Council meeting for Pontiac

[ghostrider]

I would have to disagree with this statement. How can one say that the win in Royal Oak will lead to our defeat?

No. Those are your words, not mine. I said nothing of the sort, and to suggest otherwise would have been dishonest.

Only one who believes that “might makes right” would say that RO was a “win”.

Yes the anti's spoke up but so did those in support. Many of us have also spoken directly with Representatives and Senators from the State. They have clearly stated they supported us and would never vote in favor of tougher restrictions.

No. The anti’s are speaking up, and continue do so. I see few in support doing anything to garner the public’s support. Quite the opposite.

IMHO this type of theory continues the notion that we should stop fighting and ignore illegal actions of cities out of fear of them retaliating against us by pushing for tougher legislation.

No surprise, since you chose to see something I didn’t say or write.

Personally if they call for stricter laws it is the responsibility of all gun owners to speak louder in the ears of the elected officials.

Thank you for agreeing with me (finally), but what I meant by pointing it out is that if all people do is go to the meetings, and don’t win the hearts and minds of the people (and it’s not done with a hammer. Think, “bee’s and honey”), then going to meetings attendance does more harm than good without the follow up.

 

[ghostrider]

Next: another letter to city attorney (last chance).

7 of us (I believe, I ran late - traffic jam, but I'm close on the count).

They (Council went as far as to say "they hope their PD keeps harassing Open Carriers").

Is there going to be video of this posted?

 

[ghostrider]

Just bouncing off your post... nothing personal intended........

None taken (especially since your points don’t even address what I said). Nor is anything I say intended personally.

I've heard the same thing said by CC'ers about OC. It is basically a "don't rock the boat and maybe they will allow us to keep our guns" mindset.

You sir, are also misrepresenting what I wrote. Nothing could be further from what I said.

No battle was ever won by not showing up to fight because of the fear of losing.

So true however, starting one and quickly withdrawing, is a positive manner with which to give up ground.

If we are afraid of a backlash and quit because of that fear... then the anti's win without having to even bother to fight because we left the battlefield with our tails tucked between our legs dragging our rights in the mud behind us in sorry defeat.. without even trying.

That is precisely what happened in RO. Battle started, and quickly left to its own devices.

The day of OC causing a major battle between those who believe in rights... and those who believe in control and/or prefer the illusion of safety by being controlled... was only a matter of time. Because it was never about OC or CC................ it was, and always will be, a matter of rights vs control.

No doubt, but by merely pointing it out to the other side (to alert them to battle), and then running from such battle (maybe due to lack of that particular skill set) to start another, won’t accomplish the task of actually winning for our side. If you keep starting fires, and neglect to set a fire watch, the whole place will burn.

To not stand up and fight for rights and to require government to obey the law regardless of who says what or what they might do about it is, to me, the totally unacceptable concept of conceding defeat just because I was afraid of what people would say or do

To suggest that my post implied, suggested, or even so much as inferred that, is either a demonstrated lack of comprehension, or honesty.

.

And Royal Oak was a very definite victory... a victory that had nothing to do with guns but everything to do with requiring a city to obey the law in the same manner that individuals are expected to do.

I didn’t say that it wasn’t. Quite to the contrary, I completely agree with you. My dispute isn’t that it wasn’t a victory, but that the victory was pyrrhic because, rather than stay and fight that battle, people decided to leave it to the opposition to dictate, and went to start another one without first finishing what they’d started.

If your going to start a battle, then it’s best to see it through the end, rather than dance around, patting oneself on the head, boasting about how great one is, while one’s enemies take such opportunity to their advantage. Didn’t work in Vietnam, same principal here.

 

[scot623]

My dispute isn’t that it wasn’t a victory, but that the victory was pyrrhic because, rather than stay and fight that battle, people decided to leave it to the opposition to dictate, and went to start another one without first finishing what they’d started.

If your going to start a battle, then it’s best to see it through the end, rather than dance around, patting oneself on the head, boasting about how great one is, while one’s enemies take such opportunity to their advantage. Didn’t work in Vietnam, same principal here.

May I ask what you have seen to make you think we have stopped fighting AB&E and left it to the opposition? Or how we have stopped seeing it through to the end? What is the "end"'you speak of?

 

[Bikenut]

Just bouncing off your post... nothing personal intended........

I've heard the same thing said by CC'ers about OC. It is basically a "don't rock the boat and maybe they will allow us to keep our guns" mindset.

You sir, are also misrepresenting what I wrote. Nothing could be further from what I said.

You said:

That's a great idea!

Then there will be a national reaction just like Royal Oak, only there will be larger amounts of people lobbying to have the GFZ's expanded, and even more people coming out of the woodwork who are so enraged that they are spurred to action against us. Maybe people aren't paying attention, but Royal Oak was nothing more than a pyrrhic victory because it managed to stir up support for the anti's with little opposition from our side.

so how did I misrepresent what you posted? Did you not post that a national reaction would cause more opposition? Is that not extremely similar to what many CC'ers say about OC?

No battle was ever won by not showing up to fight because of the fear of losing.

So true however, starting one and quickly withdrawing, is a positive manner with which to give up ground. That is precisely what happened in RO. Battle started, and quickly left to its own devices.

I was not aware that folks had simply dropped their battle with Royal Oak... nor had they stopped responding to media articles.

If we are afraid of a backlash and quit because of that fear... then the anti's win without having to even bother to fight because we left the battlefield with our tails tucked between our legs dragging our rights in the mud behind us in sorry defeat.. without even trying.

The day of OC causing a major battle between those who believe in rights... and those who believe in control and/or prefer the illusion of safety by being controlled... was only a matter of time. Because it was never about OC or CC................ it was, and always will be, a matter of rights vs control.

No doubt, but by merely pointing it out to the other side (to alert them to battle), and then running from such battle (maybe due to lack of that particular skill set) to start another, won’t accomplish the task of actually winning for our side. If you keep starting fires, and neglect to set a fire watch, the whole place will burn.

Engaging in multiple battles at the same time doesn't mean the first battle has been abandoned... only that there are multiple fronts on which to fight.

To not stand up and fight for rights and to require government to obey the law regardless of who says what or what they might do about it is, to me, the totally unacceptable concept of conceding defeat just because I was afraid of what people would say or do.

To suggest that my post implied, suggested, or even so much as inferred that, is either a demonstrated lack of comprehension, or honesty.

Please note the bolded part of my quoted post... I was stating a personal belief. And since I had already stated that I was bouncing off your post then there were not any implications involved.

And Royal Oak was a very definite victory... a victory that had nothing to do with guns but everything to do with requiring a city to obey the law in the same manner that individuals are expected to do.

I didn’t say that it wasn’t. Quite to the contrary, I completely agree with you. My dispute isn’t that it wasn’t a victory, but that the victory was pyrrhic because, rather than stay and fight that battle, people decided to leave it to the opposition to dictate, and went to start another one without first finishing what they’d started.

If your going to start a battle, then it’s best to see it through the end, rather than dance around, patting oneself on the head, boasting about how great one is, while one’s enemies take such opportunity to their advantage. Didn’t work in Vietnam, same principal here.

As far as I know.. and maybe I'm wrong?... no one has given up on Royal Oak since several folks have said they will OC at that festival. And, at least to me, it makes perfect sense to take this battle to the next level and take it national in order to fight the forest fire instead of just constantly trying to put out little local campfires. Michigan isn't the only State having these, and/or similar.. or even worse, problems.

None taken (especially since your points don’t even address what I said). Nor is anything I say intended personally.

If my points didn't address what you said... and I said I was bouncing off your post... why are we having this discussion? And I'm not taking anything you posted personally either... I was, and still am, addressing the notion that by not going national (and your original post was not in favor of going national) and by not being up front and in their face... we are conceding defeat by bowing to public opinion out of the fear of that public opinion... before we are even sure what that public opinion will turn out to be.

Regardless... perhaps the only difference we have is one of how to go about fighting to our rights... which, to me, is OK as long as we both keep on fighting.

Added:
This multiple posting to reply is really a pain............

 

[ghostrider]

May I ask what you have seen to make you think we have stopped fighting AB&E and left it to the opposition? Or how we have stopped seeing it through to the end? What is the "end"'you speak of?

Better yet. You were there. What are you doing re AB&E other than contacting our leaders?

"What have I seen?" Royal Oak was convinced to change the contract. In turn, they (along with the media) have waged a campaign to convince the people to lobby their leaders to make gun laws more restrictive. I don't see anything like that from our side. I've seen lots of misinformation being spread with little opposition. If I'm wrong, so be it. I just don't see much other than, "We've won this one, now lets move on. (all the while "this one" is still raging.)

What is being done? Other than go to the next stop?

The end is convincing the people, as well as the leaders. Sounds like "the people" are not being addressed, based on the various comments sections. Furthermore, the press is obviously on board in misrepresenting the issue with little opposition.

The leaders answer to the voters. Don't convince the voters, and they will have the leaders change it to their will.

 

[dougwg]

Better yet. You were there. What are you doing re AB&E other than contacting our leaders?

"What have I seen?" Royal Oak was convinced to change the contract. In turn, they (along with the media) have waged a campaign to convince the people to lobby their leaders to make gun laws more restrictive. I don't see anything like that from our side. I've seen lots of misinformation being spread with little opposition. If I'm wrong, so be it. I just don't see much other than, "We've won this one, now lets move on. (all the while "this one" is still raging.)

What is being done? Other than go to the next stop?

The end is convincing the people, as well as the leaders. Sounds like "the people" are not being addressed, based on the various comments sections. Furthermore, the press is obviously on board in misrepresenting the issue with little opposition.

The leaders answer to the voters. Don't convince the voters, and they will have the leaders change it to their will.

Understood.

And I agree we need to oppose the media's deceptive information, but how?

 

[ghostrider]

You said:



so how did I misrepresent what you posted? Did you not post that a national reaction would cause more opposition? Is that not extremely similar to what many CC'ers say about OC?

You misrepresented it by comparing it to, “what the CC’ers say”. The CC’ers don’t say anything about offering up more opposition from our side. They merely say, “Don’t pick this fight”. I’m saying, “Don’t pick the fight if you’re not going to Baghdad.”
I’ll allow that it’s possible that I could be wrong; it’s just that I don’t see much in the way of rebuttal of the misinformation being spread.

I was not aware that folks had simply dropped their battle with Royal Oak... nor had they stopped responding to media articles.

How many have been turned? Same thing happened in Kalamazoo when zig hosted some picnics. People came on, and some were even convinced to come out an find that it wasn’t what they feared. With this situation, those in opposition are not being treated in such an effective manner.

Engaging in multiple battles at the same time doesn't mean the first battle has been abandoned... only that there are multiple fronts on which to fight.

It does if there are not enough troops and supplies. Fight the good fight

Please note the bolded part of my quoted post... I was stating a personal belief. And since I had already stated that I was bouncing off your post then there were not any implications involved.

So, you were not “suggesting it”? Duly noted.

As far as I know.. and maybe I'm wrong?... no one has given up on Royal Oak since several folks have said they will OC at that festival. And, at least to me, it makes perfect sense to take this battle to the next level and take it national in order to fight the forest fire instead of just constantly trying to put out little local campfires. Michigan isn't the only State having these, and/or similar.. or even worse, problems.

Is that the strategy to win the PR campaign?

If my points didn't address what you said... and I said I was bouncing off your post... why are we having this discussion? And I'm not taking anything you posted personally either... I was, and still am, addressing the notion that by not going national (and your original post was not in favor of going national) and by not being up front and in their face... we are conceding defeat by bowing to public opinion out of the fear of that public opinion... before we are even sure what that public opinion will turn out to be.

I’ll clarify. My point is, “solidify a good base here first, before going bigger, or moving on. RO is not solidified (quite the opposite it appears). If there are unannounced plans to solidify it, then great.

Regardless... perhaps the only difference we have is one of how to go about fighting to our rights... which, to me, is OK as long as we both keep on fighting.

agreed.

Added:
This multiple posting to reply is really a pain............

Then I hope you don’t mind me not putting up all the quotes. Takes long enough to respond point to point. 

 

[ghostrider]

Understood.

And I agree we need to oppose the media's deceptive information, but how?

Great point dougwg (long time no see ).

What do you do when someone at Cabels's tries to tell the reporter your talking to that "the element of surprise" is better?

Same principal. It's tedious, it's boring, and it often times feels like it's falling on deaf ears. However, there is always going to be someone who is watching and listening for the more reasoned argument that can go beyond reason, and at the same time appeal to their fears.

Calling people, "sheeple" (or even using the term), isn't going to win them over. It will just alienate them. Telling them how "stupid" they are by citing laws and AG opinions to make myself look smart will only alienate them. Better to address their fears in a caring, well reasoned and intoned manner.

CC:"Only the police should have guns!"

R: "Why do you trust the police more than yourself, or even your fellow man?"

CC: "because they are trained to protect us."

R: "Have you not read or heard that they are just as likely to be a problem as anyone else. Do you not know that they aren't there for your protection?"

"What will you do when you need them and they aren't there?"

CC: "Well, I'm scared of people (non LEO) with guns."

R: " You should now that the restrictions on a private citizen using a gun are much more severe than LEO. Furthermore, most people who carry stand to loose a lot more than a police officer for a mishap. Private citizens are held to a much higher standard than LEO."


First, Learn their fears. Then, learn how to not only address, but also to allay those fears. Each situation is different dependent upon the individual, but the more you do it, the better we become. I remember one particular supposed army wife who was horrified at the idea of guns in Bronson Park where she regular took her kids. By the end of the conversation, she was thinking about getting some training, and said she had been convinced to attend the event, or approach someone she saw OC'ing so she could get a better perspective. I didn't belittle her, I didn't talk down to her, I didn't preach law and cite opinions (although I've been know to do that on occasion), and I certainly didn't tell her, "It's my right, and if you don't like it, tough!". What I did do was demonstrate to her that she mattered to me enough that I was willing to take my time with her if she had serious concerns she wanted addressed. When she saw that i was willing to empathize with her, she opened up communication, and started listening, knowing that I was listening to understand her concerns.

One person at a time. Or more. But don't ignore those whose support you need.

 

[Bikenut]

You misrepresented it by comparing it to, “what the CC’ers say”. The CC’ers don’t say anything about offering up more opposition from our side. They merely say, “Don’t pick this fight”. I’m saying, “Don’t pick the fight if you’re not going to Baghdad.”

First of all... again there is nothing personal in my reply... and my questions are sincere.

Some CC'ers are quite fervent in their opposition to OC, many say much much more than just "Don't pick this fight."... and their reasoning is quite simple... don't antagonize anyone and we will be allowed to keep carrying our guns. Now what part of your originally saying that going national with how OC'ers are fighting local municipalities that are disregarding the law because it will engender more negativity from antis is different? Isn't that saying "Don't pick this fight"?

Regardless... I still maintain that when the fear of negativity causes one to not bother to fight then.................... the battle is lost before it begins.

And I'm saying that going national IS going to Baghdad!

I’ll allow that it’s possible that I could be wrong; it’s just that I don’t see much in the way of rebuttal of the misinformation being spread.

How can we do that? I'm all ears!!!!! How can we get the media to cover the issue, including rebuttals, if we don't go to the media!

How many have been turned?

We will never know how many folks watched the Royal Oak thing and understood exactly what happened.... because not everyone posts comments to articles online.

Same thing happened in Kalamazoo when zig hosted some picnics. People came on, and some were even convinced to come out an find that it wasn’t what they feared.

Are picnics the way to get the word out then? Not being snarky... I'm sincerely asking if picnics have the potential to turn public opinion in our favor in a major way anytime soon?

With this situation, those in opposition are not being treated in such an effective manner.

What would be an "effective manner"? Again, my questions are sincere!

It does if there are not enough troops and supplies. Fight the good fight

Getting things out into the general population might, just might, result in more troops and supplies.................. overnight.

So, you were not “suggesting it”? Duly noted.

............. sigh ............

Is that the strategy to win the PR campaign? I’ll clarify. My point is, “solidify a good base here first, before going bigger, or moving on. RO is not solidified (quite the opposite it appears). If there are unannounced plans to solidify it, then great. agreed.

Seems to me that national coverage from a network known not to be rabidly anti would be a "PR campaign" wouldn't it? And what would you suggest? Again... if you have a plan of action I'm, and I'm sure many others, are all ears!

Then I hope you don’t mind me not putting up all the quotes. Takes long enough to respond point to point. 

I hope no one minds I didn't bother to wade through and put up all the darn quotes one by one......

 

[detroit_fan]

So if 30-40 OC'ers were to show up to every council meeting and each one spoke for their entire allotted time, would the council get sick of having to sit there for hours every time listening to everyone speak? I have a feeling they would not like to hear the same thing over and over again for hours every meeting. Maybe that can bring some attention to this? Also, I think if there is audio of them suggesting illegal harassment from the PD that needs to be aired in the media. They can not be allowed to get away with openly breaking the law, if they do lots of communities will follow in refusing to change their illegal laws.

What really needs to be done is a law passed that says after a town, city, village, township, is made aware of an illegal ordinance they should be required by law to remove or change it, with criminal penalties if they fail to comply. Would there really be opposition to a law like that being passed?

 

[Bikenut]

So if 30-40 OC'ers were to show up to every council meeting and each one spoke for their entire allotted time, would the council get sick of having to sit there for hours every time listening to everyone speak? I have a feeling they would not like to hear the same thing over and over again for hours every meeting. Maybe that can bring some attention to this? Also, I think if there is audio of them suggesting illegal harassment from the PD that needs to be aired in the media. They can not be allowed to get away with openly breaking the law, if they do lots of communities will follow in refusing to change their illegal laws.

What really needs to be done is a law passed that says after a town, city, village, township, is made aware of an illegal ordinance they should be required by law to remove or change it, with criminal penalties if they fail to comply. Would there really be opposition to a law like that being passed?

I suspect there would be opposition to having criminal penalties attached to MCL 123.1102 for municipalities that failed to comply... strong opposition in fact........ from municipalities! Especially since some municipalities want to rewrite MCL 123.1102 to give the municipalities the ability to enact/enforce any gun control ordinance they wish.

But there might be support for a measure adding penalties for non compliance to MCL 123.1102 from legislators in Lansing once said legislators realize those municipalities are attempting to usurp the lawmaking power of the legislators.

And once the clamor for more power to enact ordinances by municipalities is revealed for what it really is.......... more gun control... and sneaky gun control at that... I suspect the people would be a bit upset about it too.

 

[lil_freak_66]

What really needs to be done is a law passed that says after a town, city, village, township, is made aware of an illegal ordinance they should be required by law to remove or change it, with criminal penalties if they fail to comply. Would there really be opposition to a law like that being passed?

I think there would be opposition,city commisioners and such,the people whom would be criminally liable....then they would figure a way to make the sheep oppose it.

 

[detroit_fan]

I realize it would not be popular with the locals that want to break laws, but they don't make the laws. If a state senator or rep introduces a bill that requires all ordinances, not just firearms ones to be in compliance with state law I would think anyone that opposes that in Lansing would be subject to bad publicity for basically taking the position that locals should be allowed to break laws. I know I would be upset if my Rep supported illegal ordinances and power-abusing local politicians.

It was just a thought, I guess I should realize by now that we have to follow laws but he cities don't. Someone needs a good lawsuit against one of these cities to wake them up imo. What about packing the meetings, draw some media attention, make them listen to 30-40 of us telling them they are breaking laws, they might be change their tone a little if we can get some media there. At the very least they will probably get sick of listening to us and spending hours having to listen to public comment.

 

[Bikenut]

I realize it would not be popular with the locals that want to break laws, but they don't make the laws. If a state senator or rep introduces a bill that requires all ordinances, not just firearms ones to be in compliance with state law I would think anyone that opposes that in Lansing would be subject to bad publicity for basically taking the position that locals should be allowed to break laws. I know I would be upset if my Rep supported illegal ordinances and power-abusing local politicians.

It was just a thought, I guess I should realize by now that we have to follow laws but he cities don't. Someone needs a good lawsuit against one of these cities to wake them up imo. What about packing the meetings, draw some media attention, make them listen to 30-40 of us telling them they are breaking laws, they might be change their tone a little if we can get some media there. At the very least they will probably get sick of listening to us and spending hours having to listen to public comment.

I'm all for attaching penalties to not complying with MCL 123.1102!!!!!

 

[ghostrider]

I hope no one minds I didn't bother to wade through and put up all the darn quotes one by one......

Works for me. And again, I think we are just looking at it from a different way.

This is what some consider a "win" in RO.

"You've proved your point. Now go crawl back under that rock from which you came while we do what we can to get the the law changed to further restrict your rights."


Going national:
First, letting it get into a OC/CC rights matter is playing into the media's anti hands. It's creating an us v. them when it is about firearms, Not OC or CC.

I would submit that where we disagree is that I don't think it wise to fight on so many fronts. Saying that, "RO was a win" suggests that RO is over, when it's only getting started. It also sounds like the results of RO have further emboldened cities like Pontiac (to have the audacity to tell someone to stay in their own town!).

I will say though that, If I'm wrong, then my posting probably matters little. Of course, things that matter so little rarely get so much vitriol.

 

[Bikenut]

Ghostrider.... we are on the same team. We don't have to agree on how to go about it as long as we ............. go about it! I respect that.

Now off onto something else not in reference to you at all Sir, but in a general discussion way....

I think, an opinion, that anti's always want to frame everything as being about... guns... and when they do they can control and direct the rhetoric to their advantage because the subject of guns can be manipulated into an emotionally hot button issue.

But when the subject of guns is brought into the realm of rights, and even into the realm of law, the anti loses momentum because then the rhetoric can be moved away from the emotional responses anti's live for... and become a reasoned and logical discussion. And reason and logic is something an anti can't manipulate to their advantage since facts easily destroy emotionally manipulative arguments.

There are news programs that can frame the issue in that manner... Beck, Stossel, or Varney for example... that reach millions of people and present facts to counter the emotional arguments... but individuals talking to local reporters just can't offer rebuttals that won't end up on the editing room floor. The deck is stacked against us individuals presenting facts in rebuttal because media, especially local media operating on a shoe string budget, always goes for the emotionally sensational side of any story.

Royal Oak for example... turned into a hate fest about guns encouraged by a city council desperate to deflect any attention from it's illegal actions. And they used local media to foster that deflecting. Any rebuttal comments to media articles that were slanted to make the folks who brought those illegal actions to light as the "bad guys" that offered facts by reasonable folks were met with nasty emotional insults and twisted perceptions based in emotional personal opinions that have no basis in facts.

And that should be no surprise when the articles themselves set the tone of OC'ers confronting government officials engaging in illegal actions....... as the villains instead of the officials who were breaking the law.

So if the local media is slanting things in favor of deflecting where the blame belongs........... where do we go for fair and accurate reporting?

How can that be countered? I, for one, do not think it can be countered on the local level because the local level is controlled by... local government and local media.

When I was a kid in school many, way too many, years ago... when the bully beat me up I didn't keep going to that same bully to state my case because all he would do is laugh and beat me up again. I went to someone who was bigger and stronger than the bully and asked for his help.

And so I think it is now with local media....... time to take our case to a bigger, stronger, media with more influence.

 

[thekunk47]

Pontiac

Ghostrider.... we are on the same team. We don't have to agree on how to go about it as long as we ............. go about it! I respect that.

Now off onto something else not in reference to you at all Sir, but in a general discussion way....

I think, an opinion, that anti's always want to frame everything as being about... guns... and when they do they can control and direct the rhetoric to their advantage because the subject of guns can be manipulated into an emotionally hot button issue.

But when the subject of guns is brought into the realm of rights, and even into the realm of law, the anti loses momentum because then the rhetoric can be moved away from the emotional responses anti's live for... and become a reasoned and logical discussion. And reason and logic is something an anti can't manipulate to their advantage since facts easily destroy emotionally manipulative arguments.

There are news programs that can frame the issue in that manner... Beck, Stossel, or Varney for example... that reach millions of people and present facts to counter the emotional arguments... but individuals talking to local reporters just can't offer rebuttals that won't end up on the editing room floor. The deck is stacked against us individuals presenting facts in rebuttal because media, especially local media operating on a shoe string budget, always goes for the emotionally sensational side of any story.

Royal Oak for example... turned into a hate fest about guns encouraged by a city council desperate to deflect any attention from it's illegal actions. And they used local media to foster that deflecting. Any rebuttal comments to media articles that were slanted to make the folks who brought those illegal actions to light as the "bad guys" that offered facts by reasonable folks were met with nasty emotional insults and twisted perceptions based in emotional personal opinions that have no basis in facts.

And that should be no surprise when the articles themselves set the tone of OC'ers confronting government officials engaging in illegal actions....... as the villains instead of the officials who were breaking the law.

So if the local media is slanting things in favor of deflecting where the blame belongs........... where do we go for fair and accurate reporting?

How can that be countered? I, for one, do not think it can be countered on the local level because the local level is controlled by... local government and local media.

When I was a kid in school many, way too many, years ago... when the bully beat me up I didn't keep going to that same bully to state my case because all he would do is laugh and beat me up again. I went to someone who was bigger and stronger than the bully and asked for his help.

And so I think it is now with local media....... time to take our case to a bigger, stronger, media with more influence.

We need to quit spinning our wheels, pick our fights, and innundate the council and police station with calls, faxes and emails.Also we need a large group to walk the streets of pontiac.At least 15 or more with audio-video stuff.

 

[ghostrider]

Ghostrider.... we are on the same team. We don't have to agree on how to go about it as long as we ............. go about it! I respect that.

Now off onto something else not in reference to you at all Sir, but in a general discussion way....

I think, an opinion, that anti's always want to frame everything as being about... guns... and when they do they can control and direct the rhetoric to their advantage because the subject of guns can be manipulated into an emotionally hot button issue.

But when the subject of guns is brought into the realm of rights, and even into the realm of law, the anti loses momentum because then the rhetoric can be moved away from the emotional responses anti's live for... and become a reasoned and logical discussion. And reason and logic is something an anti can't manipulate to their advantage since facts easily destroy emotionally manipulative arguments.

There are news programs that can frame the issue in that manner... Beck, Stossel, or Varney for example... that reach millions of people and present facts to counter the emotional arguments... but individuals talking to local reporters just can't offer rebuttals that won't end up on the editing room floor. The deck is stacked against us individuals presenting facts in rebuttal because media, especially local media operating on a shoe string budget, always goes for the emotionally sensational side of any story.

Royal Oak for example... turned into a hate fest about guns encouraged by a city council desperate to deflect any attention from it's illegal actions. And they used local media to foster that deflecting. Any rebuttal comments to media articles that were slanted to make the folks who brought those illegal actions to light as the "bad guys" that offered facts by reasonable folks were met with nasty emotional insults and twisted perceptions based in emotional personal opinions that have no basis in facts.

And that should be no surprise when the articles themselves set the tone of OC'ers confronting government officials engaging in illegal actions....... as the villains instead of the officials who were breaking the law.

So if the local media is slanting things in favor of deflecting where the blame belongs........... where do we go for fair and accurate reporting?

How can that be countered? I, for one, do not think it can be countered on the local level because the local level is controlled by... local government and local media.

When I was a kid in school many, way too many, years ago... when the bully beat me up I didn't keep going to that same bully to state my case because all he would do is laugh and beat me up again. I went to someone who was bigger and stronger than the bully and asked for his help.

And so I think it is now with local media....... time to take our case to a bigger, stronger, media with more influence.

Make it only about, "laws, or rights" is all well and good. But without addressing the fears of the uninitiated, they'll just pass more laws restricting those rights. It won't work with the diehards, because one must accept that there are certain types of evil in the world who only see things as power. However, by addressing the fears of people with trepidation, you win their hearts, and minds. Kind of like giving a man a fish, or giving him a pole, and teaching him how. You can tell your neighbor that, "It's my right!" to carry a gun, but that doesn't mean he won't decide that you shouldn't have that right. Teach him to accept that all rights should be held sacred, and it might work, but even people on these types of boards have demonstrated small amounts of "not in my back yard syndrome". Sadly, people are taught to respect the law, and not rights, and that the law is a tool to restrict rights ("All are subject to restriction"). That's the way things are now, so we work within that mold. Convince your neighbor that OC/CC isn't a problem, and shouldn't be feared, and the RO council will have little support. Go after the council, and don't sell the people, and the council will have the people. I just get the feeling that the people are under the council. If I'm wrong, then great.

On the opposite side of the coin. We can hold as many seminars, and educate as many people as possible, but if they continue to see people getting harassed, then they won't OC out of fear.

Now, if MAC, MCOLES, and MML are convinced to change, then the rest will fall in line, because that's where they get their marching orders.

When you starting the tact of, "Might makes right.", then you may force a following, but you can't force respect. OTOH, "force" can breed contempt (just look at the way some OC'ers view certain elements of LE).

 

[ghostrider]

We need to quit spinning our wheels, pick our fights, and innundate the council and police station with calls, faxes and emails.Also we need a large group to walk the streets of pontiac.At least 15 or more with audio-video stuff.

How about community events and charities?