervisor seat as a state Senator to get the benefits package.

ja308
07-23-2012, 6:48 PM
What? The only reason David Roberti wasn't President Pro Tem longer than 1981-1993 was because he was termed out by Prop 140 which established the Term Limits in 1990. He did lose the reelection, but won the NRA-inspired Recall easily. Lockyer wouldn't have been termed out in 1997, either and would have remained Senate leader for as long as he wanted it. Don Perata was also termed out and would probably still be leader of the Senate, as well, if he wasn't termed out. You really want those guys to still be driving the bus on the off hope that we could be tilting at the windmills put up and controlled by the public employee unions?

The Willie Browns and Fabian Nuņezes and Darrell Steinbergs will always be against us. Allowing them to get perpetually entrenched like it was before the term limits wouldn't help that. As much as the pro RTKBA types want to "train" their politicians, so do the Bradys and gungrabbers, who have more influence in this State than others. We can thank term limits for removing far more influential enemies than for costing us allies with any significant influence in the legislature.




The larger question is if we want California to be a Republic served by citizens or if we want a pure Democracy with a perpetual Aristocratic/Elected-class to go with the Knighthood of LEO Alpha-bet Soup Agencies that can bear arms. Term limits are just fighting a symptom of a larger problem trying to deal with the latter.

so are are we better off? everything those termed democrats wanted is passed or on their schedule ! I dont care if the name is steinberg or portantino . Deleon or willie Brown the end result is the same .


we all lost big time with term limits and we lost allies and a chance to throw them out through education .

If we address the root cause of how the perats and steinbergs get elected we would have a chance for a decent state govt ,term limits rob us of that opportunity .


Another problem we face here is that many politically sharp RKBA folks have left this state. Their influence and financial help is lost.

wildhawker
07-23-2012, 6:52 PM
ja308, I agree with you on the term limits sentiment but disagree that California has lost "many politically sharp RKBA folks." We in California are now a power center for RKBA with national significance and reach.

-Brandon

jdberger
07-23-2012, 7:03 PM
Being called a Debbie Downer usually means that the audience didn't like the facts...

-Brandon


This is where I usually launch into my "You can't win if you're too busy to show up" speech. Since the majority of the people in this thread have heard it already, I'll spare you all.

choprzrul
07-23-2012, 7:23 PM
The only way to swing the pendulum in CA is:

1) through the courts...and

2) change the public's perception of the whole issue:

http://www.gunrightsarecivilrights.org/uploads/8/1/1/8/8118500/4476344_orig.png

hat tip to Oaklander for this awesome project. (http://www.gunrightsarecivilrights.org/10032-t-shirt-project-10032.html)

Curtis
07-23-2012, 8:48 PM
The election boundaries allow each district to stay D or R. A neighbor was on the redistributing board. A consulting company was hired to help coach the citizens on the board. They were told that it's best to keep districts populated with similar political interests. Otherwise no one gets what they want. The citizen board was coached on how to be political and keep safe D or R districts.

wildhawker
07-23-2012, 9:03 PM
The election boundaries allow each district to stay D or R. A neighbor was on the redistributing board. A consulting company was hired to help coach the citizens on the board. They were told that it's best to keep districts populated with similar political interests. Otherwise no one gets what they want. The citizen board was coached on how to be political and keep safe D or R districts.

And that's in contrast with what?

Welcome to How **** Really Works 101.

-Brandon

hoffmang
07-23-2012, 9:29 PM
The number one problem that gun owners in California have to be politically feared in the way that the NRA is nationally is that 95% of PAC or other political spending would be have to be for Democrats against Democrats.

Every time I see a thread like this I ask how many of you would be willing to donate $1000's of dollars to Democrats.

I usually get crickets. :gene:

But that is what the math shows is the only path to electoral fear in CA for the next at least 10 years.

-Gene

taperxz
07-23-2012, 9:40 PM
The number one problem that gun owners in California have to be politically feared in the way that the NRA is nationally is that 95% of PAC or other political spending would be have to be for Democrats against Democrats.

Every time I see a thread like this I ask how many of you would be willing to donate $1000's of dollars to Democrats.

I usually get crickets. :gene:

But that is what the math shows is the only path to electoral fear in CA for the next at least 10 years.

-Gene

I see this being a problem mostly with younger California voters who don't/won't understand history. Perhaps todays under 35 crowd. (not all)

Case and point, If Leyland Yee was being courted by Ed (nra) and Yee saw this as an upside to his political career, he would be pro gun. (Does anyone REALLY think he does it for the children???)

ssaction
07-23-2012, 10:00 PM
Because they feel their constituents aren't NRA members and don't agree with the NRA. If disagreeing with the NRA would cost them their seat, they would vote with the NRA positions.

advocatusdiaboli
07-24-2012, 7:26 AM
Because they feel their constituents aren't NRA members and don't agree with the NRA. If disagreeing with the NRA would cost them their seat, they would vote with the NRA positions.

While I believe civility is always the proper path among adversaries, please stop with the "if only we'd be civil to liberal Democrats, they'd side with us and NRA" propaganda. The NRA has been demonized by the Democratic Party in California and to some extent nationally as well. Civil debate is nearly impossible on the issue of firearms any more.

The NRA is a convenient bogey man whenever gun crime hits the headlines. Commenters on CNN claimed the NRA is building a defense fund for the Aurora killer. And while the NRA bears some of the blame for playing into their hands such as appointing the vacuous Sarah Palin as a keynote speaker at the convention, not limiting the NRA platform to just 2A rights and firearms education, people simply prefer to label other people with a broad brush as it simplifies interaction, hastens debate, and allows easy unilateral positions instead of laborious compromise. It's human nature in these modern times it seems enhanced by the dehumanization of on-line interaction instead of face-to-face interaction.

There are Democrats in the NRA, but they mostly stay silent because they disagree with the widening of the platform past 2A rights so they feel conflicted and awkward at times. Limiting the NRA platform, PR, and action to just 2A rights will help and civil debate will help, but it's not going to happen over night. We need to reach across the aisle and separate the Tea Party agenda from the NRA agenda to advance our cause.

bwiese
07-24-2012, 9:59 AM
The number one problem that gun owners in California have to be politically feared in the way that the NRA is nationally is that 95% of PAC or other political spending would be have to be for Democrats against Democrats.

Every time I see a thread like this I ask how many of you would be willing to donate $1000's of dollars to Democrats.

I usually get crickets. :gene:

But that is what the math shows is the only path to electoral fear in CA for the next at least 10 years.



Bingo, and what I was saying (indirectly - was just talking about PAC spending).

It's not about electing an unelectable Republican, it's about ensuring the right Dem is seated OR incurring enough fear in a given Dem that he'd have to fight some "big gun money"

njineermike
07-24-2012, 10:23 AM
Bingo, and what I was saying (indirectly - was just talking about PAC spending).

It's not about electing an unelectable Republican, it's about ensuring the right Dem is seated OR incurring enough fear in a given Dem that he'd have to fight some "big gun money"

Unfortunately, the "right Dem" doesn't seem to exist in this state. They vote lockstep with whatever the latest bad idea is whenever it gets proposed. If your idea is to gain traction, more blue-dog type Dems need to be willing to break from the pack on other issues.

Uxi
07-24-2012, 10:27 AM
so are are we better off? everything those termed democrats wanted is passed or on their schedule ! I dont care if the name is steinberg or portantino . Deleon or willie Brown the end result is the same .


Your contention is that we're worse off, but you haven't yet substantiated it with any evidence. Willie Brown was pretty damned influential in a way that the current Speaker is anything but. Entrenched and powerful incumbents are worse than neophytes. Compile a list of the powerful supporters we've lost and weight it against the powerful enemies removed by term limits for an objective metric. I'd wager the evidence is against your argument, though maybe you have the evidence to back up your side and just haven't put it up yet.



If we address the root cause of how the perats and steinbergs get elected we would have a chance for a decent state govt ,term limits rob us of that opportunity .


Root cause is the numbers are vastly against us. Term limits don't do anything to hinder promotion of shooting as a cultural and sporting activity.

Uxi
07-24-2012, 10:28 AM
Unfortunately, the "right Dem" doesn't seem to exist in this state. They vote lockstep with whatever the latest bad idea is whenever it gets proposed. If your idea is to gain traction, more blue-dog type Dems need to be willing to break from the pack on other issues.

There are one or two that usually get trotted out. Unfortunately it's just one or two and not in any position of influence, much less leadership. Never really when it matters, though, and about as reliable in our interests as Moonbeam.

curtisfong
07-24-2012, 10:33 AM
The problem is that Dem politicians in CA are terrified of NOT being anti-gun. Once they realize they don't have to be anti-gun to succeed, the whole house of cards will crumble.

This is why the "gun rights = civil right" movement is so critical.

sholling
07-24-2012, 11:44 AM
The number one problem that gun owners in California have to be politically feared in the way that the NRA is nationally is that 95% of PAC or other political spending would be have to be for Democrats against Democrats.

Every time I see a thread like this I ask how many of you would be willing to donate $1000's of dollars to Democrats.

I usually get crickets. :gene:

But that is what the math shows is the only path to electoral fear in CA for the next at least 10 years.

-Gene
The problem with your idea is that few of us are single issue voters. The idea of giving $1000 that I can't afford to someone who will drive my home state into insolvency while taxing me into insolvency just because he says he's a bit less anti 2nd Amendment than the other socialist isn't appetizing. Either way I will be forced to eventually leave the state of my birth for one where I can live free and not be taxed into oblivion.

The California Republican Party is way to ethically challenged and directionless and its state leadership way too slimy to ever recover. Their leaders just want to ride the gravy train for as long as they can before the state fails. In California the real threat big spending gun grabbing statist lunatic Democrat politicians is the Libertarian Party. It does well with everyone from college kids to TEA Partiers and just might be the last great hope for California - which of course means that the media will ignore it or label it racist.;)

curtisfong
07-24-2012, 12:21 PM
The idea of giving $1000 that I can't afford to someone who will drive my home state into insolvency while taxing me into insolvency just because he says he's a bit less anti 2nd Amendment than the other socialist isn't appetizing.

While I understand your concern, the problem is that that "someone" will win *anyway* if there is a "D" after their name on the ballot, and there is every possibility that the "R" with any chance of winning (btw, next to zero) might be a RINO as well.

curtisfong
07-24-2012, 12:23 PM
The number one problem that gun owners in California have to be politically feared in the way that the NRA is nationally is that 95% of PAC or other political spending would be have to be for Democrats against Democrats.

Every time I see a thread like this I ask how many of you would be willing to donate $1000's of dollars to Democrats.

I usually get crickets. :gene:

But that is what the math shows is the only path to electoral fear in CA for the next at least 10 years.

-Gene

QFT, but there is a chicken and egg problem here. Until an electable democrat publicly states they are against gun control, nobody from "here" in their right mind would want to send them any money.

And until somebody proves there is $$$ in running a D campaign that does not involve gun control...

dchang0
07-24-2012, 12:33 PM
Okay, guys... A few notes:

1) We don't need to hear reasons why we CAN'T do this. We need to hear reasons and ideas on how we CAN do this.

2) It's not going to happen overnight. It took the national NRA a couple of decades to build up to the strength it has now. All of this in the face of overwhelming odds.

3) We don't need to win big to win. That is to say, we don't have to take over Sacramento, we don't have to utterly destroy gerrymandering, we don't have to achieve Republican one-party rule. All we have to do is stop the handful of politicians who author the bills in the first place, which are currently: Yee, DeLeon, Perata, Feinstein, et al. We only need to make them think twice before authoring another anti-gun bill.

And of course, we can support our allies in the committees. We do have supporters there who can kill bills before they get out onto the floor.


It's all about LEVERAGE in the beginning. We apply the right pressure, money, and volunteer hours to the right persons, and BAM, we start blocking gun control bills.

Also, we're going to have to think one-issue sometimes--given the choice between a proudly-anti-gun-big-spending politician and a scared-of-us-big-spending politician, which do we support? Easy choice.

Now, who do we support when it's an anti-gun-big-spending politician versus an anti-gun-fiscally-responsible politician? Easy choice too.

Then, who do we choose if it's a pro-gun-big-spending politician versus an anti-gun-fiscally-responsible politician? Well, that's not so easy a choice (for conservatives), pitting guns versus fiscal/economic policy. But ask yourself this: HOW OFTEN DO WE EVER ENCOUNTER A PRO-GUN-BIG-SPENDING POLITICIAN OR AN ANTI-GUN-FISCALLY-RESPONSIBLE POLITICIAN? Almost never, so this whole "I'm not a one-issue voter" isn't a real dilemma. Our most frequent choice will be between two anti-gun-big-spending politicians, and all we have to do is scare one of them into becoming a little less anti-gun.

Put in plain English: sometimes we have to choose between the lesser of two evils (please note that I am resisting using the word "Democrat" because I do not wish to demonize all Democrats--there ARE pro-gun Democrats out there). We merely have to show either or both of these evils that we are strong enough to make a difference in their election so that they keep their anti-gun tendencies subdued.

dchang0
07-24-2012, 12:36 PM
WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT CRPA LOBBYIST IN SACTO. His name is Tom Pederson, he's really smart and works his *** off, and he works great with the NRA lobbyist Ed Worley. I know and trust these people.

What we need for him to have is some big guns in his holsters (affiliated PAC). That way when negotiations fail, our opponents know there will be financial consequences as well as Orange Cards going out.

Okay--this is a great beachhead. How can we support Tom better? What can we do to "reform the CRPA" as someone else suggested? What are these "Orange Cards" you mention?

---

THE FIRST CHANGE I'M ASKING FOR IS FROM CALGUNS.NET TO START KEEPING A "ONE STOP SHOP" ON ITS WEBSITE WHERE ANY NEWBIE CAN COME IN AND SEE A RUNNING DOSSIER ON ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS AND OUR PRO-GUN ALLIES. All it really takes is forming up some new forums or using stickies.

The AW Flowchart is a thing of beauty because anybody can send a newbie to it. I meet people all the time on the range who ask about my OLL, and I say, "It's easy--just go to Calguns.net and click on the Flowcharts link at the top."

It'd be AWESOME to be able to say to any pro-gun voter: "It's easy, just go to Calguns.net and click on Politician Info at the top."*

(Actually, the CRPA is sort of doing this already with its Legislative Updates section in The Firing Line, but A) few people want to slog through a list of bills to pick out names, and B) we need a list of "friendly" or "scared-of-us" politicians to support against anti-gun politicians. That is to say, we already know who our enemies are. We need to know who our friends in Sacramento are and how we can help them topple the anti-gunners.)


---
* Some might ask, why not send them to the CRPA's website? Well, Calguns.net has a much bigger reach and better brand (at this time). It also has more website resources (more moderators and developer skills). Also, the current design of CRPA.org is such that it requires an author+editor to post info about politicians. The Calguns.net forums allow everybody to post info on politicians in their districts.

sholling
07-24-2012, 12:38 PM
While I understand your concern, the problem is that that "someone" will win *anyway* if there is a "D" after their name on the ballot, and there is every possibility that the "R" with any chance of winning (btw, next to zero) might be a RINO as well.
Under the new system it may come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils, oops I mean two Democrats but that isn't always the case and moderates don't run as Democrats in California - at least none that I'm aware of and don't say Jerry "$68B high-speed train to nowhere" Brown.

In many districts the choice may just come down to 3rd party vs Democrat.

dchang0
07-24-2012, 1:04 PM
Under the new system it may come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils, oops I mean two Democrats but that isn't always the case and moderates don't run as Democrats in California - at least none that I'm aware of and don't say Jerry "$68B high-speed train to nowhere" Brown.

In many districts the choice may just come down to 3rd party vs Democrat.

I get what you mean.

However, the choice we make doesn't have to be a complete choice.

That is to say, we don't really have to pick one of the two evils. All we have to do is make it harder for the definitely anti-gun candidate to win.

For instance, let's say we have a rabidly anti-gun liberal Democrat running against a somewhat-anti-gun moderate Independent in a somewhat close election, with the liberal having a small advantage.

If we donate $25,000 to the moderate, that makes it so that the liberal has to pony up some more of his/her own cash to counterbalance the moderate.

We're not endorsing the moderate per se. Nor do we expect the moderate to win. But we just hit the liberal where it counts and raised our awareness in their mind's eye. WE'LL TELL THEM STRAIGHT OUT: BECAUSE YOU'RE SO ANTI-GUN, WE'VE SENT $25,000 TO YOUR OPPONENT.

$25,000 may seem like a lot of money, but we're not having to spend that on every single race. We might only have the opportunity to leverage our donation in one or two races per election cycle.

Yeah, this strategy won't work in districts where the anti-gun liberal has a solid lock and no challengers, but they will see us scaring other anti-gunners in other districts AND we can mount other types of challenges (such as vetting, digging up dirt, and generally costing them money to defend themselves). $5000 to $50,000 to pay a political investigator to dig up dirt that the anti-gun candidate will then have to spend millions debunking? That's big leverage for us!

Interfan
07-24-2012, 1:37 PM
Yes, you can dig up dirt on an anti-2A candidate, but the propaganda machine isn't under our control. One of the problems facing any pro-2A candidate is the mainstream media. You get this type of ****, and it makes for a tougher sell to the anti-2A enclaves:
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/06/24/gun_turnin_244x183.jpg Caption: Just some of the more than 5,500 firearms turned in to the Chicago Police Saturday, June 23, 2012, as part of a drive to get guns off the streets. (Credit: WBBM)

That is an M60. Turned into the Chicago police? Really? I doubt that the caption is the real story. Some little old lady found it in her basement and called officer Kowolski to pick it up- yeah right!

This picture is from a CBS story online, but it was also syndicated in several newspaper websites in a story from CBS on DiFi and the other antis in Congress.

Any lily-livered anti would see this and think that every pickup truck in a red state has an M60 in the gun rack. This type of propaganda needs to be addressed and corrected. When someone sees an M60 as the representation of guns "on the street" it can be compellingly scary for some soccer mom.

This isn't a depiction of reality, but just perpetuates the anti's fantasy world of movie bad guys with machine guns all over the place. Rather than donating or sanctioning politicians for their stance on the 2A, money should be spent on educating the general public over what is reality and what is just this same type of bull****. When you see these images and Bloomberg's perpetual video of law enforcement training with select fire weapons being pawned off as civilians with AR-15s at an NRA meeting, it does not matter who you support or don't support when the voters are brainwashed with such rubbish. Perception has become reality

wildhawker
07-24-2012, 1:56 PM
Okay, guys... A few notes:

1) We don't need to hear reasons why we CAN'T do this. We need to hear reasons and ideas on how we CAN do this.

And this is the difference between a motivational speaker and a leader.

2) It's not going to happen overnight. It took the national NRA a couple of decades to build up to the strength it has now. All of this in the face of overwhelming odds.

Not really anything nearing the same facts and conditions.

3) We don't need to win big to win. That is to say, we don't have to take over Sacramento, we don't have to utterly destroy gerrymandering, we don't have to achieve Republican one-party rule. All we have to do is stop the handful of politicians who author the bills in the first place, which are currently: Yee, DeLeon, Perata, Feinstein, et al. We only need to make them think twice before authoring another anti-gun bill.

Again, you need to do more research on this before forming arguments. See: term limits. Good luck with that.

And of course, we can support our allies in the committees. We do have supporters there who can kill bills before they get out onto the floor.

You assert some special knowledge. Please share this with us so we can understand the basis of your argument.

It's all about LEVERAGE in the beginning. We apply the right pressure, money, and volunteer hours to the right persons, and BAM, we start blocking gun control bills.

Yep, it's just that easy... :rolleyes:

Okay--this is a great beachhead. How can we support Tom better? What can we do to "reform the CRPA" as someone else suggested? What are these "Orange Cards" you mention?

See: http://savecrpa.org

THE FIRST CHANGE I'M ASKING FOR IS FROM CALGUNS.NET TO START KEEPING A "ONE STOP SHOP" ON ITS WEBSITE WHERE ANY NEWBIE CAN COME IN AND SEE A RUNNING DOSSIER ON ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS AND OUR PRO-GUN ALLIES. All it really takes is forming up some new forums or using stickies.

I suggest you actually run a drill before you tell those of us who do how easy it is.

-Brandon

dfletcher
07-24-2012, 1:59 PM
CA politicians are not afraid of CA gun owners because CA gun owners are not single issue voters. I realize we're in the minority but a single minded minority can have a great effect on elections. The old folks with their "don't touch Soc' Security" mantra has worked for decades not because they're a majority, but because they vote and are single minded about it.

But CA gun owners are too sophisticated for such stuff ....

Tarn_Helm
07-24-2012, 2:04 PM
It's because we don't have an organized "political victory fund" like the NRA-PVF.

The Calguns Foundation fights mostly in the courts. We need a parallel organization that fights California politicians where they fear it most: at the ballot box.

To some degree, all of Calguns is doing this, but not to the point where Calif. anti-gun politicians are afraid for their jobs.

Case in point: today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Diane Feinstein was there proudly bringing out her old, tired argument against magazines with more than 10 rounds capacity. All this while even Obama is too cowed by the NRA to even mention the word "gun" in his first public statement about the Aurora shooting. Why the difference? Because Feinstein has no fear about us Calif. pro-gun voters. She knows she's got a lock on her office.

But we've taken down anti-gunner politicians before--Roberti and Roos were defeated after their infamous gun ban, but not until after the damage was done.

We need to organize and communicate with each other better and form up a much more united front against anti-gun politicians running for office. This past election, I posted a question about the gun position of Judge Deborah Chuang--nobody had a damned clue (me included) about whether she had been pro-gun or anti-gun.

That simply means we need to be paying far more attention to what's going on in our own backyard. We've got to vet all candidates (like Yee) and remind them that we're watching their votes and bills. We've got to back pro-gun candidates with dollars and votes and grassroots get-out-the-vote programs. And we've got to be doing this all the time.

It starts here at calguns.net. We can start sharing info about local politicians who have proven to be anti-gun. Call it "situational awareness." It might be as simple as using sticky threads to compile ongoing info on politicians and their challengers. Somebody, somewhere, has to have read something about Judge Chuang or actually encountered her position on guns, but that info was kept to themselves.

The next step could be getting the CRPA's election guide out to people in a bigger way and early enough to matter. I remember once getting the CRPA election guide AFTER I'd already voted absentee.

Someone might say to me: well, if you care so much about this, go do it yourself. Well, that's not how grassroots movements work. It's not one or a handful of people--it's only when there are gazillions of people that the politicians get scared. We can all do this together if we each take a small bite.

I keep thinking that somebody has to have read something about St. Sen. Yee's anti-gun tendencies long before he caught us off guard. All it takes is posting that little something--maybe a link to an article--on Calguns and spreading the word. Now, a bit late, investigative journalists are digging up dirt on Yee--that stuff could've been seen earlier had we been actively looking.

So that's what I'm calling for--we need to be far more vigilant and vocal moving forward about our state and local politicians, all towards the goal of eventually gaining the political clout the NRA enjoys at the national level.

That's a good point too--if we did it there, at nationals, we can do it here, at the state level. We can follow the NRA's template and playbook and win at home! We can later create a CGF-PVF: the Calguns Foundation Political Victory Fund and start stuffing it with money (in addition to funding the regular CGF). First, we'll start by helping to dig up dirt on anti-gun politicians. Then, we'll support pro-gun opponents of these anti-gunners (yes, even if they are liberal Democrats--all we really have to do is show the incumbent we have the power to replace them, even if we don't like the replacement any better). Eventually we'll groom some pro-gun politicians of our own.

Bit by bit, we'll get there to critical mass and reclaim our rights!

We lack sufficient numbers of voters who think enough like us to vote them the anti-gun politicians out of office.

Democracy is about numbers.

Not ideas.

Want to fix it?

Ask yourself where the numbers are.

Ask yourself which demographic is the fastest growing demographic in all states which you would characterize as "anti-Second-Amendment."

We need a Spanish-Language arm for the NRA and for all state-level organizations.

Until then, we will continue to spin in circles, tread water, take one step forward and two back or whatever metaphor you prefer.

We are stuck.

Only the "Hispanic vote" can get us unstuck.

Mitt, are you listening?
:cool:

sholling
07-24-2012, 2:04 PM
Yes, you can dig up dirt on an anti-2A candidate, but the propaganda machine isn't under our control. One of the problems facing any pro-2A candidate is the mainstream media.
This is so very true. There is almost nothing that will get a anti-gun Progressive any bad press. But a conservative, especially a Republican conservative is always fair game.

sholling
07-24-2012, 2:49 PM
If we donate $25,000 to the moderate, that makes it so that the liberal has to pony up some more of his/her own cash to counterbalance the moderate.
First the Progressive media would immediately accuse the "moderate" of being a bought and paid for lackey for the gun lobby. They would trash him or her daily until he agreed to carry antigun legislation. Meanwhile the hard left would come to the rescue with buckets of money for the hardcore leftists

dchang0
07-24-2012, 5:08 PM
I suggest you actually run a drill before you tell those of us who do how easy it is.

-Brandon

Brandon, I'm gonna tell it like I see it. You may have heard the saying "Do you want to be happy, or do you want to be right?"

Seems plain to me like you're heavily invested in being bitterly right, shooting down ideas left and right, doomsaying till the cows come home. A DEmotivational speaker, so to speak.

Sure, you can challenge me to exhaustively prove why the things I'm talking about will work, but where does that get us? It only makes it so that you can sit back and smugly say, "hey, I told you so--it can't be done." Plain old ego-self-stroking.

We're here to share ideas and share enthusiasm and then share action. Yes, I need correcting--I can't possibly know everything there is on how to do this. The only way that I could is if I had already done it all already. A baby isn't born knowing how to walk--it learns by trial and error and guidance from its parents. Like I said before, let's talk about how we CAN get this done. What works, what doesn't work, what each of us can do. If we're just going to sit here and only talk about how nothing's gonna work, we might as well quit now and turn in our guns.

Finally, it can be easy for us if we each take a small enough bite. If we are going to approach it as disparate individuals, then yes, it'll be hard. But chop it up into little bite-sized pieces and it becomes easy. For this to work, we absolutely have to motivate masses of Calif. gun owners. You're not going to motivate anybody by telling them how hopelessly hard it is to win.

dchang0
07-24-2012, 5:33 PM
Brandon--

I just read the front page of your SaveCRPA.org site. Looks like a soap opera over there. I can sympathetically see why you're feeling somewhat bitter about the pro-gun movement in Calif. I'd been in a nearly identical situation as an officer in the Libertarian Party, fighting to censure and eject a particularly Machiavellian county party chairman that sought to divide the county membership into his followers versus his enemies. We won by escalating to the state party and enlisting the help of the state officers, but it was a Phyrric victory. You might feel like you're going it alone right now. Hey, I've been there. It sucks. I had to build a coalition of officers and take the one guy down. We ended up losing some very dedicated members that for one reason or another had chosen his side. They never came back and wouldn't even return my calls.

May I ask: is it really worth saving the CRPA? Wouldn't it be better to take the CGF, which already has a track record of successes and is well-respected as a force for gun rights, and grow that into a more effective grassroots organization? Is it worth your time and money and strife to fight the CRPA leadership?

I suppose it's the membership that's worth saving. But if the membership is not apparently interested in how they're being led--at least not interested enough to slap down their own leaders (or one particularly narcissistic leader), then it may be better to build a new organization of like-minded individuals. In the end, we re-formed the county party with fresh officers, and I left the party in good hands when I realized I would rather be working for gun-rights groups.

bwiese
07-24-2012, 6:26 PM
dchang,

CGF can't do (much) politics. It can offer comments etc. on bills and do some very limited lobbying as a 501c3.

CRPA reform can fix things.

As Gene and I have said, after some PAC spending occurs, there will be a bit more reticence in outlying nonurban districts to bring up a non-core issue if it means they have to fight $$$ against them.

But that assumes that CRPA management can actually stomach giving money to friendly or neutral Democrats in primaries. Given that CA Reeps are fairly irrelevant to CA politics, we need to play Dem against Dem in primary, since many races will be that way with the CA Reeps fading into Whigdom.

Awhile back there was a SoCal district with a 70% Dem registration. No Reep would do a valid run for the seat except perhaps as a placeholder [i.e, to at least make it a tad contested and/or have someone if the other candidate dropped dead etc]. So the real election was the primary...

...Candidate and incumbent W. had repeatedly lied etc about NRA stances, details, and personalities - far more than "usual politics" and he'd gone way beyond "fair and predictable opposition." Another candidate, S., was running against the entrenched Wally.

It appears that ad signage and billboards somehow appeared near schools saying (in essence) "NRA Supports Wally". Sheila easily won the seat by several percent. Since then, S. has made some antigun noises to keep her district pleased but has not driven or moved bills and has missed votes, etc.

Now that can't be done everytime but that's the kind of thinking we need to have. We don't need to elect rabidly pro-gunners - we just need to elect the gun-issue-lazy and make guns "not a front burner item". We may even need to elect someone that's publicly supported gun control but really doesn't give a crap when it comes to doing legislative work, or votes.

I'm confident it was the latter such person that added special markup language to the microstamping bill.

dchang0
07-24-2012, 7:29 PM
Good point, Bill. We can be clever and support the "lame duck" types that won't lift a finger to do anything against us. Fill that seat with a blow-up doll, if we can!

Thanks for educating me on the CGF's limitation in regards to political action. Okay, now, here's my view on whether the CRPA is worth saving.

One thing I learned the hard way when working in the Libertarian Party is that a large percentage of the membership is merely interested in being part of a SOCIAL CLUB. They had absolutely no interest in advancing the party platform. They were just there to commiserate with fellow Libertarians and *****, *****, *****. In groups, they felt better about shared misery.

Of course, this isn't limited to Libertarians--there are groups of co-commiserators everywhere.

It's the activists that get stuff done. So, my question to you or Brandon is this: how much of the CRPA membership is really activist? Or is it just a glorified social club that holds dinners and shoots and talks a good game but doesn't pony up when the real fight starts up?

If the CRPA IS a social club, is it worth your time, Brandon's time and money, and all of your guys' heartache when it may be more effective to form another group of people who a) are all activists, b) actually get along and work well together, c) are working for the overall cause instead of self-interest, and d) can inspire the general membership to create more activists?

A fight like the one going on at the CRPA can seriously demoralize you, and you guys are crucial to our overall effort. Like I said with the Libertarian Party, we lost some supremely devoted activists to what was a completely internal squabble thanks to one guy who was trying to establish a little fiefdom. People who had volunteered hundreds or thousands of hours over decades and given thousands of dollars left and never returned.

It had to be done--I have no regrets about starting up the fight to take him out. But that was only because it was not possible to start up an alternate county party. There could only be one chartered county party per county, so we had to take it back from him. In this case, the CRPA can be left to its own devices while a more activist group with better leadership is formed.

Call it "CRPA Version 2" or "The Real CRPA" or whatever--but there's nothing stopping us from dropping the CRPA if its membership doesn't care about activism. It might be better to poach the talented, hardworking folks that are worth their salt outta there and leave the leadership there without a following.

wildhawker
07-24-2012, 7:34 PM
Brandon, I'm gonna tell it like I see it. You may have heard the saying "Do you want to be happy, or do you want to be right?"

Neither. I want to win.

Seems plain to me like you're heavily invested in being bitterly right, shooting down ideas left and right, doomsaying till the cows come home. A DEmotivational speaker, so to speak.

I'm invested in saving the Constitution and not wasting time and money on pollyannaish activities.

Sure, you can challenge me to exhaustively prove why the things I'm talking about will work, but where does that get us? It only makes it so that you can sit back and smugly say, "hey, I told you so--it can't be done." Plain old ego-self-stroking.

Nope, sorry. I'm challenging you to offer a substantive argument with real data, and since you can't, you've chosen a defense based on fallacies.

We're here to share ideas and share enthusiasm and then share action. Yes, I need correcting--I can't possibly know everything there is on how to do this. The only way that I could is if I had already done it all already. A baby isn't born knowing how to walk--it learns by trial and error and guidance from its parents. Like I said before, let's talk about how we CAN get this done. What works, what doesn't work, what each of us can do. If we're just going to sit here and only talk about how nothing's gonna work, we might as well quit now and turn in our guns.

Do what you like, but no one's getting my guns. I'm fighting in the war, where have you been?

Finally, it can be easy for us if we each take a small enough bite. If we are going to approach it as disparate individuals, then yes, it'll be hard. But chop it up into little bite-sized pieces and it becomes easy. For this to work, we absolutely have to motivate masses of Calif. gun owners. You're not going to motivate anybody by telling them how hopelessly hard it is to win.

Hopelessly hard? Optimism in the face of adversity and long odds? Let's see. I created and managed, among others:

Stop AB 962
Calguns Community Chapters (C3)
Carry License Sunshine & Compliance Initiative
California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (Cal-FFL)
Stop SB 249

And I have no plans on "giving up" anytime soon. Quite the opposite. (I'm also not trying to be your life coach.)

Brandon--

I just read the front page of your SaveCRPA.org site. Looks like a soap opera over there.

But did you get the point? I think you missed it.

I can sympathetically see why you're feeling somewhat bitter about the pro-gun movement in Calif.

I'm not bitter at all. You're entirely misreading my views.

I'd been in a nearly identical situation as an officer in the Libertarian Party, fighting to censure and eject a particularly Machiavellian county party chairman that sought to divide the county membership into his followers versus his enemies. We won by escalating to the state party and enlisting the help of the state officers, but it was a Phyrric victory. You might feel like you're going it alone right now. Hey, I've been there. It sucks. I had to build a coalition of officers and take the one guy down. We ended up losing some very dedicated members that for one reason or another had chosen his side. They never came back and wouldn't even return my calls.

I'm certainly not alone. See: https://bcombs.net/contributions-received.

May I ask: is it really worth saving the CRPA?

As a fiduciary and a director duly elected by the members of the organization, I believe that I have a duty to do the right thing for the organization and its constituents.

Wouldn't it be better to take the CGF, which already has a track record of successes and is well-respected as a force for gun rights, and grow that into a more effective grassroots organization? Is it worth your time and money and strife to fight the CRPA leadership?

"Worth" is a value judgment. I and others made our decisions to try and Save CRPA years ago and will not stop until all reasonable avenues are exhausted.

CGF will continue to grow in the metrics that matter. We have a lot of exciting stuff rolling out this year. Stay tuned.

I suppose it's the membership that's worth saving. But if the membership is not apparently interested in how they're being led--at least not interested enough to slap down their own leaders (or one particularly narcissistic leader), then it may be better to build a new organization of like-minded individuals. In the end, we re-formed the county party with fresh officers, and I left the party in good hands when I realized I would rather be working for gun-rights groups.

The Constitution, and the principles of our American system of ordered liberty, are worth everything.

You've spent so much time arguing for everything other than your proposal - the proverbial "hope and change" messaging - that I can't recall why you haven't offered any real supporting data.

If you want to talk about this in detail, I am happy to take your call anytime tonight. I'll PM you my number; use it if you wish.

-Brandon

Bolillo
07-24-2012, 7:46 PM
If you want to talk about this in detail, I am happy to take your call anytime tonight. I'll PM you my number; use it if you wish.

-Brandon

And that, dchang0, is "grass roots" defined. Pretty sure Wayne LaPierre doesn't make that offer.

dchang0
07-24-2012, 8:49 PM
Brandon--

We're on the same side and of the same goals then. I'll join you and help you any way I can. It does feel to me like you're being overly negative, but hey, maybe I misread you.

PM inbound.

BTW, don't knock the "Hope & Change" stuff. It got Obama all the way to the White House, didn't it? So it's good for something. Politicians like Diane Feinstein can pull stuff they made up out of their butts and sway more voters than you or I can.

If you don't get why that is, you may not be as capable a leader as you think you are. Earlier, you said that there's a difference between a motivational speaker and a leader. Any truly successful leader knows that motivational speaking is a SKILL that every effective leader absolutely must cultivate. Your insistence on critical/logical argument and disdain for logical fallacies indicates to me that you discount the power of rhetorical argument, which is purposely built on logical fallacies.

The fact of the matter is that critical argument only sways people trained in critical thinking, but rhetorical argument moves (motivates) the masses. People are far more emotional than logical. Politicians deeply understand this truth. That's why all those terrible fallacies like straw men, red herrings, ad hominem, etc., work so well for the people in power. And that's why most of us hate them--we know they're using these fallacious arguments, and yet they keep winning.

Obama made $5.5 million selling his books his first year in office. Doing what? Winning hearts, not minds. No, the truly critical thinkers weren't buying his crap. But the untrained masses, the ones who don't understand the rules of logical argument, bought it all big time. Big enough that he's one of the few people in the world who can legally kill American citizens with a drone strike. Can you or I do that? Do we influence millions of American lives with our decisions? Nope. And so we have to hand it to Obama: rhetorical argument works. Painting the rich as the enemy works, in spite of all the proof that economists can offer that even if we taxed them 100%, it still wouldn't be enough.

Try not to insist too much that others play by the rules of critical/logical argument. I used to, my brother used to, and we both found out that we could be easily beaten at the political game by people with no facts but outstanding rhetorical skills.

That is to say, the arena we are trying to fight in, the political arena, is one place where critical argument doesn't work very well. It works great in, say, academic circles, but rhetorical argument rules the political game. To use this skill, you're going to have to be willing to commit fallacies and let them be committed against you.

arsilva32
07-24-2012, 10:43 PM
cali has been over run by free loaders and liberals , they far out number us . California is destroyed beyond repair. nothing to do now but bail out of this burning disaster and let them have there moronic utopia.



please excuse me while i go bury my head in the sand and cry myself to sleep

Uxi
07-25-2012, 9:01 AM
cali has been over run by free loaders and liberals , they far out number us . California is destroyed beyond repair. nothing to do now but bail out of this burning disaster and let them have there moronic utopia.


Yar, unfortunately I believe this is true. The State is just too big and unwieldy.

I think there are solutions, though, mostly splitting the State up (at least two pieces, though I favor three (http://3cals.phrelin.com/Rationale.htm)).

john.t.singh
07-25-2012, 9:12 AM
CA repub party is so freaking pathetic... no offense but I just read some article where they basically pointed out repubs are dying off like crazy in California.

What's stupid is so many people here would totally fall into the repubs fiscal policies rather than the dems, but are so turned off by the republican social/moral values that they get driven to the other side.

dchang0
07-25-2012, 9:23 AM
CA repub party is so freaking pathetic... no offense but I just read some article where they basically pointed out repubs are dying off like crazy in California.

What's stupid is so many people here would totally fall into the repubs fiscal policies rather than the dems, but are so turned off by the republican social/moral values that they get driven to the other side.

Yeah, I read that article too. The Republicans have basically let their cause (ideology) overwhelm their leadership. That is to say, Calif. Republicans are being controlled by their agenda instead of controlling their agenda.

BUT, we don't have to marry ourselves to the Republicans. In fact, in most races where we can make effective leverage and advance our cause, we probably will be supporting one Democrat over another Democrat.

If we see that the Calif. Republican party AGREES with us but aren't capable of helping us move our agenda forward because they can't put any elected officials in office, what good are they really? We end up being co-commiserators complaining about how we got beaten while we fail to get the outcomes we want.

Calif. Republicans are going to have to become leaders of the people again, and the first step in doing that is actually listening to and championing their followership--the followership who has been signaling that they side with the liberals on social issues. Until then, we have to go it alone on the issues we care about--just like we have been for decades. We certainly can't wait for the Calif. Republicans to get their act together.

wildhawker
07-25-2012, 10:08 AM
BTW, don't knock the "Hope & Change" stuff. It got Obama all the way to the White House, didn't it? ... If you don't get why that is, you may not be as capable a leader as you think you are.

Messaging has a life cycle and this isn't 2008. Perhaps you're not as capable a motivational speaker as you think you are.

Earlier, you said that there's a difference between a motivational speaker and a leader. Any truly successful leader knows that motivational speaking is a SKILL that every effective leader absolutely must cultivate. Your insistence on critical/logical argument and disdain for logical fallacies indicates to me that you discount the power of rhetorical argument, which is purposely built on logical fallacies.

Last I checked you didn't bring to the table money, experience, or people, so unless you think you're persuasive enough to build the empire, you can safely assume I'm considering this Another Calguns.net Thread.

Try not to insist too much that others play by the rules of critical/logical argument. I used to, my brother used to, and we both found out that we could be easily beaten at the political game by people with no facts but outstanding rhetorical skills.

Ask Adam Keigwin if your assumptions are correct.

That is to say, the arena we are trying to fight in, the political arena, is one place where critical argument doesn't work very well. It works great in, say, academic circles, but rhetorical argument rules the political game. To use this skill, you're going to have to be willing to commit fallacies and let them be committed against you.

This is an academic circle. The applied sciences are out where we [at CGF etc.] live every day, so again I'll ask you, where have you been?

First, show up.

-Brandon

dchang0
07-25-2012, 11:33 AM
LOL, with respect, Brandon, what I keep sensing in your posts is an implicit ad hominem attack. For someone who claims to dislike fallacies so much, you sure spend a lot of time attacking me.

Look, you don't know my background, so I can't expect you to know that I am in fact skillful at motivation in other fields. I've done a lot of volunteer work over the years with disadvantaged youths and their families and literally changed lives. I've coached people into taking on new careers that literally put food on their tables and gave them a new lease on life. But that doesn't matter here, because I'm not here to get into a pissing match with you. Yes, you've done and are still doing great things in the pro-gun fight. Great--we're both on the same side.


I'm newer to this pro-gun fight and so am not as up to date on what works and what doesn't. However, this does not mean my skills or methods are worthless, nor does my inexperience in this area mean my ideas are wrong or that they cannot work. Yeah, some ideas may need tweaking, and some may be outright bad ideas, but that's normal. Some of my methods and skills are transferable across fields.

You don't have a monopoly on success in the political arena (as evidenced by the fact that there are many far more successful politicians out there than you or me, capable of raising millions of dollars and getting millions of votes), and there are many ways other people can help. Put another way, just because you've figured out one way to succeed in the pro-gun fight does not mean that it's the ONLY way to succeed. There may be paths you have not tried yet that make work just as well or better.

One thing about being a leader is letting people contribute in the ways they can, even if their way seems wrong or inefficient to you. You may not like my approach or attitude or ideas, but I am still helping in my own way to further the cause. I haven't found a way yet to help CGF or CRPA except by giving money, since my suggestions seem to be rejected out of hand, but I gotta keep trying.

wildhawker
07-25-2012, 2:08 PM
dchango,

I'm happy to facilitate people who want to work with productive actions. It's not my practice to waste energy on people or tasks that aren't worth the time.

Here's how this conversation has gone:

You pitch an idea, and some of us who have experience and institutional knowledge replied with feedback.

You don't like the feedback and, from an ignorant position, question our attitude and principles.

I reply with additional feedback and a request that you offer a substantive argument.

You reply by saying that it isn't always about facts and data, and that rhetoric is the name of the game.

I reply that even your rhetoric is failing to be persuasive.

You reply with another adolescent and meritless tantrum.

I'm sure you're skilled and have something to offer in practice. I suggest you gain experience and perspective by actually working more and talking less, unless you really don't care about results and just want to keep expanding CGN's mySQL database with more about me. I'm flattered that you find me such a compelling matter, but I'd rather see you do what I originally asked and show us exactly what you have in mind with some data that supports the plan.

If you can't sell your fellow gun owners and activists, who are you going to sell it to?

-Brandon

dchang0
07-25-2012, 2:55 PM
dchango,

I'm happy to facilitate people who want to work with productive actions. It's not my practice to waste energy on people or tasks that aren't worth the time.

...

I reply with additional feedback and a request that you offer a substantive argument.

You reply by saying that it isn't always about facts and data, and that rhetoric is the name of the game.

I reply that even your rhetoric is failing to be persuasive.

You reply with another adolescent and meritless tantrum.

...

If you can't sell your fellow gun owners and activists, who are you going to sell it to?

-Brandon

Yes, I failed in selling you and probably anybody else following this thread. I've lost that rhetorical argument for sure many posts ago.

Look at it this way: I got up, made a speech, and you--the heckler--got up and said "prove it!" And since I didn't have a snappy and sufficient comeback at the time, I lost. You may have noticed that basically everybody fell out of this thread at or around the point you heckled me. (No hard feelings--it's perfectly okay with me that you did so. It's an indicator to me that I need to improve my argument.)

Since that point, I've not been trying to prove my case--no need to do so. First of all, I lost, get over it. I've blown speeches before--won't be the last time either. Second, there is no need to persuade you, who are already deep in the fight, of joining the fight or in changing the ways in which you fight. Instead, since then I've been trying to advise you as to two points:

1) Your disdain for rhetoric and motivation of others is going to cap your leadership someday. Maybe not for a while, but you'll hit that ceiling just as I did while learning to lead people. I say this not to make myself seem superior to you but with the honest intention of helping you on your path. You obviously can reject this advice and probably will.

2) You have so far failed to lead ME. I'd join you (working towards a common cause), but I'd never follow you (as a leader). Again, I say this not as an insult or tantrum but as a point upon which you might find room for improvement.

You said "I'm happy to facilitate people who want to work with productive actions. It's not my practice to waste energy on people or tasks that aren't worth the time." Basically this comes across to me (throughout this thread) as "my way or the highway." This is the primary response I've gotten when trying to volunteer with any established small organization. (Larger organizations have effectively overcome this clique-iness to be more inclusive of different personalities, methods, ideas, and beliefs.) This is essentially what you are fighting over at the CRPA--"your way" is going up against "his way." And all the while, the regular followers are jumping ship because they don't want any part of the infighting.

No hard feelings, man. Like I said, I have great respect for you in this fight--you have indeed achieved quite a bit of success. We could probably be friends if we kicked back over some beers--or maybe not. Who knows? I'll keep looking for ways to contribute to the cause.

ssaction
07-25-2012, 9:24 PM
While I believe civility is always the proper path among adversaries, please stop with the "if only we'd be civil to liberal Democrats, they'd side with us and NRA" propaganda. The NRA has been demonized by the Democratic Party in California and to some extent nationally as well. Civil debate is nearly impossible on the issue of firearms any more.

How you got that from:

Because they feel their constituents aren't NRA members and don't agree with the NRA. If disagreeing with the NRA would cost them their seat, they would vote with the NRA positions.

I'm not sure. What I was saying was the California Democratic legislators feel their constituents want them to support gun control. If the voters don't like it, they can vote them out. But they don't vote them out, do they?

vincewarde
08-04-2012, 6:51 PM
NRA will support a Democrat if they are actually pro-gun and have some chance of winning a particular district (preserving their win/loss ratio).

They also have a policy of supporting the incumbent, if they are reasonably pro-gun rights. This is done for two reasons:

1) It's a reward for listening to what the NRA has to say and voting as they want them to vote.

2) The incumbent actually has a record, where as the challenger's rating is usually based on a survey.

Bruce
08-04-2012, 8:27 PM
The number one problem that gun owners in California have to be politically feared in the way that the NRA is nationally is that 95% of PAC or other political spending would be have to be for Democrats against Democrats.

Every time I see a thread like this I ask how many of you would be willing to donate $1000's of dollars to Democrats.

I usually get crickets. :gene:

But that is what the math shows is the only path to electoral fear in CA for the next at least 10 years.

-Gene

Democrats = Gun control. It's been that way ever since Oswald blew their darling JFK's brains all over the inside of the Lincoln. It isn't likely to change either.

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 8:34 PM
It's because we don't have an organized "political victory fund" like the NRA-PVF.

The Calguns Foundation fights mostly in the courts. We need a parallel organization that fights California politicians where they fear it most: at the ballot box.

To some degree, all of Calguns is doing this, but not to the point where Calif. anti-gun politicians are afraid for their jobs.

Case in point: today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Diane Feinstein was there proudly bringing out her old, tired argument against magazines with more than 10 rounds capacity. All this while even Obama is too cowed by the NRA to even mention the word "gun" in his first public statement about the Aurora shooting. Why the difference? Because Feinstein has no fear about us Calif. pro-gun voters. She knows she's got a lock on her office.
!

I don't understand why people think california mag laws would have stopped this guy. Couldn't he have just ordered a mag repair kit and illegally made like drum magazine anyway? Its not like he would care since building a high capacity mag pales in comparison to the criminality and downright evil of shooting over 50 innocent people.

SupportGeek
08-04-2012, 8:56 PM
Part of the problem is that the Democrat politicians dont partcularly play up gun control during their campaign's, and the average CA voter doesnt really have a burning desire to control firearms, the politicians also tend to be very PRO to issues that matter to voters in California, (pro-choice, gay rights, etc) and these kinds of things are more important to CA voters than most other issues.
In a nutshell, they arent afraid because there are no real alternatives that appeal to the avg voter.
Perhaps after the state goes bankrupt, there is a good chance to get others in the seats of power?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

dad
08-04-2012, 8:56 PM
I wouldn't bad mouth the NRA! Maybe you should ask them for some help!
This politician is/was history!

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120804/NEWS02/308040036/Maggart-s-defeat-shows-clout-gun-rights-groups?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

ccmc
08-05-2012, 8:27 AM
Democrats = Gun control.

Yep, that's pretty much it. The vote in the House on the national reciprocity bill showed how true that statement is. If you're holding out for a politician that supports the 2A as well as legal abortion/same sex marriage, you've got a long wait - there aren't many of them out there. In the real political world those issues tend to be mutually exclusive, and will be for a long time to come imho.

glock7
08-05-2012, 8:47 AM
Sorry man, but until we can get this gerrymandered state's districts redrawn, you will never win in the legislature. Get a big political fund together if you want, it won't mean a damn thing.

Don't you think the NRA's war chest isn't available here?

The politicians aren't afraid because they know they will continue to be voted on by mindless liberals no matter how much anyone else spends. And that is why you don't go mouthing off about your gun rights in California, because you will lose.

This^ and i do mouth off about my gun rights, it doesn't matter though if i do. i run across shooters who are pro 2a but anti AR, and i also run across shooters who are pro Obama, it does not make sense, this whole state doesn't make sense. i can't wait to leave....

glock7
08-05-2012, 9:00 AM
one factor i haven't seen mentioned yet is the fear of gangs and drug related activities...

deleon and portantino are obsessed with this ... no matter the affect on ALL.

logic has no place in their system; it's that simple.

exactly, gangs, drug dealers and criminals will have all the illegal guns and commit the crimes that the law abiding firearm owning responsible citizens cannot....

zombiescanlearn
08-05-2012, 9:05 AM
Okay, guys... A few notes:

1) We don't need to hear reasons why we CAN'T do this. We need to hear reasons and ideas on how we CAN do this.

2) It's not going to happen overnight. It took the national NRA a couple of decades to build up to the strength it has now. All of this in the face of overwhelming odds.

3) We don't need to win big to win. That is to say, we don't have to take over Sacramento, we don't have to utterly destroy gerrymandering, we don't have to achieve Republican one-party rule. All we have to do is stop the handful of politicians who author the bills in the first place, which are currently: Yee, DeLeon, Perata, Feinstein, et al. We only need to make them think twice before authoring another anti-gun bill.

And of course, we can support our allies in the committees. We do have supporters there who can kill bills before they get out onto the floor.


It's all about LEVERAGE in the beginning. We apply the right pressure, money, and volunteer hours to the right persons, and BAM, we start blocking gun control bills.

Also, we're going to have to think one-issue sometimes--given the choice between a proudly-anti-gun-big-spending politician and a scared-of-us-big-spending politician, which do we support? Easy choice.

Now, who do we support when it's an anti-gun-big-spending politician versus an anti-gun-fiscally-responsible politician? Easy choice too.

Then, who do we choose if it's a pro-gun-big-spending politician versus an anti-gun-fiscally-responsible politician? Well, that's not so easy a choice (for conservatives), pitting guns versus fiscal/economic policy. But ask yourself this: HOW OFTEN DO WE EVER ENCOUNTER A PRO-GUN-BIG-SPENDING POLITICIAN OR AN ANTI-GUN-FISCALLY-RESPONSIBLE POLITICIAN? Almost never, so this whole "I'm not a one-issue voter" isn't a real dilemma. Our most frequent choice will be between two anti-gun-big-spending politicians, and all we have to do is scare one of them into becoming a little less anti-gun.

Put in plain English: sometimes we have to choose between the lesser of two evils (please note that I am resisting using the word "Democrat" because I do not wish to demonize all Democrats--there ARE pro-gun Democrats out there). We merely have to show either or both of these evils that we are strong enough to make a difference in their election so that they keep their anti-gun tendencies subdued.

Sorry in advance for not reading the entire thread but can you list for us who our allies are that are already in office so that we can swing our support to them? And maybe a list of candidates who we may want to be in office?

Thanks.

glock7
08-05-2012, 9:06 AM
Brandon, I'm gonna tell it like I see it. You may have heard the saying "Do you want to be happy, or do you want to be right?"

Seems plain to me like you're heavily invested in being bitterly right, shooting down ideas left and right, doomsaying till the cows come home. A DEmotivational speaker, so to speak.

Sure, you can challenge me to exhaustively prove why the things I'm talking about will work, but where does that get us? It only makes it so that you can sit back and smugly say, "hey, I told you so--it can't be done." Plain old ego-self-stroking.

We're here to share ideas and share enthusiasm and then share action. Yes, I need correcting--I can't possibly know everything there is on how to do this. The only way that I could is if I had already done it all already. A baby isn't born knowing how to walk--it learns by trial and error and guidance from its parents. Like I said before, let's talk about how we CAN get this done. What works, what doesn't work, what each of us can do. If we're just going to sit here and only talk about how nothing's gonna work, we might as well quit now and turn in our guns.

Finally, it can be easy for us if we each take a small enough bite. If we are going to approach it as disparate individuals, then yes, it'll be hard. But chop it up into little bite-sized pieces and it becomes easy. For this to work, we absolutely have to motivate masses of Calif. gun owners. You're not going to motivate anybody by telling them how hopelessly hard it is to win.

i applaud your thoughts and ideas. I would be on board if you get something together like that.

glock7
08-05-2012, 9:15 AM
dchango,

I'm happy to facilitate people who want to work with productive actions. It's not my practice to waste energy on people or tasks that aren't worth the time.

Here's how this conversation has gone:

You pitch an idea, and some of us who have experience and institutional knowledge replied with feedback.

You don't like the feedback and, from an ignorant position, question our attitude and principles.

I reply with additional feedback and a request that you offer a substantive argument.

You reply by saying that it isn't always about facts and data, and that rhetoric is the name of the game.

I reply that even your rhetoric is failing to be persuasive.

You reply with another adolescent and meritless tantrum.

I'm sure you're skilled and have something to offer in practice. I suggest you gain experience and perspective by actually working more and talking less, unless you really don't care about results and just want to keep expanding CGN's mySQL database with more about me. I'm flattered that you find me such a compelling matter, but I'd rather see you do what I originally asked and show us exactly what you have in mind with some data that supports the plan.

If you can't sell your fellow gun owners and activists, who are you going to sell it to?

-Brandon

^ and this is why we fail....if you are trying to recruit folks to help out, this blatantly negative attitude is why we are in the "state" that CA firearms owners are in.

ccmc
08-05-2012, 12:15 PM
Just to translate the party registration numbers:

44 percent are Democrats, 31 percent are Republicans, 20 percent are DTS (decline to state).

The most recent numbers in Florida are 39 pct democrat, 36 pct republican and 25 pct no party affiliation. Big difference in gun laws - perhaps most of the 25 pct NPA vote with the republicans, at least on firearms issues.

wildhawker
08-05-2012, 1:05 PM
^ and this is why we fail....if you are trying to recruit folks to help out, this blatantly negative attitude is why we are in the "state" that CA firearms owners are in.

Nope. We've been working and winning for years - where have you been?

-Brandon

njineermike
08-05-2012, 1:48 PM
Nope. We've been working and winning for years - where have you been?

-Brandon

Yep. California is the nations leader in fighting draconian gun laws. Other states look to US for clues as to how to fight in thier states. We have the CRPA and CalGuns to thanks for that.

Funtimes
08-05-2012, 1:56 PM
1. The republicants demanded redistricting and got it. They will likely lose seats for it.

2. Term limits means we have to "re-train" members when they term out. Member turnover is expensive.

3. Gun owners are generally disengaged and unwilling to pay for serious anything, let alone politics.

Oh, and http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-general/02-county-voter-reg-stats-by-county.pdf.

-Brandon

I wonder how those things will look once the marriage issues are handled by the court and the 'right' side can't go crying about it anymore. I'm thinking more people will be sort of republican then lol.

Gray Peterson
08-05-2012, 2:24 PM
I wonder how those things will look once the marriage issues are handled by the court and the 'right' side can't go crying about it anymore. I'm thinking more people will be sort of republican then lol.

I believe you would be correct, though I differentiate "right" from "anti-gay", just as much as I differentiate "left" from "anti-gun".

I think we're entering a bit of a seismic shift on politics on those two issues in the next decade. I could wrote a treatise on it (though it's unscientific, I'm not a professor or a statistician).