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

[dchang0]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

[john.t.singh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.