Gun Owners FOR 594

[Redcap]

"Gun Owners For 594"? That is just longer way of saying "scumbag".

 

[Diamondback]

"Gun Owners For 594"? That is just longer way of saying "scumbag".

Or, as I prefer, "Benedict Arnold gunowners."

 

[3MTA3]

"Gun Owners For 594"? That is just longer way of saying "scumbag".

Even the ignorant can own guns and vote. Pretty soon they won't be able to own guns, shortly afterward they won't be able to vote, either.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Most NRA members were smart enough to know the context in which Charlton Hestons remark about duck hunting & AR-15's.... Only an idiot would hunt ducks with an AR-15.... DUHHHH!!!

 

[The Heretic]

Most NRA members were smart enough to know the context in which Charlton Hestons remark about duck hunting & AR-15's.... Only an idiot would hunt ducks with an AR-15.... DUHHHH!!!

Sorry, but no - why even bring it up.

Any pro Second Amendment advocate/lobbyist should know the history, intent and meaning of the Second Amendment.

It isn't about shotguns, hunting or even self-defense, it is about the balance of power between the government and the governed. It isn't even about firearms, it is about "arms", including tanks, grenades, rockets, etc. - anything the military has and uses, the civilian populace should have also.

 

[Dave Workman]

My point re "Pro-594 Gunowners" is NOT a D-vs-R thing, it's about gun-owners who are willing to sell out their own--like what Jim Zumbo once was and David Petzal and Dick Metcalf still are, along with anti-gun NRA BoD member Joaquin Jackson.

The classic term is "Fudds"...

Y'know, I find that term to be objectionable for any number of reasons, but primarily because I happen to know three of those four guys, and I've met the other one.

They don't necessarily have to agree with the new demagogues on the block whose mantra is "agree with me 100 percent or you're a traitor." That's now how this works as a society, but that's how it works with way too many people in the gun community. Where does it say we can't disagree without being horse's patoots?

To my knowledge, we've never met, so don't take this personally. I happen to think you're smart enough to understand where I'm going with this.

Metcalf could have said what he said differently and it would still have meant the same thing, and a whole lot of people calling him names would have agreed with him. Metcalf, writing from the perspective of a guy who has lived with the horrible Illinois system for his entire life, wrote from the perspective of someone who thinks anything is better than what he's had.

As for Joaquin Jackson, the retired Texas Ranger...I'd go through a door with that guy anytime. And just to show I'm a good sport, I'd let him go first. I disagree with his assessment at the time about semi-auto rifles, but I don't hate him for having said it. I just think he was wrong. But I'd still have a snort with him around the campfire.

Zumbo... I've known him for maybe 30 years. Everybody is entitled to a good rant now and then. Done it myself, and so have a lot of other people here. I didn't feel the earth stop turning, and so far as Zumbo's credentials go, he's one of the last guys on the landscape that I'd want to tangle with about guns. If you want to dislike him, that's your business.

We're in a bad spot right now, and instead of urinating all over each other, we need to direct the stream where it belongs: New York and a handful of zip codes in and around the greater Seattle area. It's up to us to work together to change the political landscape.

We can't do that by not voting....which a lot of our guys didn't do last week, and we all know it.
We can't do it by getting in people's faces...which some of our people do out of habit

We do it by being smart, not stupid and certainly not boorish.

We're a week out from the election. Who remembers who they voted for for the Legislature? For Congress?
Who didn't vote?

I'm pretty certain all the guys named above voted.

 

[Diamondback]

Dave, for the record we have crossed paths at WAC (no further detail over open comms, but I've long said a copy of your book should be issued with every new WA CPL right along with a copy of In The Gravest Extreme) briefly a few times, and I respect Jim Zumbo for having been willing to give things a second look and consider other viewpoints. (Frankly, he's a more patient man than I am to have been able to suffer the company of a screaming Motor City Madman... Ted Nugent is a lot like Michael Savage, for me they both do better on the printed page than actual audio.*)
*This is not quarreling with either, just that we all have certain voices that affect us like nails on chalkboard, and for me theirs are among them. Sometimes, enhanced senses can be as much a curse as a gift...

The only reason I invoked "Fudd" (I know you don't like it, and I don't particularly either myself) is I've yet to find anything better for the "Trap/Skeet, Hunting and Bullseye w/Revolvers ONLY, Ban All Else" set--if anyone has a better term for the "as long as nobody comes for mine, screw you you're dog food" set I'd appreciate being enlightened so I can update my lexicon accordingly. Basically, if someone is willing to throw ONE of us under the bus to keep their own toys, how can they be trusted not to do it again?

Yes, we do need to work together, but at the same time we need to identify those who are solidly in our camp, those who are unconvinced or potential allies, those who are neutrals AND the enemy's Useful Idiots/Kapos/Collaborators all with equal accuracy--and to make sure we don't allow the UI's to be too close so they can't tip our hands to Nick the Dick and Fuhrer von Fiveboroughs' crowd, and ideally find ways to minimize the Useful and maximize the Idiot parts of that description of them.

 

[usagi]

i've spoken with some of these "gun owners". most of them inherited their daddy's 22lr plinking rifle, and it's rusting away in a closet. they have never been thorugh a background check, and have no idea what a 4473 is. they have no idea what NICS stands for, and they think a background check is you plug a name into a webpage and get a "bleep!" that says "yes" or "no".

they are not "gun owners" by any stretch of the imagination. most of them don't shoot or hunt. and of course, many are simply liars and don't own any firearms at all.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Sorry, but no - why even bring it up.

Any pro Second Amendment advocate/lobbyist should know the history, intent and meaning of the Second Amendment.

It isn't about shotguns, hunting or even self-defense, it is about the balance of power between the government and the governed. It isn't even about firearms, it is about "arms", including tanks, grenades, rockets, etc. - anything the military has and uses, the civilian populace should have also.

What? You brought that statement up.

 

[Gunguy45]

Gun owners for 594 = Low Information Voters.

A lot of good people want background checks on all sales, which is exactly what the 594 backers said the bill was about.

I don't hold that opinion, but it's not "evil" to hold it.

Instead of getting angry at "quislings," get angry about the very poor job we did getting the info on 594 out there. We lost an important vote because *WE* SUCKED at getting organized and getting our message out there.

Until there is a meeting of the minds on WHY we did such a poor job, it's all whining.

Get over it and resolve to do better next time.

MORE extreme positions isn't going to help here. Looking at how badly we failed to get our message out and what we can do to make sure that doesn't happen again, on the other hand, just might.

 

[Dave Workman]

We lost an important vote because *WE* SUCKED at getting organized and getting our message out there.

Until there is a meeting of the minds on WHY we did such a poor job, it's all whining.

Get over it and resolve to do better next time.

MORE extreme positions isn't going to help here. Looking at how badly we failed to get our message out and what we can do to make sure that doesn't happen again, on the other hand, just might.

That's so easy to explain anybody could do it:

1) MONEY. We didn't have a billionaire sugar daddy in the corner. They had five that we know of.
2) MEDIA. We didn't have the local press in our corner. I know a lot of these people. Some of them don't care about guns, or care for them, and some were simply biased primarily by omission. As I've pointed out repeatedly in my Examiner column, the press avoided talking about the huge law enforcement opposition to 594 almost to the bitter end (after a lot of people had already voted).

They allowed the argument about "transfers" to be confused.
They just think it's no big deal to inconvenience gun owners just so they can feel safer.

We had some friends in the press, to be sure. But not enough to make a difference.

 

[The Heretic]

What? You brought that statement up.

Yeah well - I am getting old and I sometimes argue with myself - I am allowed.

 

[BoatRanch]

That's a list of the "Who's Who of what Vladimir Lenin called "Useful Idiots", the unknowing who go forward in life fueled by the emotions of the moment rather than by well thought out actions based on rock-solid first hand knowledge, (like actually reading the 18 page I-594 initiative before voting for it) and on the ground realities.
Famous KIRO 97.3 FM radio personality Dory Monson is a (so-called) conservative American radio personality who hosts the pre-game, post-game and halftime shows on the Seahawks Radio.
He too is one of the Useful Idiots, as he had announced on his radio sohw, post election that he too voted for I-594. What a sucker...