NWF.COM....Time To End Discussion and Organize

[BUZO71]

Part of organizing is to work with existing organizations that have been there, done that, have the connections, have the track record, have proven effective. Many would agree that OFF meets those criteria and more. For those that disagree, start another thread and give some hard data to prove your assertions, otherwise your words are ramblings that should be rejected. If data is part of a discussion, then I think it is wise for anyone to at least honestly listen to the facts, investigate them, and then make an WELL informed decision.

Well, I take my facts from a discussion I had with Kevin...His characterization of police officers in the Elian Gonzalez case as "goons" and a subsequent conversation, lead me to never consent to working with his group. For someone that claims "uncompromising" virtues, his only compromise comes from him not filing reports on where 'contributions' are being spent
click here

SO, is this his way of sticking it to the man? Or does he have something he doesn't want to tell people? "missing the following required information: the addresses for two contributors and the name of the payee for one personal expenditure (3 items)."

Did you notice how even though the "man" is out to get him, they did not impose the ten dollar fine? Or was it because of his political might that they bowed to him?

All I'm saying is that in many circles, he is considered a constitutionalist politician, not a freedom fighter. If we want to be considered main stream and bring people to the cause, we should align ourselves with someone more presentable.

 

[hapuna]

Or more obviously based on what he described as the "world's perception" Jesus Christ.

Then instead of comparing Obama to Hitler, why wouldn't you compare him to Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. or others? I don't feel like it's an accident that you are comparing him to figures that have negative connotations

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Or more obviously based on what he described as the "world's perception" Jesus Christ.

Because that is just another absurdity meant to degrade. It is pretty obvious and weakens any argument or statement through it's sheer lack of tact.

 

[Monkeyman]

I think more of us on this board should be talking about the ways in which the Obama Administration represents an America that is about helping the majority, not minority.

I think the main reason that so many on this forum are apprehensive about the new administration is that it's hard to believe that the establishment in Washington (not just Obama, but both parties and the gross beast that is the federal bureaucracy) could lead us to an America that is fair and just. We've been on a slippery slope for years (longer than eight), and Obama seems to me to be the catalyst that will bring about the radical changes in government and society that most here fear. Forget Obama for a minute; look at this bailout business, how it's about to bankrupt our economy, and how it came about. Look at the shape of our public schools; look at the criminal justice system and the effect it's had on our societal fabric. Right here in Portland, the cynicism of our local politicians in pretending that pedophilia shouldn't disqualify one from public office. And the sheeple who swallow their lies, hook line and sinker. Apathy has done most of the damage. 30% voter turnouts have given us this mess.

This is a mess Obama can't fix. Most of us believe he's going to make it worse, and the Second Amendment issue is one of many that need to be monitored closely. I believe Obama is going to posture himself as a centrist, and let the inertia of the socialist-leaning bureaucracy move us away from individual rights, responsibilities and freedom.

Any reasoning person has to conclude that attempts by the Feds to fix what they've so systematically broken over the years is a joke. Your criticism of single-issue politics is valid, but one has to start somewhere.

Mr. Link said "too bad libertarians can't win elections". I say, why not? If enough segments of the body politic can rally together under one tent, changes can be made. I would be interested in working in an outreach group, get with the local libertarian organization, if indeed there is one, and use the party infrastructure to attract like-minded citizens and start to make a difference locally. All politics is local.

 

[watchman]

As long as one man has something the other man wants,and that other man is willing to do whatever it takes to get that thing, there will be no peace on Earth. Unless the man with the thing is willing to meekly hand it over to the other man. But what if the first man thinks about it later, and decides he wants his thing back? How is he going to get it back, when he knows the other guy was willing to do whatever it takes to get the thing in the first place? Maybe he should have just defended his goods in the first place. Too bad that the other guy is bigger and stronger, and that he is not going to just give back the goods. Then the second guy tells his friends that the first guy still has some nice stuff, and they should go take it from him, since he won't do anything about it. How should the first guy react? What if he isn't ready to part with the rest of his stuff? And most importantly, how will he stop them from just taking it? Yeah, the colapse of our society and/or country may never happen, but if it does you might find yourself barricading the door to keep your once kindly neighbors from taking your last three cans of Alpo. I just hope you can stop them.

 

[NWMoss]

What does all this say? It says we need to stop talking about how we're going to use our guns and start talking about how to construct an environment where we don't need our guns....

Easy. Buy MORE guns.

Just look at Kennesaw, Georgia.

Exerts from Wikipedia:

On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois.

Reports of resulting burglary-rate statistics

Gary Kleck, a criminologist and gun-control critic attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law​

An armed society is a polite society.

 

[bnr32gtr]

My brother and I are both in!

 

[aslinged]

Alright cool...so we're back on track hopefully. A return to civility. Excellent. I'm glad so many people are eager to get involved. I think this thread will continue to draw some more positive reactions and then the mods and those of us who have some time to spare can start turning towards a collective action of some sort. On another note, I like coctailer's suggestion (on another thread in the legal subforum) of 'picking a fight to get into.' Well put.

 

[New York]

Well, I take my facts from a discussion I had with Kevin...His characterization of police officers in the Elian Gonzalez case as "goons" and a subsequent conversation, lead me to never consent to working with his group. For someone that claims "uncompromising" virtues, his only compromise comes from him not filing reports on where 'contributions' are being spent
click here

SO, is this his way of sticking it to the man? Or does he have something he doesn't want to tell people? "missing the following required information: the addresses for two contributors and the name of the payee for one personal expenditure (3 items)."

Did you notice how even though the "man" is out to get him, they did not impose the ten dollar fine? Or was it because of his political might that they bowed to him?

All I'm saying is that in many circles, he is considered a constitutionalist politician, not a freedom fighter. If we want to be considered main stream and bring people to the cause, we should align ourselves with someone more presentable.

BUZ071' comments require a response.

He states the following; "Well,
I take my facts from a discussion I had with Kevin...His
characterization of police officers in the Elian Gonzalez case as
"goons" and a subsequent conversation, lead me to never consent to
working with his group. For someone that claims "uncompromising"
virtues, his only compromise comes from him not filing reports on
where 'contributions' are being spent click here"

For the record, I work with Kevin and have discussed this with him
and he informed me that there was never a "discussion" with anyone
about this. There was an exchange of e-mails with someone who had
remarkably similar complaints. I have reproduced them below.

As for BUZ's link to a Secretary of State's report of an
insufficiency in a C and E report for an organization that has
nothing to do with OFF, this is simply laughable and demonstrates the
painful ignorance of the writer. Prior to C and E's being filed
electronically, all PACs had to file dozens of pages of forms
repeatedly over an election cycle.

Starrett's failure to provide addresses for two contributers was not
only corrected immediately. (hence no fine) but was so
inconsequential that a fine would not even have been levied.

Every PAC has insufficiencies all the time. And anyone who has a clue
about the process can look it up and see. But here are the facts.
There has never been one single unresolved insufficiency on any PAC
Kevin is the treasurer of, nor has there been a penny of fines levied
against any PAC he is, or was the treasurer of.

100% of all PAC activity is available on line. Instead of making
baseless claims, Buz should learn how to read.


> From: Oregon Firearms Federation <[email protected]>
> Date: January 26, 2009 8:59:15 AM PST
> To: James Stutz <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: E-Mail Content
>
>> But as to the Waco Texas incident I am not in agreement. I
>> don't think that the issue was handled very well from the start.
>> But those people brought their own demise upon themselves. They
>> did not have to fire on the agents that arrived on their
>> property. You can not use force to resist an arrest, even if you
>> believe it to be unlawful. That's what the courts are for;
>> unfortunately. They also had plenty of chances to surrender after
>> the initial shooting incident.
>> It is a shame and tragedy that all those people, including
>> obviously innocent children had to die in the fire that consumed
>> the Waco compound, but the blame lies with those at the compound.
>> I hope that your organization will stay focused on the rights
>> of gun owners and users, and not on listing opinions and
>> viewpoints about Governmental actions other that those directly
>> relating to firearms.
>> Respectfully,
>> James D. Stutz
>
>
> Dear Mr. Stutz,
>
> You state that the Branch Davidians "did not have to fire on the
> agents that arrived on their property." What you ignore is that the
> ATF agents arrived and opened fire on the farmhouse before making
> any effort to contact anyone inside peacefully. You may recall the
> name of the operation. It was "Showtime."
>
> The Davidians were taking fire from outside the house and from
> circling helicopters before they were forced to fire back in self
> defense. All this happened in a building full of children. As for
> your contention that you cannot use force to resist an arrest, you
> are mistaken. Texas law specifically allows the use of force, even
> deadly force, to resist an unlawful arrest.
>
> Your contention that "that's what the courts are for" is equally
> troubling. The few who survived being gassed, burned or shot as
> they attempted to escape were tried and sent to jail for the crime
> of being gassed, burned and shot by the goon squads sent by Reno
> and Holder. And why were those goons sent? On the eve of hearings
> to determine the ATF's budget? Because the Davidians "owned guns."
>
> The blame does not lie with people who had committed no crime and
> were gassed using a poison we don't even use against enemy
> combatants, a highly flammable gas pumped into a wooden structure
> while fire trucks were kept miles away.
>
> Our comments are directly related to gun owners. The Davidians were
> murdered because they were gun owners and the government lied about
> it. The government agents and the politicians who directed them are
> murderers. This is a reasonable concern for gun owners, who could
> well be next.
>
> I presume that you also disapprove of our e-mails condemning HS
> Precision for using an FBI sniper as a spokesman. DId Vicki Weaver
> "bring it on herself" as she stood unarmed in her cabin door,
> holding a ten month old, soon after her son had been shot in the back?
>
> You believe our viewpoints are "radical." Perhaps these days they
> are. There was a time when the murder of 17 children would have
> been considered enough of an outrage that revulsion at the act
> would not have been considered "radical." Guess we're just old
> fashioned around here.
>
> Kevin Starrett
> OFF

 

[CaseyPod]

Careful that you are not falling into, what I believe, is an outdated philosophy of humanities anarchical state on nature....I don't believe that we are naturally out to get each other, I believe we are innately prone to cooperate with each other and have over the years of history been conditioned to be pessimistic of each other....I'm not asking for utopia, but I do think we can make more strides towards living in an environment where we don't feel the necessity to own guns....Plus guns as the "great equalizer" is the type of thought process that has propelled the Cold War arms race and the status-quo of MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction)

Oh damn, I messed up the quoting...Fix it Joey

:cartman:

I just have to jump in on this... My first question is 1) Why would we NOT be worried about guns being taken by government when even democrats came out in record numbers after the election results to purchase firearms? Obama has a very bad firearms track record from his short time as a senator. He has surrounded himself with other gun grabbers and New World Order elitists who want to control us in every way possible...

After 5 executive orders right out of the gate - this man is ready to Rule by Decree. Who needs checks and balances when you can just bypass it all with executive orders?

2) How can a utopia exist when there are cruel people who intend to lie cheat and steal to get to the top (politicians are an excellent example of lying, cheating, powergrabbers). We will no longer feel the need for guns when the risk of being robbed/attacked is somehow eliminated - but that is not going to happen.

3) The 2nd amendment is designed to keep the government from overpowering the citizenry, to keep the power in our hands 'literally'. Even if you could have a Utopia- if a society became complacent after a generation of relative peace without firearms - it would be very easy for a dictator to quickly ruin that utopia when the people have no weapons to fight back against the government which holds the power of a extremely technologically advanced military.

Don't want to stir the pot... but I think that the right to bear arms is a very important issue. If you are truly an informed citizen and voter- then you should be very concerned about keeping and bearing arms - and stopping the government from infringing upon those rights.

Thanks,
Casey

:gun14:

 

[BUZO71]

Well, New York. Your personal attack on me shows that I've hit a nerve. I should learn to read? Well, I would look at that memo and it shows a failure to report contributions. Now, regardless of how "normal" it is, if we as a group would want to join with OFF, I would say Kevin Starrett obviously isn't squared away enough to join with- since he can't keep his business squared away.

Kevin is characterized as a zealot by many. Pro/anti alike. Does his organization do good things, sure. So did many bad organizations. Hells Angels has an annual toys for tots ride. Does it make them a good group- no.

As far as the conversation, it did take place. I could see where he would deny the fact now. I see he took the article he had on his website, down. I wold guess that was a result of pressure from affiliates. Although some cops may be goons, we don't like to generalize them as such.

Bottom line, there is a reason OFF is throwing money for affiliation with shooting organizations such as ours- he needs to appear more mainstream.

I am all for making our voices heard- but OFF is not the way to do that. Kevin has a tainted name, irresponsible with paperwork, possibly with money.

 

[Joe Link]

Guys, I'm going to end this before it goes any further. If you two want to try to resolve your differences, please do it via PM. Otherwise, agree to disagree

Just one clarification, OFF has not given us any money.

 

[jrc99]

I am in. As long it is going to be an organized group with a good agenda. I dont want to sit around and listen to a bunch of people crying about how they hate the government.

Like John McCain and his Gang of 14 along with other Republicans...great idea!

(I am a registered Republican I am praying for my party)