-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Iowa Gun Owners - Take Action! Disturbing Anti-Gun Rights Legislation Being Pushed by NRA in Iowa
- Thread starter Straight_Shooter
- Start date
imported post
Max G wrote:
OCDO Basic Rules
[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks[/font]
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/1.html
May I suggest if you take exception to what is being posted by others that you give your view point and show why you think you are correct.
Yata hey
Max G wrote:
Please take note:
OCDO Basic Rules
[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks[/font]
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/1.html
May I suggest if you take exception to what is being posted by others that you give your view point and show why you think you are correct.
Yata hey
imported post
Personal attacks? No.
The topic Straight Shooter introduced slams the NRA for not supporting the 2nd Amendment, slams the NRA Bill with unfactual information, and tells untruthful information about IGO.
For example? The 49-49 vote last year was NOT a direct vote on the IGO Bill and Straight Shooter knows it! It was a procedural vote on whether to debate certain Bills lined up that didn't pass through the funnel quick enough during the session. It was a vote to debate whether to allow a number of Bills to be considered on the House floor. It was NOT a vote on passing the IGO Bill. And the House voted to not even consider all of the Bills. Call that a near victory?
It's reasonable to doubt a posters support for the 2nd Amendment when they:
1. Spread untruthful information about the NRA.
2. Try to promote an "Alaska" Bill by attacking the Bills of others. Can they not promote their own Bill without slamming the NRA?
3. Try to promote an "Alaska" Bill by falsely claiming it received a close vote in the last session and almost passed.
4. Try to promote an "Alaska" Bill which has zero chance of passing the Iowa Legislature, and they know it.
5. Constantly trail across multiple web sites to attack those who do support the NRA Bill.
How is that advancing the 2nd Amendment any better then the Brady Bunch does? What has the IGO done to support the right to carry in Iowa? Constant attacks on the NRA and others, does not constitute support of the 2nd Amendment or the right to carry in Iowa.
Personal attacks? No.
The topic Straight Shooter introduced slams the NRA for not supporting the 2nd Amendment, slams the NRA Bill with unfactual information, and tells untruthful information about IGO.
For example? The 49-49 vote last year was NOT a direct vote on the IGO Bill and Straight Shooter knows it! It was a procedural vote on whether to debate certain Bills lined up that didn't pass through the funnel quick enough during the session. It was a vote to debate whether to allow a number of Bills to be considered on the House floor. It was NOT a vote on passing the IGO Bill. And the House voted to not even consider all of the Bills. Call that a near victory?
It's reasonable to doubt a posters support for the 2nd Amendment when they:
1. Spread untruthful information about the NRA.
2. Try to promote an "Alaska" Bill by attacking the Bills of others. Can they not promote their own Bill without slamming the NRA?
3. Try to promote an "Alaska" Bill by falsely claiming it received a close vote in the last session and almost passed.
4. Try to promote an "Alaska" Bill which has zero chance of passing the Iowa Legislature, and they know it.
5. Constantly trail across multiple web sites to attack those who do support the NRA Bill.
How is that advancing the 2nd Amendment any better then the Brady Bunch does? What has the IGO done to support the right to carry in Iowa? Constant attacks on the NRA and others, does not constitute support of the 2nd Amendment or the right to carry in Iowa.
imported post
Max G wrote:
Pushing for too much, too fast can indeed have negative impact. The proponent's motive (zealot or anti) really doesn't make any difference either, as you say the effect is the same.
Without a doubt the citizens of Iowa need to pull together, not be splintered and divided, to reach realistic goals. I have never felt that seeking such realistic goals was a bad choice. IMHO it should never be an all or nothing situation - at least hopefully not.
Truth and facts are our trademark. Distortion of either hurts us.
Good luck and best wishes with improving the carry laws in your great state - lots of fine people there.
Yata hey
Max G wrote:
Now that puts things in a different light and makes more sense. Appreciate it.
Pushing for too much, too fast can indeed have negative impact. The proponent's motive (zealot or anti) really doesn't make any difference either, as you say the effect is the same.
Without a doubt the citizens of Iowa need to pull together, not be splintered and divided, to reach realistic goals. I have never felt that seeking such realistic goals was a bad choice. IMHO it should never be an all or nothing situation - at least hopefully not.
Truth and facts are our trademark. Distortion of either hurts us.
Good luck and best wishes with improving the carry laws in your great state - lots of fine people there.
Yata hey
Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Careful there Grapshot . . . next thing you know 'ol Max there will be calling you a member of the Brady gang!
You'll notice though, that good ol' Max doesn't really address any of the issues I have raised with the bill, just attacks me personally (which is fine, if that floats his boat - you needn't defend me from his "attacks;" his comments mean nothing to me) . . .like better people than him before,he can't address the issues with the bill. . . it is impossible to defend Lautenberg, waiting periods, veterans disarmament laws, etc . . . as I have carefully outlined here . . . as any thing other than anti-gun.
Tell me something Max? Exactly how do you justify the fact that the NRA-ILA wants all of theselaws created by some of the most anti-gun people in the federal Congress incorporated into Iowa law? Attack me if you want (if that makes you feel better, knock yourself out) . . . . but if you live in Iowa . . . you're the one who is going to have to live with ignoring the warning . . . but don't worry . . I am not the type to say . . . "I told you so."
Oh yeah . . . and if I am an "anti-gun infiltrator," then I am in some pretty good company with Larry Pratt and Jeff Knox, etc, etc.
But I did enjoy reading your rant . . . thanks for the entertainment.
SS
Grapeshot wrote:
Careful there Grapshot . . . next thing you know 'ol Max there will be calling you a member of the Brady gang!
You'll notice though, that good ol' Max doesn't really address any of the issues I have raised with the bill, just attacks me personally (which is fine, if that floats his boat - you needn't defend me from his "attacks;" his comments mean nothing to me) . . .like better people than him before,he can't address the issues with the bill. . . it is impossible to defend Lautenberg, waiting periods, veterans disarmament laws, etc . . . as I have carefully outlined here . . . as any thing other than anti-gun.
Tell me something Max? Exactly how do you justify the fact that the NRA-ILA wants all of theselaws created by some of the most anti-gun people in the federal Congress incorporated into Iowa law? Attack me if you want (if that makes you feel better, knock yourself out) . . . . but if you live in Iowa . . . you're the one who is going to have to live with ignoring the warning . . . but don't worry . . I am not the type to say . . . "I told you so."
Oh yeah . . . and if I am an "anti-gun infiltrator," then I am in some pretty good company with Larry Pratt and Jeff Knox, etc, etc.
But I did enjoy reading your rant . . . thanks for the entertainment.
SS
Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
Max G wrote:
Hey Maxie -
Calm down dude! . . . you might pop agasketor something like that. You might want to taper off on the caffeine a little too!
Here is a little more "untruthful" information about the NRA for you- but take a tranquilizer before you read this . . . you'll need it judging by your post above! BTW - you can go ahead and accuse the folks who created this website as "Brady infiltrators" if you want . . . I know them . . . these guys are into heavy class III stuff . . . not exactly what onecould call "gun pansies" I don't think. Oh yeah . . .I forgot. . . no class III allowed in Iowa . . . one more BS anti-second amendmentlaw that the NRA has allowed to stand for years and years in Iowa without so much as lifting a finger . . . just like with our "may issue" carry laws . . . until IGO got involved that is and moved the issue to the front.
http://www.nrawol.net/
I like their mission statement:
[align=left]"NRAwol was created as a clearing house for information on the NRA, only from a pro-gun point of view. If we can expose the NRA's compromises on a daily basis, and compile them all right here, the NRA may have to re-think their terrible political strategy.[/align]
[align=left]Never has a web site so accurately assessed the NRA and its tactics.[/align]
[align=left]This web site does not seek to denigrate the good members of the NRA, but instead inform them about what their organization is really doing.[/align]This site will continue to add information regarding the NRA's support of gun control measures as we verify and process the information.
[align=left]Why attack the NRA? Put simply, the NRA is driving the gun rights bus.. right off a cliff. They need pressure from honest gun owners to stay the right course."[/align]
That's me . . . an honest gun owner . . . or should I say, "Straight Shooter?"
Oh yeah . . . one more thing . . . you went off on me pretty good about the procedural vote thing. . . soyou'd better be praying that your precious bill gets out of committee by the end of "funnel week" . . . otherwise, if Baudler and the NRA decide to "rule 60" it later on, and lose . . . how will you guysbe able to sayanything at the polls next November about who is and isn't anti-gun when you keep claiming that "procedural votes don't count?!?"
Never mind . . . I know the answer to that one already . . . the NRA will give a chunk of coin to Mike Gronstal for his reelection, and guys like you will vote in the same folks that keep any pro-gun bills locked up in committee . . . just like always!
All the best to you my high strung friend!
SS
Max G wrote:
Hey Maxie -
Calm down dude! . . . you might pop agasketor something like that. You might want to taper off on the caffeine a little too!
Here is a little more "untruthful" information about the NRA for you- but take a tranquilizer before you read this . . . you'll need it judging by your post above! BTW - you can go ahead and accuse the folks who created this website as "Brady infiltrators" if you want . . . I know them . . . these guys are into heavy class III stuff . . . not exactly what onecould call "gun pansies" I don't think. Oh yeah . . .I forgot. . . no class III allowed in Iowa . . . one more BS anti-second amendmentlaw that the NRA has allowed to stand for years and years in Iowa without so much as lifting a finger . . . just like with our "may issue" carry laws . . . until IGO got involved that is and moved the issue to the front.
http://www.nrawol.net/
I like their mission statement:
[align=left]"NRAwol was created as a clearing house for information on the NRA, only from a pro-gun point of view. If we can expose the NRA's compromises on a daily basis, and compile them all right here, the NRA may have to re-think their terrible political strategy.[/align]
[align=left]Never has a web site so accurately assessed the NRA and its tactics.[/align]
[align=left]This web site does not seek to denigrate the good members of the NRA, but instead inform them about what their organization is really doing.[/align]This site will continue to add information regarding the NRA's support of gun control measures as we verify and process the information.
[align=left]Why attack the NRA? Put simply, the NRA is driving the gun rights bus.. right off a cliff. They need pressure from honest gun owners to stay the right course."[/align]
That's me . . . an honest gun owner . . . or should I say, "Straight Shooter?"
Oh yeah . . . one more thing . . . you went off on me pretty good about the procedural vote thing. . . soyou'd better be praying that your precious bill gets out of committee by the end of "funnel week" . . . otherwise, if Baudler and the NRA decide to "rule 60" it later on, and lose . . . how will you guysbe able to sayanything at the polls next November about who is and isn't anti-gun when you keep claiming that "procedural votes don't count?!?"
Never mind . . . I know the answer to that one already . . . the NRA will give a chunk of coin to Mike Gronstal for his reelection, and guys like you will vote in the same folks that keep any pro-gun bills locked up in committee . . . just like always!
All the best to you my high strung friend!
SS
imported post
Another NRA attack from Straight Shooter. Gosh I'm surprised.
You cannot promote your own Bill without attacking the NRA and their Bill. Why?
Because you and the IGO have zero credibility as a result of your Radical Attack approach to passing legislation. You also have very few active members. Yet you continue your efforts to gain relevence by attacking others - while making all 2nd Amendment supporters look like a bunch of irrational, hot-headed gun nuts.
Rational debate with you? Not possible. Just like it's not possible for the IGO or your ilk to advance your Bill with Legislators.
BTW - Thanks Straight Shooter, for almost admitting that you and the IGO lied about the 49-49 Procedural Vote. If you try taking the honest and rational approach, you might gain some credibility and respect. But you have a lot of bridges to rebuild, and a lot of history to try to erase.
Another NRA attack from Straight Shooter. Gosh I'm surprised.
You cannot promote your own Bill without attacking the NRA and their Bill. Why?
Because you and the IGO have zero credibility as a result of your Radical Attack approach to passing legislation. You also have very few active members. Yet you continue your efforts to gain relevence by attacking others - while making all 2nd Amendment supporters look like a bunch of irrational, hot-headed gun nuts.
Rational debate with you? Not possible. Just like it's not possible for the IGO or your ilk to advance your Bill with Legislators.
BTW - Thanks Straight Shooter, for almost admitting that you and the IGO lied about the 49-49 Procedural Vote. If you try taking the honest and rational approach, you might gain some credibility and respect. But you have a lot of bridges to rebuild, and a lot of history to try to erase.
Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
Max G wrote:
Hey Maxie -
Are ya feelin' ok today? I am worried about your nerves . . .
I "attack the NRA" (their bill actually, but why worry about semantics). . . you attack IGO . . . what exactly is the difference?
I wonder why you keep blaming IGO for what I write (???) . . . they have nothing to do with what I write. I am a member, but that is all. I have no fiduciary or leadership role with IGO at all, but you keep saying "you and IGO" . . . I am flattered, of course, but I thought you might want to be corrected on this error on your part.
"You cannot promote your own Bill without attacking the NRA and their Bill. Why?"
As I indicated above, it isn't "my bill" . . . in fact, I have tried to pursuade IGO to remove or modifythe "Class D felony conviction for intent" language from their bill (which is a whole hell of a lot more than I can say about any Iowa Carry member). . . as others have pointed out, this could be stretched by a prosecuter, although I have been told by criminal lawyers familiar with this billthat the meaningof "intent" in Iowa law is pretty well defined, so this is not a particularly "evil" feature (BTW - the SAME criminal lawywers tell me that I am correct:there is LOTS to be afraid of in the NRA bill).
So . . . by way of theexample above, I will "attack" any"pro-second amendment" bill or provisionthat clearly violates the Constitutional protections of Iowans, whether they be from the Iowa Constitution, or from the federal Constitution. The NRA bill happens to be chock full of them (due process violations for example). That is my bottom line, and if you fault me for that . . . well . . . then your right . . . you can't have a "rational debate."
I think I have made this very clear, but just in case, I'll say it again: If the NRA will clean up their bill, and remove the anti-rights language in it, I will be the most vocal and ardent supporter that they have. I FULLY support the notion of "shall issue" as an improvement over the garbage laws that we have today. BUT KEEP IN MIND that a "shall issue" law, that doesn't exempt open carry at least from the penalties of carrying without a license, SIMPLY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
IfIowan's are willing to give up their second amendment right, as you apparently are willing to do, then that is fine . . . but let's quit beating around the bush with ignorant lines the NRA uses like "we support the second amendment in Iowa." Carrying weapons only at the permission of the "gubermint" is NOT a right . . . it is a government granted privilage. The IGO bill (I know . . . I know . . . I have heard 'till I am blue that it can't pass, so please don't run that old song again . . . we got the message) that you don't like, is the only one that has fidelity with the second amendment to the U.S.Constitution . . . that is just a FACT.
"Rational debate with you? Not possible."
This is kind of "old news" here . . But you are right: you guys can't defend the provisions in the NRA bill (as you can see from the posts here, they all leave after a while; while this doesn't surprise me much, they have no "staying power" - whimps).
Itis sad that you IC/NRA "Myrmidon" types can't think enough to discuss the content of the bill, etc., because rank-and-file members of the NRA and Iowa Carry are the key to getting a better bill by telling your leadership that anti-gun provisions are not acceptable. Right now, the NRA has fingers in both ears going "nah-nah-nah . . . we aren't listening to you."
"Thanks Straight Shooter, for almost admitting that you and the IGO lied about the 49-49 Procedural Vote."
I am not certain at all what "lie" you think IGO told about the vote . . . though I am sure that I haven't read everything that ever came out of IGO, I am pretty sure that they never told an outright lie about it. I know that the NRA and Iowa Carry sees "rule 60" votes as not having any meaning. That is a position I don't understand: if the "germane" vote had passed, the next step would be a vote on the bill. How do you, or they, say that doesn't matter? Are you implying that those who voted against voting on the bill are somehow "pro-gun?" Do you think that true pro-gun people would vote "against" moving forwardon a vote on a pro-gun bill itself?
You guys keep saying that this vote doesn't count . . . can you please explain your logic? . . . Oh sorry . . . there I go again. . asking you guys to have a "rational debate" . . . and you already told me that you can't have one.
My mistake . .
Thanks for some entertainment though . . .
SS
Max G wrote:
Hey Maxie -
Are ya feelin' ok today? I am worried about your nerves . . .
I "attack the NRA" (their bill actually, but why worry about semantics). . . you attack IGO . . . what exactly is the difference?
I wonder why you keep blaming IGO for what I write (???) . . . they have nothing to do with what I write. I am a member, but that is all. I have no fiduciary or leadership role with IGO at all, but you keep saying "you and IGO" . . . I am flattered, of course, but I thought you might want to be corrected on this error on your part.
"You cannot promote your own Bill without attacking the NRA and their Bill. Why?"
As I indicated above, it isn't "my bill" . . . in fact, I have tried to pursuade IGO to remove or modifythe "Class D felony conviction for intent" language from their bill (which is a whole hell of a lot more than I can say about any Iowa Carry member). . . as others have pointed out, this could be stretched by a prosecuter, although I have been told by criminal lawyers familiar with this billthat the meaningof "intent" in Iowa law is pretty well defined, so this is not a particularly "evil" feature (BTW - the SAME criminal lawywers tell me that I am correct:there is LOTS to be afraid of in the NRA bill).
So . . . by way of theexample above, I will "attack" any"pro-second amendment" bill or provisionthat clearly violates the Constitutional protections of Iowans, whether they be from the Iowa Constitution, or from the federal Constitution. The NRA bill happens to be chock full of them (due process violations for example). That is my bottom line, and if you fault me for that . . . well . . . then your right . . . you can't have a "rational debate."
I think I have made this very clear, but just in case, I'll say it again: If the NRA will clean up their bill, and remove the anti-rights language in it, I will be the most vocal and ardent supporter that they have. I FULLY support the notion of "shall issue" as an improvement over the garbage laws that we have today. BUT KEEP IN MIND that a "shall issue" law, that doesn't exempt open carry at least from the penalties of carrying without a license, SIMPLY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
IfIowan's are willing to give up their second amendment right, as you apparently are willing to do, then that is fine . . . but let's quit beating around the bush with ignorant lines the NRA uses like "we support the second amendment in Iowa." Carrying weapons only at the permission of the "gubermint" is NOT a right . . . it is a government granted privilage. The IGO bill (I know . . . I know . . . I have heard 'till I am blue that it can't pass, so please don't run that old song again . . . we got the message) that you don't like, is the only one that has fidelity with the second amendment to the U.S.Constitution . . . that is just a FACT.
"Rational debate with you? Not possible."
This is kind of "old news" here . . But you are right: you guys can't defend the provisions in the NRA bill (as you can see from the posts here, they all leave after a while; while this doesn't surprise me much, they have no "staying power" - whimps).
Itis sad that you IC/NRA "Myrmidon" types can't think enough to discuss the content of the bill, etc., because rank-and-file members of the NRA and Iowa Carry are the key to getting a better bill by telling your leadership that anti-gun provisions are not acceptable. Right now, the NRA has fingers in both ears going "nah-nah-nah . . . we aren't listening to you."
"Thanks Straight Shooter, for almost admitting that you and the IGO lied about the 49-49 Procedural Vote."
I am not certain at all what "lie" you think IGO told about the vote . . . though I am sure that I haven't read everything that ever came out of IGO, I am pretty sure that they never told an outright lie about it. I know that the NRA and Iowa Carry sees "rule 60" votes as not having any meaning. That is a position I don't understand: if the "germane" vote had passed, the next step would be a vote on the bill. How do you, or they, say that doesn't matter? Are you implying that those who voted against voting on the bill are somehow "pro-gun?" Do you think that true pro-gun people would vote "against" moving forwardon a vote on a pro-gun bill itself?
You guys keep saying that this vote doesn't count . . . can you please explain your logic? . . . Oh sorry . . . there I go again. . asking you guys to have a "rational debate" . . . and you already told me that you can't have one.
My mistake . .
Thanks for some entertainment though . . .
SS
Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
Max G wrote:
FYI - while IGO does not yet publish their total number of members, I did ask them at a gun show how many members they now have. They told me that using email numbers, which they STRESSED isn't a measure of active members, they were currently over 5,000 people on their email contact list. I asked about "supporting" members, and the said the number was around 2,000 give-or-take.
Iowa Carry, on the other hand, has published numbers on their websiteof about 600. Whether that is "supporting" or not, really doesn't matter.
I will say that I don't believe for one second that if IGO hadn't "appeared" in Iowa last year, that we would even be having this debate right now, nor would the NRA even be here, like they haven't been for the past 20 oddyears.We would be saying something like "well, I see that Clel Baudler's Iowa Carry bill that gives you a letter if the sheriff turns you down for a permit failed to pass again . . . better luck next year."
I have talked to too many people at gun shows, etc, that are tired of the same old non-winning compromise strategy of Iowa Carry. Gun owners in this state, at least the truly dedicated ones, are ready for something new and that makes progress. Iowa Carry just ain't cuttin' it.
Have a nice day!
SS
Max G wrote:
Maxie -
FYI - while IGO does not yet publish their total number of members, I did ask them at a gun show how many members they now have. They told me that using email numbers, which they STRESSED isn't a measure of active members, they were currently over 5,000 people on their email contact list. I asked about "supporting" members, and the said the number was around 2,000 give-or-take.
Iowa Carry, on the other hand, has published numbers on their websiteof about 600. Whether that is "supporting" or not, really doesn't matter.
I will say that I don't believe for one second that if IGO hadn't "appeared" in Iowa last year, that we would even be having this debate right now, nor would the NRA even be here, like they haven't been for the past 20 oddyears.We would be saying something like "well, I see that Clel Baudler's Iowa Carry bill that gives you a letter if the sheriff turns you down for a permit failed to pass again . . . better luck next year."
I have talked to too many people at gun shows, etc, that are tired of the same old non-winning compromise strategy of Iowa Carry. Gun owners in this state, at least the truly dedicated ones, are ready for something new and that makes progress. Iowa Carry just ain't cuttin' it.
Have a nice day!
SS
imported post
Momma once told me that if you want to get anywhere in a "discussion," you have to stick to the facts and leave the other person's intelligence out of it - don't insult them. Momma was a pretty smart lady. She also said that the madder you get, the more you should smile.
Presuming that you both want to improve the present situation, sit down and find some common ground - at least publicly. This will not likely be a one day, one issue fight. Strength lies in unity, not discord.
Yata hey
Momma once told me that if you want to get anywhere in a "discussion," you have to stick to the facts and leave the other person's intelligence out of it - don't insult them. Momma was a pretty smart lady. She also said that the madder you get, the more you should smile.
Presuming that you both want to improve the present situation, sit down and find some common ground - at least publicly. This will not likely be a one day, one issue fight. Strength lies in unity, not discord.
Yata hey
imported post
As for number of members, the NRA has over 80,000 paying members in Iowa.
That's more than 10 times the number of members of Iowa Carry and IGO combined. Attacking the NRA then, is not likely to gain much for you.
I think all readers of this website would welcome a true "Alaska" style Bill. But using a hammer and personal attacks will only serve to make all gun-owners look bad, and will not gain passage of this Bill.
Good luck though.
As for number of members, the NRA has over 80,000 paying members in Iowa.
That's more than 10 times the number of members of Iowa Carry and IGO combined. Attacking the NRA then, is not likely to gain much for you.
I think all readers of this website would welcome a true "Alaska" style Bill. But using a hammer and personal attacks will only serve to make all gun-owners look bad, and will not gain passage of this Bill.
Good luck though.
Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Grape -
Very wise words . . .
I am ready to discuss facts; I have been since I started this thread. . . the facts as to what is in the bill and what can be done to eliminate theun-Constitutional portions. That iswhat this thread was started for.
If you read elsewhere, until I am attacked as "anti-NRA" and "a member of the Brady bunch,"I provide as much thoughtful and reasoned debate as I am able, with direct reference to the bill and other sources,without ad hominem attacks. I am doing so with others on other threads as we speak.
You will notice that Mr. Maxie's first post on this thread was full of ad hominem attacks, not a reference to the facts. . . you yourself asked him to tone it down. What I won't do is stand and take these ad hominem attacks from witless people who REFUSE to debate the facts, as you have seen above. If they unload on me with this crap, then they better be ready to take what they dish out.
At their "public meetings" last week, the NRAabsolutely refused to discuss the contents of the bill publicly with many, many people who wanted to (unless it was "privately,after the meeting")they only wantedthem to "support it" publicly.
The exaulted"leader" of these "mirmydons" has accusedother gungroups in this state for "physical assault" without so much as a shred of evidence or proof. I have posted on it elsewhere. This kind of distortion I cannot accept.
SS
Grapeshot wrote:
Grape -
Very wise words . . .
I am ready to discuss facts; I have been since I started this thread. . . the facts as to what is in the bill and what can be done to eliminate theun-Constitutional portions. That iswhat this thread was started for.
If you read elsewhere, until I am attacked as "anti-NRA" and "a member of the Brady bunch,"I provide as much thoughtful and reasoned debate as I am able, with direct reference to the bill and other sources,without ad hominem attacks. I am doing so with others on other threads as we speak.
You will notice that Mr. Maxie's first post on this thread was full of ad hominem attacks, not a reference to the facts. . . you yourself asked him to tone it down. What I won't do is stand and take these ad hominem attacks from witless people who REFUSE to debate the facts, as you have seen above. If they unload on me with this crap, then they better be ready to take what they dish out.
At their "public meetings" last week, the NRAabsolutely refused to discuss the contents of the bill publicly with many, many people who wanted to (unless it was "privately,after the meeting")they only wantedthem to "support it" publicly.
The exaulted"leader" of these "mirmydons" has accusedother gungroups in this state for "physical assault" without so much as a shred of evidence or proof. I have posted on it elsewhere. This kind of distortion I cannot accept.
SS
imported post
"At their "public meetings" last week, the NRA absolutely refused to discuss the contents of the bill publicly with many, many people who wanted to (unless it was "privately, after the meeting") they only wanted them to "support it" publicly." Straight Shooter
It's statements like the above, which make it impossible to have a rational discussion with Straight Shooter.
I attended the NRA meeting in Des Moines last week. There were well over 200 people in attendance. There was much discussion and a Q & A session after the formal meeting and the NRA was there to answer any questions asked regarding specifics of the Bill. There were at least 50 people gathered at the podium after the formal meeting. Then the discussion moved to the lobby area after the cleaning crew asked everyone to move. It was a very public forum.
The unfounded attacks on the NRA continue.....
"At their "public meetings" last week, the NRA absolutely refused to discuss the contents of the bill publicly with many, many people who wanted to (unless it was "privately, after the meeting") they only wanted them to "support it" publicly." Straight Shooter
It's statements like the above, which make it impossible to have a rational discussion with Straight Shooter.
I attended the NRA meeting in Des Moines last week. There were well over 200 people in attendance. There was much discussion and a Q & A session after the formal meeting and the NRA was there to answer any questions asked regarding specifics of the Bill. There were at least 50 people gathered at the podium after the formal meeting. Then the discussion moved to the lobby area after the cleaning crew asked everyone to move. It was a very public forum.
The unfounded attacks on the NRA continue.....
Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
Max G wrote:
"The likes of Straight Shooter and the other NRA haters, supposedly support the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment, but they sound more like covert members of the Brady gun-ban crowd who have infiltrated the IGO.
Ya see, they want the IGO to look like a bunch of radical gun nuts, and advocate “pro-gun” Alaska legislation as if it has a chance in hell of passing in the Iowa Legislature in the next 50 years.
36 States have “Shall Issue”, but that ain’t good enough for the IGO? Who’s side are they on? They sound like the Brady bunch trying to act like a pro-gun fringe nut-case group, to make the NRA and real gun groups look real bad.
And read the posts of SS for an example of this psychotic behavior and Brady-in-disguise approach. This guy is a piece of work, trying to act "pro-gun" by attacking the NRA and pushing for an impossible to pass Alaska Bill. (Heh heh, sorta like Obama promising a tax cut when everyone on the planet knows he is lying!)
Say according to SS, the sky is falling! Now who ya gonna believe, Straight Shooter and IGO who have been around since 2009, or the NRA who has been around since 1871?"
No "hammer" or"personal attacks"there for sure! Just "reasoned debate!" . . .
Yes . . . I should learn from this how to not "make all gun owners look bad."
Thanks, Maxie, for the clear lesson on propriety . . .
SS
Max G wrote:
Let's take a close look at Maxie's first post on this thread . . . shall we?
"The likes of Straight Shooter and the other NRA haters, supposedly support the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment, but they sound more like covert members of the Brady gun-ban crowd who have infiltrated the IGO.
Ya see, they want the IGO to look like a bunch of radical gun nuts, and advocate “pro-gun” Alaska legislation as if it has a chance in hell of passing in the Iowa Legislature in the next 50 years.
36 States have “Shall Issue”, but that ain’t good enough for the IGO? Who’s side are they on? They sound like the Brady bunch trying to act like a pro-gun fringe nut-case group, to make the NRA and real gun groups look real bad.
And read the posts of SS for an example of this psychotic behavior and Brady-in-disguise approach. This guy is a piece of work, trying to act "pro-gun" by attacking the NRA and pushing for an impossible to pass Alaska Bill. (Heh heh, sorta like Obama promising a tax cut when everyone on the planet knows he is lying!)
Say according to SS, the sky is falling! Now who ya gonna believe, Straight Shooter and IGO who have been around since 2009, or the NRA who has been around since 1871?"
No "hammer" or"personal attacks"there for sure! Just "reasoned debate!" . . .
Yes . . . I should learn from this how to not "make all gun owners look bad."
Thanks, Maxie, for the clear lesson on propriety . . .
SS
Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
Max G wrote:
You sir . . . are a liar.
I was there too . . . as soon as the first person stood up to challenge the bill, who claimed that he couldn't sell the bill to his coworkers because of the all the anti-gun content,NRA-ILA Iowa LiasonChris Rager loudly and clearly said "we are not here to discuss the bill." The next person stood up to ask why the NRA refused to come into Iowa and have discussions about the crafting of the bill before they introduced it, and again, Rager loudly and clearly said "we are not here to discuss the bill." I watched other people raise their hands and stand to be recognized, and the NRA representatives ignored them.
The NRA refused to take anymore questions publicly in that forum. There was discussion up front, but NOT in the assembly. Any contention otherwise is full scale prevarication.
SS
Max G wrote:
You sir . . . are a liar.
I was there too . . . as soon as the first person stood up to challenge the bill, who claimed that he couldn't sell the bill to his coworkers because of the all the anti-gun content,NRA-ILA Iowa LiasonChris Rager loudly and clearly said "we are not here to discuss the bill." The next person stood up to ask why the NRA refused to come into Iowa and have discussions about the crafting of the bill before they introduced it, and again, Rager loudly and clearly said "we are not here to discuss the bill." I watched other people raise their hands and stand to be recognized, and the NRA representatives ignored them.
The NRA refused to take anymore questions publicly in that forum. There was discussion up front, but NOT in the assembly. Any contention otherwise is full scale prevarication.
SS
imported post
SS, your unfounded attacks and distortions regarding the NRA and their Bill do in fact, make you appear to be on the same side as the Brady gun-banners.
And if you actually are pro-gun, then your unfounded attacks and distortions make you appear to be psychotic.
Those are observations any rational person would make after reading your posts.
SS, your unfounded attacks and distortions regarding the NRA and their Bill do in fact, make you appear to be on the same side as the Brady gun-banners.
And if you actually are pro-gun, then your unfounded attacks and distortions make you appear to be psychotic.
Those are observations any rational person would make after reading your posts.
Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
Max G wrote:
Whoa!. . . Good comeback! . . . did you write that one yourself? So full of substance for this debate . . . whatever you do for a living . . . you really missed your calling . . . you should have been a circus clown!
Max G wrote:
Whoa!. . . Good comeback! . . . did you write that one yourself? So full of substance for this debate . . . whatever you do for a living . . . you really missed your calling . . . you should have been a circus clown!
imported post
"You sir . . . are a liar.
I was there too . . . as soon as the first person stood up to challenge the bill, who claimed that he couldn't sell the bill to his coworkers because of the all the anti-gun content, NRA-ILA Iowa Liason Chris Rager loudly and clearly said "we are not here to discuss the bill." The next person stood up to ask why the NRA refused to come into Iowa and have discussions about the crafting of the bill before they introduced it, and again, Rager loudly and clearly said "we are not here to discuss the bill." I watched other people raise their hands and stand to be recognized, and the NRA representatives ignored them.
The NRA refused to take anymore questions publicly in that forum. There was discussion up front, but NOT in the assembly. Any contention otherwise is full scale prevarication.
SS"
----------------------
The first person to challenge the Bill? Oh, you mean the one who started yelling?
I looked for that guy after the meeting. I was hoping he would address specific questions to the NRA, as invited to do, after the meeting. He appeared to be there just to put on a show and make a scene. He apparently didn't want to discuss anything with the NRA with just 50 people at the front of the room by the podium. I looked for him, but he must have ran away.
All were invited to ask questions about the Bill at the end of the meeting. Maybe you were too busy shouting to listen?
For you to call me a liar confirms you weren't there or you weren't listening. 50+ other people heard Chris though.
It was a good discussion with many questions answered.
Sorry you missed it.
"You sir . . . are a liar.
I was there too . . . as soon as the first person stood up to challenge the bill, who claimed that he couldn't sell the bill to his coworkers because of the all the anti-gun content, NRA-ILA Iowa Liason Chris Rager loudly and clearly said "we are not here to discuss the bill." The next person stood up to ask why the NRA refused to come into Iowa and have discussions about the crafting of the bill before they introduced it, and again, Rager loudly and clearly said "we are not here to discuss the bill." I watched other people raise their hands and stand to be recognized, and the NRA representatives ignored them.
The NRA refused to take anymore questions publicly in that forum. There was discussion up front, but NOT in the assembly. Any contention otherwise is full scale prevarication.
SS"
----------------------
The first person to challenge the Bill? Oh, you mean the one who started yelling?
I looked for that guy after the meeting. I was hoping he would address specific questions to the NRA, as invited to do, after the meeting. He appeared to be there just to put on a show and make a scene. He apparently didn't want to discuss anything with the NRA with just 50 people at the front of the room by the podium. I looked for him, but he must have ran away.
All were invited to ask questions about the Bill at the end of the meeting. Maybe you were too busy shouting to listen?
For you to call me a liar confirms you weren't there or you weren't listening. 50+ other people heard Chris though.
It was a good discussion with many questions answered.
Sorry you missed it.
Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
Max G wrote:
Ahhh, thank you!. . . there we have it . . . the story changes with each posting. . . no mention of anything out of the ordinary with your first post. One wouldn't want to "complicate the story" would he? "Surprising" that you were willing totellmore (though it is still not accurate)once it was clear that someone else was there besides you.
As I said, you are a liar . . .
Max G wrote:
Ahhh, thank you!. . . there we have it . . . the story changes with each posting. . . no mention of anything out of the ordinary with your first post. One wouldn't want to "complicate the story" would he? "Surprising" that you were willing totellmore (though it is still not accurate)once it was clear that someone else was there besides you.
As I said, you are a liar . . .
imported post
"Surprising" that you were willing totellmore (though it is still not accurate)once it was clear that someone else was there besides you." SS
Yeah, I only mentioned that there were over 200 people there, with over 50 at the podium for a Q & A session Regarding The Bill.
Again, more unfounded attacks and distortions from Straight Shooter.
"Surprising" that you were willing totellmore (though it is still not accurate)once it was clear that someone else was there besides you." SS
Yeah, I only mentioned that there were over 200 people there, with over 50 at the podium for a Q & A session Regarding The Bill.
Again, more unfounded attacks and distortions from Straight Shooter.