California CCW - concealed carry forum

car•i•ca•ture

1 : exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics
2 : a representation especially in literature or art that has the qualities of caricature

As I have said in other posts the NRA is not racist. The hateful speech that the liberals at Wonkette, Not democrats, have put to the caricatures of the usual suspects in the 2nd amendment fight was written by liberals. Read the document. Where do you find hate speech?

Does anyone disagree with the points taken in the yet as unpublished document? If so, a closer study of the recent past is in order. Does any one agree with Patrica Konie’s treatment? Do you even know what was done and continues be done in New Orleans?

I do now and will continue to stand by the National Rifle Association. To my knowledge they are the only organization that has stepped up to the plate, in court , for equal treatment of all minorities relating to the 2nd amendment. We have not fire bombed, vandalized, robbed, or beaten anyone for firearms rights. Each of the groups chastised in the document have proudly claimed to do so. They have promised to continue until they get their way.

If the official stand of this website is to commend those groups and distort the stand of the National Rifle Association, then I want no part of this. Deceitful and inflammatory posts do nothing for anyone except inflate the poster in their own vision.

I understood this to be a tolerant CCW issues website; that particularly chooses not to let political opinion become the order of the day. I have censored my political beliefs considerably when posting here to conform to this standard. I have been amazed at the diversity of this group. Serious reflection is in order.

The original post asked if the NRA was worth joining, when did it become ok to distort the facts to the point of libel to answer that question?

Lee F. Smith wrote:

If the official stand of this website is to commend those groups and distort the stand of the National Rifle Association, then I want no part of this.

I commend Wonkette for a) leaking that document and b) their staff member Ken joining this site. They are, as you indicated, a site that uses caricature and humor and satire mixed in with their document leaks, and certainly Wonkette is on the liberal and Democratic side of things. It would be a mistake to try to come to a simple conclusion about Wonkette, because they have this mix of real leaks, satire, and commentary from a decidely partisan view. Ken has also indicated that he supports the RKBA. Cool! Their original commentary on the images was that pro-gun Democrats may have been betrayed by the NRA. That's a long discussion and one I don't want to have here. I think this whole topic has been a big diversion, and I'm as guilty as anyone for that, and as G&S said, the NRA, and this whole topic, is tangential to what this site is about. This site is about getting people issued and improving the CCW law here in California, and that's it. We have already succeeded in helping many many people get issued, and raised the awareness of CCW in California, and the first rumblings of a legilslative effort are beginning.

I think that discussions of the NRA are best left for other forums. Forum members may want to hear this from me, so here goes: The NRA has been very effective at blocking a lot of bad laws over the years, at both the Federal level, and, more quietly, here in California. They have also worked effectively in the courts. I don't agree with many of their stances but they have made a big difference, for the good, for a long time. Those of you who chose to be NRA members, I commend you on that. Those who choose not to, but who are actively supporting gun rights in other ways, that's also good.

I think I will leave this thread unlocked for a while so people can vent their opinions on this whole thing, but I will probably lock it after everyone has had his input.

One other thing I will point out is, it's not easy running a truly non-partisan forum! And that's what this forum is and must be.

Admin wrote:

....
One other thing I will point out is, it's not easy running a truly non-partisan forum! And that's what this forum is and must be.

Truly holding the alligator by the tail and I thank you for it!

I will never ask about the NRA again.

ptc3 wrote:

I will never ask about the NRA again.

When we doing advanced shotgun???

IAmASensFan wrote:

ptc3 wrote:

I will never ask about the NRA again.

When we doing advanced shotgun???

But do you believe that the advanced shotgun really has our best interest at heart?

I'm in.

Reading the Wonkette link again, after the boingboing (where do they get these silly names) PDF, gave a different perspective. The truly rascist statements were made by the Wonkette commentary of the PDF.

Did anyone else see it this way?

Before I say anything I think it's important to point out again that because I do not support the NRA on some of it's endeavors does not mean that they do not do some very good things on others. That said...

Here is the cover of the Jan 2007 NRA Magazine:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pudge/332263661/

I'm pretty certain this removes any question that the Graphics I linked to yesterday are in fact NRA related/sponsored/endorsed.

I'm going to let the document speak for itself. Some people will see themes running through it that they don't endorse, some will see connections implied, and some won't see any problem with it at all. Once again, everyone is entitled to their own views. I will say that this does not help the impression that the NRA has Republican ties and any good will they may have earned by endorsing pro-gun Democrats in the last election will be thrown right back into question. Whatever your politics, it's very hard to win support by attacking the people you want to convert to your side. The old saying about attracting more flies with honey than with vinegar rings true here. It's been discussed by others here, NRA members at that, that the NRA has blown the PR front on previous occasions. I'm pretty sure this will be another for the list.

Which brings be back to my original question that I posted yesterday because I was told that the NRA would never be involved with something like this - Now that we're fairly certain that they in fact are involved with it, how is being involved with something like this a good idea?

Every organization plays to different audiences at different times. Every politician does. One only needs to look at the post primary elections to see candidates run to the political center.

The NRA is always campaigning. To a wide spectrum of members and interests. That said, I wish they would return to the time of the 'We're The NRA' ads that are much closer to what this site is about--inclusion and reason.

PS. I have no problem with the caricatures. And I doubt anyone can deny that those depicted are on the opposite side of our issue.

seanbonner wrote:

Whatever your politics, it's very hard to win support by attacking the people you want to convert to your side. The old saying about attracting more flies with honey than with vinegar rings true here. It's been discussed by others here, NRA members at that, that the NRA has blown the PR front on previous occasions. I'm pretty sure this will be another for the list.

Oh please, Sean; do you really mean to imply that if the NRA were just nicer to Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of that crowd (specifically, the ones caricatured on the cover of the magazine in your link) that they would then magically come to the bargaining table and work to craft sensible gun policies (Geez, just using the term 'sensible gun policies' makes me want to puke)?

We (on the pro-gun side) are engaged in an all out war. The antis are determined to stop at nothing short of abolishing the Second Amendment; they have admitted as much themselves. To operate under the foolish notion that being nice to them and making 'reasonable compromises' will do ANYTHING other than insure defeat for gun rights, is to be hoplessly naive.

I am thankful that the NRA has the guts to stand up to their foes regardless of how distasteful those of you with delicate sensibilites happens to find it. Someone has to do it. The day the NRA starts being nice to the anti gun crowd and tries to 'deal' with them, is the day I resign my membership in complete disgust, and find another organizaton worthy of my support.

gmcem50 wrote:

seanbonner wrote:

Whatever your politics, it's very hard to win support by attacking the people you want to convert to your side. The old saying about attracting more flies with honey than with vinegar rings true here. It's been discussed by others here, NRA members at that, that the NRA has blown the PR front on previous occasions. I'm pretty sure this will be another for the list.

Oh please, Sean; do you really mean to imply that if the NRA were just nicer to Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of that crowd (specifically, the ones caricatured on the cover of the magazine in your link) that they would then magically come to the bargaining table and work to craft sensible gun policies (Geez, just using the term 'sensible gun policies' makes me want to puke)?

We (on the pro-gun side) are engaged in an all out war. The antis are determined to stop at nothing short of abolishing the Second Amendment; they have admitted as much themselves. To operate under the foolish notion that being nice to them and making 'reasonable compromises' will do ANYTHING other than insure defeat for gun rights, is to be hoplessly naive.

I am thankful that the NRA has the guts to stand up to their foes regardless of how distasteful those of you with delicate sensibilites happens to find it. Someone has to do it. The day the NRA starts being nice to the anti gun crowd and tries to 'deal' with them, is the day I resign my membership in complete disgust, and find another organizaton worthy of my support.

I don't think it's a question of 'dealing' with anti gun people. It's a question of how to deal with them. Clearly you are not going to turn the likes of those afforded a mighty fine caricature treatment. But does that just motivate your 'base' while alienating others?

I repeat...one of the best things the NRA has done in the PR arena in recent memory was the 'I'm the NRA' ad campaign. People want to see faces like theirs embracing an issue. You can be steadfast without being hyperbolic.

gmcem50 wrote:

We (on the pro-gun side) are engaged in an all out war. The antis are determined to stop at nothing short of abolishing the Second Amendment; they have admitted as much themselves.

That statement applies to only a very small handful of "antis". I would put Feinstein and Kerry and a handful of others in that category. Can we ever win them over? No way. I bet that if Feinstein were sitting in a restaurant and her security detail were all in the boys' room at the same time and she forgot her Glock in the car, and some crazy person rushed in and started shooting, and then a lawfully-armed private citizen "slapped leather" and saved the Senator's life, it wouldn't change her opinion one bit.

But those people are in the minority among Democrats and liberals. Most other Democratic legislators and leaders could be described as neutral, uninformed, favorable, or some words like that. Those are the people we can reach. They outnumber the no-compromisers like Feinstein. They include prominent Democrats like very liberal and NRA A-rated Howard Dean and too many others for me to list.

I think the point Sean is making is that by running something like this, the NRA is going to alienate all those Democrats who are reachable. Even worse, that type of thing may make strongly pro-RKBA Democrats feel betrayed.

What positive things is the NRA getting out of it? It looks like a fundraising appeal and I bet it will be successful. It will shore up and appeal to a certain core of their membership.

It sure doesn't help us in California, or us on this site, who are truly non-partisan, and who truly desire to work with our open-minded Democratic friends.

Hey, who broke that story? Ken over at Wonkette, who is now a forum member, who is pro-RKBA by his own description, and who will (hopefully) be getting a California CCW with our help. Let's see, I know that Kos of the Daily Kos has publicly come out as pro-RKBA. What if we had that crew on our side? What if we had MoveOn.org on our side? Do you think that's impossible? I think it's possible and I won't say it's impossible until I have tried.

Admin wrote:

What if we had MoveOn.org on our side? Do you think that's impossible?

Uh... YES, I do! But that's just me. Hey, I'm just sayin'...

gmcem50 wrote:

Uh... YES, I do! But that's just me. Hey, I'm just sayin'...

Hey, let's do something impossible! It gets easier with practice.

Do we honestly expect to hear from Ken again?

What did I miss??? Im not following ANY of this....

Can I get a brief recap???? I have the kind of headache that can only be induced by prolonged visits with extended family....

choochboost wrote:

Do we honestly expect to hear from Ken again?

Yes. Definitely.

PM en route.

Does Ken know Pat?

seanbonner wrote:

choochboost wrote:

Do we honestly expect to hear from Ken again?

Yes. Definitely.

Glad to hear it.

seanbonner wrote:

Before I say anything I think it's important to point out again that because I do not support the NRA on some of it's endeavors does not mean that they do not do some very good things on others. That said...

Here is the cover of the Jan 2007 NRA Magazine:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pudge/332263661/

I'm pretty certain this removes any question that the Graphics I linked to yesterday are in fact NRA related/sponsored/endorsed.

I'm going to let the document speak for itself. Some people will see themes running through it that they don't endorse, some will see connections implied, and some won't see any problem with it at all. Once again, everyone is entitled to their own views. I will say that this does not help the impression that the NRA has Republican ties and any good will they may have earned by endorsing pro-gun Democrats in the last election will be thrown right back into question. Whatever your politics, it's very hard to win support by attacking the people you want to convert to your side. The old saying about attracting more flies with honey than with vinegar rings true here. It's been discussed by others here, NRA members at that, that the NRA has blown the PR front on previous occasions. I'm pretty sure this will be another for the list.

Which brings be back to my original question that I posted yesterday because I was told that the NRA would never be involved with something like this - Now that we're fairly certain that they in fact are involved with it, how is being involved with something like this a good idea?

The pictures are likely the NRA's work but the inflamatory captions and narative are courtesy of Wonkette. Look at the original narative with each picture from admin's post and you get a much different slant. Just curious, which picture offended you the most? Why?