PDA

View Full Version : Conversation with Adam Keigwan


USMCM16A2
08-06-2012, 1:24 PM
Folks,


I just spent 10 minutes on the phone with Adam Keigwan, the conversation was quite civil. He let me speak, I let him speak. I explained that gun-owners are tired of being lumped into the catagory "blood thirsty, savage etc" of course he knew nothing about "those comments". I explained that "welding" the mag-catch was a dangerous proposition, double feeds, ruptured case heads, the legalities of transporting a damaged but loaded firearm. He was not combative or defensive, he and Yee right or wrong believe in what they are doing. But lets make sure the truth does not get in the way. Well ladies and gents now that I have met the enemy, and completely understand his mentality and ignorance, throw me in the briar patch. A2 :43::43::43:

RazzB7
08-06-2012, 1:25 PM
His actions on his Twitter account point towards the inability to have a civil discourse. Glad that was not the case for you.

Dantedamean
08-06-2012, 1:26 PM
What was his response to the fact a welded mag is dangerous?

Mendo223
08-06-2012, 1:28 PM
thanks for your efforts?


what if we kept calling him hour after hour night and day.....


i want to ask him

1. HOW MANY CRIMES COMMITTED WITH BB'd RIFLES.

2. NO RIFLES USED IN WISCONSIN, WHY LIE?

3. WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?

Soldier415
08-06-2012, 1:28 PM
tag

OleCuss
08-06-2012, 1:31 PM
I appreciated the report.

And yeah, California virtually banning the most commonly used rifle in the US and in California should work very well at the district, appellate, and SCOTUS levels?!!!

Unless my legal ignorance betrays me, that is about as certain a loser as you could choose given the previous SCOTUS language. . .

mag360
08-06-2012, 1:48 PM
thanks for your efforts?


what if we kept calling him hour after hour night and day.....


i want to ask him

1. HOW MANY CRIMES COMMITTED WITH BB'd RIFLES. They can just take off the bullet button and have an assault rifle

2. NO RIFLES USED IN WISCONSIN, WHY LIE? they could have used a rifle

3. WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
it just means you need to build more prisons, we are keeping people safer

Me too but this is how they respond. they think they are on a moral crusade, they are right, we are wrong, nothing we can do or say will convince them.

Clownpuncher
08-06-2012, 1:49 PM
I appreciated the report.

And yeah, California virtually banning the most commonly used rifle in the US and in California should work very well at the district, appellate, and SCOTUS levels?!!!

Unless my legal ignorance betrays me, that is about as certain a loser as you could choose given the previous SCOTUS language. . .

I tend to agree with your thought process but I would imagine they are ok with that. I mean, how long will it take for the process to work its way through the courts? Even if the overturn is inevitable, in their mind I'm sure they are thinking if they can delay the purchase or use of the "evil" guns, even for a day, then they are ok with that.

USMCM16A2
08-06-2012, 1:53 PM
Folks,


One thing has become blaringly apparent, Yee and Keigwan, are just like the other folks in the anti camp, they believe in what they are doing. We do not want to give one inch, neither do they. But what we have on our side are the court decisions, case law on the bullet button. They do not seem to be able to analyse how precarious this bill makes "THEIR" position, that they may be able to win a battle by getting the legislation passed, but they will probably lose the war. Politicians cannot legislate firearms out of exsistance, just because something may be "potentially used illegally" to quote Mr Keigwan. A2

dantodd
08-06-2012, 1:56 PM
One thing has become blaringly apparent, Yee and Keigwan, are just like the other folks in the anti camp, they believe in what they are doing.

So did the "separate but equal" advocates. Do you not think Gov. George Wallace believed in what he did?

Having belief does not absolve wrongdoing nor does it negate the reality of good vs. evil.

OleCuss
08-06-2012, 2:21 PM
I tend to agree with your thought process but I would imagine they are ok with that. I mean, how long will it take for the process to work its way through the courts? Even if the overturn is inevitable, in their mind I'm sure they are thinking if they can delay the purchase or use of the "evil" guns, even for a day, then they are ok with that.

That may, indeed, be what they are thinking.

But I'd bet that shortly prior to implementation of the law you'd have the NRA, CGF, SAF, and maybe a few others filing for a rather focused injunction to prevent implementation of at least portions of the law.

I think there is a pretty good chance that they'll be granted the injunction. That would mean that the law is never implemented.

Not being a lawyer and the language not yet being settled, I'm really not sure how bad all this would look in court. But we could lose the political battle to prevent this bad law and dance some happy jigs in court as a result.

And yes, bad law is bad law and should be opposed. But sometimes there is a very heavy silver lining to a cloud. In fact, sometimes it's a platinum lining. . .

taperxz
08-06-2012, 2:27 PM
If passed it will go to court where the law will be stayed. It may then go all the way to SCOTUS where "guns in common use" will be defined and then Yee will be solely responsible for putting AWs in the hands of every man, woman and child in America. That's what this bill will do if passed.

Goosebrown
08-06-2012, 2:34 PM
"If passed it will go to court where the law will be stayed. It may then go all the way to SCOTUS where "guns in common use" will be defined and then Yee will be solely responsible for putting AWs in the hands of every man, woman and child in America. That's what this bill will do if passed. "

I hope you're right.

curtisfong
08-06-2012, 2:43 PM
More people should be expressing their distaste for gun control DIRECTLY to Adam.

Be courteous. Be factual.

If possible, say you are a democrat who is strongly interested in civil rights. Do not insult liberals, democrats, obama, blah blah blah.

Adam is the direct line into Yee's brain. That addled, confused, deranged old man (like most politicians) is controlled by his staffers and the lobbyists that keep the staffers employed with their $$$.

NotEnufGarage
08-06-2012, 2:46 PM
If passed it will go to court where the law will be stayed. It may then go all the way to SCOTUS where "guns in common use" will be defined and then Yee will be solely responsible for putting AWs in the hands of every man, woman and child in America. That's what this bill will do if passed.

Won't that be sweet to have Yee responsible for the AWB being overturned by SCOTUS?!?!?,

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

OleCuss
08-06-2012, 2:58 PM
If passed it will go to court where the law will be stayed. It may then go all the way to SCOTUS where "guns in common use" will be defined and then Yee will be solely responsible for putting AWs in the hands of every man, woman and child in America. That's what this bill will do if passed.

It may not be quite that straightforward. And it may be even better than you project.

Too early to tell. And I am not so sure we've even seen the final text, so prognostication may be a little premature.

USMCM16A2
08-06-2012, 2:59 PM
Curtis,



I did voice my displeasure at these types of laws, but to really say what I needed to say I had to keep his interest. As I said in my earlier responses Keigwan and his ilk only understand what they are doing, they do not hear what we are saying. So, we as group will have to get into the legal arena, whip out our legal KBAR , and have a pit fight until we win. That is all these people understand. A2

taperxz
08-06-2012, 3:00 PM
It may not be quite that straightforward. And it may be even better than you project.

Too early to tell. And I am not so sure we've even seen the final text, so prognostication may be a little premature.

As you can tell that was my bare bones analysis. No need to talk about the parallel to prop 8 at this point:)

Rekrab
08-06-2012, 3:30 PM
Before anyone calls Senator Yee's office, or the office of any other possible supporters of this bill, I'd recommend reading over this: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=386540

Read it, commit things to memory and then enter into a civil discourse with the folks you're calling.

To quote myself:

1. Be Courteous – Let’s make allies, not enemies.
2. Be Respectful – Just because you disagree, don’t be rude.
3. Be Clear – Before contact, make a short list of talking points.
4. Be Relatable – Drop jargon (OLL, BB, C&R) and use
understandable language.
5. Be Succinct – Keep it short and sweet!
6. Be Persistent – Don’t let them forget who you are! Call them
back the next week and the week after and so on!
7. Be Patient – Not everyone comes around first, second, or third try.

curtisfong
08-06-2012, 3:33 PM
A2,

I think you misunderstood my post :)

I am ecstatic that you talked to Adam directly, and at length. And, from the sounds of it, it was civil. We need everybody to do the same.

Kudos to you.

easy
08-06-2012, 3:56 PM
...just because something may be "potentially used illegally" to quote Mr Keigwan...

Let's examine that position....really.
cars
airplanes
hammers
ball bats
rocks

Cypriss32
08-06-2012, 5:03 PM
Most people on here dont understand how anti gun people really are. They believe something so much that NO MATTER WHAT YOU SHOW THEM OR PROVE YOU CANT CHANGE THEIR MINDS. I had a ex (YES EX) that was ANTI gun and no matter what I said or proved to her she still felt that gun shouldnt be in the hands of "normal people". They should only be held by the government........ She was a lunny, and the only way to fix this is to get people to VOTE them out of office.

curtisfong
08-06-2012, 5:11 PM
In my experience that is totally untrue, unless you are dealing with a person with real cognitive issues.

Most anti-gun people argue from a position of absolute ignorance. Once they are educated, and have spent time on the range, it isn't hard to get them to comprehend the facts, and let them come to their own conclusions.

They may not become NRA members, but their anti-gun position will soften quite a bit with the right approach.

freonr22
08-06-2012, 5:22 PM
In my experience that is totally untrue, unless you are dealing with a person with real cognitive issues.

Most anti-gun people argue from a position of absolute ignorance. Once they are educated, and have spent time on the range, it isn't hard to get them to comprehend the facts, and let them come to their own conclusions.

They may not become NRA members, but their anti-gun position will soften quite a bit with the right approach.

politely Curtis, My sister and b-i-l, are extremely anti, no talking would ever change their mind. they have a 100 friends that are the same way..

SkyMag68
08-06-2012, 5:47 PM
Most people on here dont understand how anti gun people really are. They believe something so much that NO MATTER WHAT YOU SHOW THEM OR PROVE YOU CANT CHANGE THEIR MINDS. I had a ex (YES EX) that was ANTI gun and no matter what I said or proved to her she still felt that gun shouldnt be in the hands of "normal people". They should only be held by the government........ She was a lunny, and the only way to fix this is to get people to VOTE them out of office.

^^that is definitely true..the only way to stop anti-guns politicians is to VOTE.

curtisfong
08-06-2012, 6:06 PM
^^that is definitely true..the only way to stop anti-guns politicians is to VOTE.

Dead end in CA. You'll never replace any D incumbent with an R. You'd better start working on getting D's interested in gun control in the form of civil rights or you're not going to get anywhere.

Capybara
08-06-2012, 6:18 PM
Antis rarely base their beliefs from a position of logic and detached intellectualism, they are almost always "passionate" (translation: emotional) about gun control because they truly believe that an issue as complex and multifaceted as gun violence can be controlled through simple regulation.

The higher up the ladder you go, from ordinary citizens to local and regional politicians, that "passion" for gun control is usually infested with a superiority complex (I am a leader, you peons must have intelligent great minds like mine to tell you what you need or don't need).

Once in the realm of the Feinsteins, Bradys, Holders, Clintons and Obamas, they are no different than rock stars and celebrities, they truly believe that they are superior beings who should be able to dictate policy to the masses. I have worked with Senators, very influential business leaders and hundreds of celebrities. 85% of them are insecure narcissists, they use their position as an identity. Who would know Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Sarah Brady and many others if their own identities and id were not synonymous with gun control? Expecting them to ever turn around on this issue would be like expecting them to grow a third arm, just not going to happen.

Anti-gun stances are anti-civil rights, anti-intellectual and illogical. As you go up the ladder, the people propagating this thought become more and more deluded.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-06-2012, 6:24 PM
In my experience that is totally untrue, unless you are dealing with a person with real cognitive issues.

Most anti-gun people argue from a position of absolute ignorance. Once they are educated, and have spent time on the range, it isn't hard to get them to comprehend the facts, and let them come to their own conclusions.

They may not become NRA members, but their anti-gun position will soften quite a bit with the right approach.

Yes.

Ignorance breeds fear.
Ignorance can be changed through education and responsible activism.

A.W.D.

HowardW56
08-06-2012, 6:30 PM
Folks,


I just spent 10 minutes on the phone with Adam Keigwan, the conversation was quite civil. He let me speak, I let him speak. I explained that gun-owners are tired of being lumped into the catagory "blood thirsty, savage etc" of course he knew nothing about "those comments". I explained that "welding" the mag-catch was a dangerous proposition, double feeds, ruptured case heads, the legalities of transporting a damaged but loaded firearm. He was not combative or defensive, he and Yee right or wrong believe in what they are doing. But lets make sure the truth does not get in the way. Well ladies and gents now that I have met the enemy, and completely understand his mentality and ignorance, throw me in the briar patch. A2 :43::43::43:


I attempted to communicate with him, while we were both civil throughout the conversation, I felt as if all I got was political doublespeak... Talking to him makes you want to wash your hands and check your wallet when it is over...

jdberger
08-06-2012, 6:32 PM
^^that is definitely true..the only way to stop anti-guns politicians is to VOTE.

No. It's getting involved in their opponents' campaigns.

Your vote is just worth one vote. Your time, energy and treasure are worth that at least ten-fold.

Bruceisontarget
08-06-2012, 6:40 PM
Dead end in CA. You'll never replace any D incumbent with an R. You'd better start working on getting D's interested in gun control in the form of civil rights or you're not going to get anywhere.

Respectfully... that's nonsense. Case in point, Wisconsin and Scott Walker. All the liberal media had Walker out on a rail... surprise, common sense prevailed. Common sense can once again prevail here too. The best approach is to point out the legal cost of their folly and how California can't afford the fight they can't win. Afterall, the state is broke and the D's caused it.

mag360
08-06-2012, 6:56 PM
If passed it will go to court where the law will be stayed. It may then go all the way to SCOTUS where "guns in common use" will be defined and then Yee will be solely responsible for putting AWs in the hands of every man, woman and child in America. That's what this bill will do if passed.

as much as i want to see that happen, how come the original "AWCA" act of 1989 wasn't overturned? OR SB23, or Cook county AW ban, or Massachusetts AWB or what is it called Heller II in DC?

How are all those "featured" semi auto bans still standing, why would this be different?

taperxz
08-06-2012, 7:21 PM
as much as i want to see that happen, how come the original "AWCA" act of 1989 wasn't overturned? OR SB23, or Cook county AW ban, or Massachusetts AWB or what is it called Heller II in DC?

How are all those "featured" semi auto bans still standing, why would this be different?

Simple :) The 2A was not incorporated against the states back then. The right was not acknowledged by the states. It is now!

Librarian
08-06-2012, 7:31 PM
as much as i want to see that happen, how come the original "AWCA" act of 1989 wasn't overturned? OR SB23, or Cook county AW ban, or Massachusetts AWB or what is it called Heller II in DC?

How are all those "featured" semi auto bans still standing, why would this be different?

In order for them to be overturned, each one requires a suit against it.

Every state and lower jurisdiction will argue 'Well, our law meets strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny); we obviously have a compelling state interest.'

XD40SUBBIE
08-06-2012, 7:47 PM
Won't that be sweet to have Yee responsible for the AWB being overturned by SCOTUS?!?!?,

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Don't forget about Kamala...she's now a part of this- not that I ever thought she wasn't...I was just hoping...or was it a fantasy?

Dreaded Claymore
08-06-2012, 8:13 PM
This is a very empowering thread. I am inspired to start ringing their phones off the hook much more often!

HowardW56
08-06-2012, 8:18 PM
This is a very empowering thread. I am inspired to start ringing their phones off the hook much more often!

Start with the members of the appropriations committee!

USMCM16A2
08-06-2012, 8:28 PM
Dante,


Keigwan responded to my questions about welded mag releases with a lot of back pedaling. I told him that AR15 owners would have a serious safety hazard on their hands if they could not remove the magazine to clear a jam, had a double fed, ruptured case. I also explained to him that if a rifle had the formentioned problems that it would be illegal to transport a damaged but loaded firearm ANYWHERE.
I also addressed his tweet about any gun-smith could weld up the latch. I said to get a gunsmith in Socal would be a months long undertaking. That even if you found one willing to take the firearm, it would take MONTHS to get it back. There are about 3-5 gunsmiths here in the Valley, and they have more work than they can handle. But every logical counter to his non-logic was met with just more babble. Guys, all I can say is that Yee/Keigwan are tying their own hanging rope. In their minds the rightfulness of the cause trumps both the US Constitution, and the California Constitution. But we know better, A2

Rekrab
08-06-2012, 8:52 PM
Don't forget about Kamala...she's now a part of this- not that I ever thought she wasn't...I was just hoping...or was it a fantasy?

She was staying quiet for a long time. I suspect the attention that we gave her by quoting her is what drew her out.

mag360
08-06-2012, 9:49 PM
Its been 3 years and not one "aw" ban has fallen. Surely not all the other districts had a case like nordyke holding stuff up?

javalos
08-06-2012, 11:08 PM
LeLand Yee and Adam Keigwan have their own preconceived ideas about firearms and firearm owners. Taking them shooting and introducing them to down-to-earth gun owners helps, but may not change their minds. They think if SB-249 gets signed into law, its a win. In reality its a loss for everyone in terms of loss of freedom that you can't get back. LeLand and Adam could someday be in a position where they might need a rifle that they banned and it won't be available to them.

I'm glad civil talk went good with Adam, but its the Appropriations Committee we need to be talking to.