Mike a "Plant"?

[Renron]

Anybody else read the article and come up with the thought that maybe "Mike" was a "plant" by the anti-gunners?
Why else would he wear a bandana and position the rifle (not an AW) pointing at the camera? Could have just as easily been photographed laying on it's side for a better view.
I think it was all setup by the reporter and her agenda-tasked newspaper.
Whadda think?

Renron

[MrTuffPaws]

Anybody else read the article and come up with the thought that maybe "Mike" was a "plant" by the anti-gunners?
Why else would he wear a bandana and position the rifle (not an AW) pointing at the camera? Could have just as easily been photographed laying on it's side for a better view.
I think it was all setup by the reporter and her agenda-tasked newspaper.
Whadda think?

Renron

Or Mike was just a stupid gun owner. There are a lot of those around.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I don't care. No one should care. Mike is Mike and I am me. I can't control him nor do I think in the long term he is going to make any difference. Instead of wasting our time here worrying about the insignificant impact this one news article is going to be on the grand scheme of things, we could be out taking fence sitters shooting, helping at junior shooting events, writing our legislators, or writing letters to the editor. We could be doing just about anything other than worrying that the people who hate guns might see a picture of Mike and hate guns even more. IT DOESN'T MATTER!

I am going to go do my part for the cause right now and fix my lawn sprinklers. Then after that I am going to go to my gun shop and put more guns into the hands of honest law-abiding citizens of this state.

[Surveyor]

I don't care. No one should care. Mike is Mike and I am me. I can't control him nor do I think in the long term he is going to make any difference. Instead of wasting our time here worrying about the insignificant impact this one news article is going to be on the grand scheme of things, we could be out taking fence sitters shooting, helping at junior shooting events, writing our legislators, or writing letters to the editor. We could be doing just about anything other than worrying that the people who hate guns might see a picture of Mike and hate guns even more. IT DOESN'T MATTER!

I am going to go do my part for the cause right now and fix my lawn sprinklers. Then after that I am going to go to my gun shop and put more guns into the hands of honest law-abiding citizens of this state.

Alright, that's it!

There is no need to fix your sprinklers in this weather! Why I forgot that I even have sprinklers! Just go to the shop and sell lots of guns.

[Stanze]

It's not a bandanna, it's a Tickle Me Elmo Mall Ninja Mask!

[Renron]

Unfortunately the trend is for CA laws to be written to cover the least common denominator. Traffic laws for instance: max speed limits, lights on whenever wipers are on and. All because of low performance drivers.

Just like OLL, I found a way around that wiper nonsense law, its called RainX. I don't turn my wipers on ever!!!!!

Renron

[bwiese]

Anybody else read the article and come up with the thought that maybe "Mike" was a "plant" by the anti-gunners? Why else would he wear a bandana and position the rifle (not an AW) pointing at the camera? Could have just as easily been photographed laying on it's side for a better view.
I think it was all setup by the reporter and her agenda-tasked newspaper.
Whadda think?

Not at all. I think it's a plant "by us" (meaning our side in general, whether or not we regard his specific statements as ideal). Mike may be a Calgunner here - or once removed (i.e., who knows someone here). Some of his concepts/phrasing etc may not be the most apropos or diplomatic, but at least he got a ball is rolling.

Either (1) Mike 'triggered' the article and contacted paper, or (2) my PR fax blast a few weeks ago to various media organizations triggered the author's investigation, and she subsequently found/interviewed Mike.

Some of the misconceptions in the article might have actually come from Mike (lordy knows, there's a lot of folks here who still don't get all the AW laws - look at all the crazy questions here in the Forums) and were then further reshaped by author. There also could be confusion in all parties between legislation and regulation... so that's why I don't read too much into it. It did miss the "Bill Lockyer AG + DOJ is lazy" aspect, and perhaps Mike is not himself even aware of that angle.

Nevertheless as a first step in getting into MSM, it's a triumph. Things'll cross-pollinate from here.

Frankly I don't find the article that biased, esp for a newbie cub reporter who has no idea about CA gun laws or any gun familiarity. and probably had only 1/2 hour to learn some of the issues.

[sintax]

I hope you're putting in a CA PC semi-auto drip watering systems and none of those spray and pray, high capacity, water wasting area coverage heads.

OMFG are you nuts!! High Capacity anything is 140% illegal in CA. Time to trade in my 400hp high capacity LS1 V8 in on a hybrid civic =(

[xenophobe]

And watch out when you flush that High Capacity Toilet! OMG the horror! lol

[bwiese]

And watch out when you flush that High Capacity Toilet! OMG the horror! lol

Hell, I'm looking for new high-capacity (unapproved-for-home) toilets....

Remember when you didn't have to flush twice to do the job right?

About 2 years ago I upgraded the john in my downstairs 1/2 bath to a nice Kohler job that supposedly had "high turbulence" and could flush "18 golf balls". Eventually my upstairs 2 baths would be upgraded to the same john...

.... but they lied.

Supposedly these 1.8gal toilets save water, but not if you have to flush twice.

And even if I flushed 3X as much, with 3X as much water, and showered 3X daily, my water bill would only go up a couple of bucks - as most of my water bill in San Jose is for "conveyance" or "service" and not the actual water itself!

[PanzerAce]

All I know is that I hate low flush toilets. Probably for the same reason that if I was going to own a 4x4, it would be the least efficient possible. I Figure if Im going to damage the environment, I might as well go full bore

[xrMike]

Mike came off as a fake, a plant, or a phoney to me too when he said: "It would be better to have NO guns at all, but if there are going to be guns around, I want to be one of the people holding one..."

No gun enthusiast I've ever known, EVER, could bring himself to say that it would be a better world without guns. That would be pure sacrilege. A profanity of the highest order. A desecration of the holy covenant that binds us together. I think the reporter made that part up.

[bwiese]

Mike came off as a fake, a plant, or a phoney to me too when he said: "It would be better to have NO guns at all, but if there are going to be guns around, I want to be one of the people holding one..."

What happened...

....A Central Valley Calgunner here (who shall remain nameless) apparently triggered the article somehow thru a chain of connections. Mike is a young guy and a friend/ acquaintance of a Calgunner here. Mike is certainly not the most poltically apt person. [Mike himself is apparently not a Calguns member - which means the OLL craze has really spread outside the confines of the "true gunny" world.]

The assigned reporter went to a local gunshow to investigate further, looking for someone to interview, and found a willing participant in Mike.

Thus, some of the legal inaccuracies in the article were likely due to Mike's misinterpretations and casual statments being taken at full value, intermingled with the smoke & mirrors from DOJ's Alison Merrilees. Thus the articles' discussion about legislation vs regulatory law should be taken with a grain of salt.

Reporter may well have asked others, who chose not to be interviewed. At least Mike stepped up to the bar. If he hadn't, there might not've been an article at all.

The article is said to have triggered a high amount of web traffic.

[xrMike]

Ah so... You appear to have some inside sources re: the evolution of that story. Thanks for sharing the info.

Mike was real then... Just struck me as strange, since I've never known a gun owner or range buddy to believe that ideally, guns should not exist. Most of us think that gun ownership is a right, and guns should be owned and enjoyed by all good citizens in our society.

I think I see the bigger picture though, and have faith (like you do) that any and all publicity of this OLL situation will only result in a positive outcome for us in the end. Even though Mike came off a little 'sketchy', he helped more than hurt.

[mow]

Hell, I'm looking for new high-capacity (unapproved-for-home) toilets....

Remember when you didn't have to flush twice to do the job right?

About 2 years ago I upgraded the john in my downstairs 1/2 bath to a nice Kohler job that supposedly had "high turbulence" and could flush "18 golf balls". Eventually my upstairs 2 baths would be upgraded to the same john...

.... but they lied.

Supposedly these 1.8gal toilets save water, but not if you have to flush twice.

And even if I flushed 3X as much, with 3X as much water, and showered 3X daily, my water bill would only go up a couple of bucks - as most of my water bill in San Jose is for "conveyance" or "service" and not the actual water itself!

I just redid my bathroom .... You know I had to get a new toilet So I went to Home Depot and picked up the American Standard - Champion model.... it is nice let me tell you!

The side of the box says 2 things that caught my eye .....

1. Will flush 18 golfballs in one flush

the other thing that caught my eye

2. Throw away your plunger

Needless to say I was sold, 5 months later I can tell you that it has never repeat NEVER stopped up. The old one was bad, constantly 2 flushing and sometimes plunging.... now I got my baby wipes and I'm care free....

Sorry about the off-topic, proceed