Nevada Firearms Coalition Screws up again

[wrightme]

DTOM and others, the point you are sidestepping is this. The methods are different, the goals are the same. Many here refuse to help, where carry is prohibited. Others choose to help, in spite of that prohibition. I chose the school example to point out the need for sharing information where carry IS prohibited. I also used the example of legislative sessions. Did you miss that? Do you also stop your advocacy there because carry is prohibited?


In many cases, the need is where the 2A is most restricted. Avoid those places, and you are preaching to the choir, and missing where change is needed yet.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

I think any opportunity to make a pro-gun presence could be good.

But I think the NVFAC has made some bad calls in the past, like giving Tim Farrell a bad score due to their improperly weighted candidate surveys. I also was not impressed that they trumpet a huge success with SB76 which is a compromise at best. I see it as more of a step backwards and I think SB76 amounted to Trojan horse legislation. This last session NVSCA made it a goal to ban concealed carry of rifles and the NVFAC either was blind to it or complicit in making a compromise. Now one could argue that it was a worthwhile compromise perhaps, but it is no clear victory. Sure, now we only have qualification with one gun instead of two... You save a whopping $1.50 worth of .22lr every five years for each student that no longer has to qualify with two guns. But now it is illegal to conceal a rifle, shotgun, or antique handgun, (and therefore illegal to carry a concealed handgun during a muzzle-loading hunt.) I'd rather pay $1.50 more in ammunition every four years and have more options for carry.

 

[Vegassteve]

I think any opportunity to make a pro-gun presence could be good.
.

Possibly. Yet they are a part of a 2nd Amendment liberty rally that wants to disarm and search you. That is not liberty and that is poor judgement. I find it odd all this talk of them willing and wanting to go into anti places to gain members. Yet they keep losing members because of it.

 

[wrightme]

Possibly. Yet they are a part of a 2nd Amendment liberty rally that wants to disarm and search you. That is not liberty and that is poor judgement. I find it odd all this talk of them willing and wanting to go into anti places to gain members. Yet they keep losing members because of it.

Huh? The Nevada Wild Fest is a benefit for the Lili Claire Foundation.....


http://www.nevadawildfest.com/
http://www.liliclairefoundation.org/

Not sure how you can possibly call that a '2nd Amendment liberty rally.....'

 

[The Big Guy]

Huh? The Nevada Wild Fest is a benefit for the Lili Claire Foundation.....


http://www.nevadawildfest.com/
http://www.liliclairefoundation.org/

Not sure how you can possibly call that a '2nd Amendment liberty rally.....'

The NVFAC is publicizing it as a 2nd Amendment rally.

TBG

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

Here is the link I received, it definitely says "Rock the Second" here is the text and link I received from Don Turner:

weareliberty.org/rockthe2nd

A great site to get your Rock the Second tickets!

And another:

http://weareliberty.org/images/gun logo_opt1.png

On the email I received, it had some ownership in the text, it consisted of this statement:

This is our first MAJOR event, we are honored to be invited to participate by the Lily Claire Foundation who sponsors “WildFest.” Please plan on attending……

 

[wrightme]

Here is the link I received, it definitely says "Rock the Second" here is the text and link I received from Don Turner:

weareliberty.org/rockthe2nd



And another:

http://weareliberty.org/images/gun logo_opt1.png

On the email I received, it had some ownership in the text, it consisted of this statement:

I see the ownership text: "we are honored to be invited to participate by the Lily Claire Foundation who sponsors “WildFest.” P"

It appears that some misunderstanding is being propagated based upon whether the event itself is "Rock the Second," or only part of the event "Wild Fest."

 

[MAC702]

So to be clear, our Coalition is asking us to "Rock the Second" after being disarmed.

They can have whatever reasons they want for thinking it's okay, but this is what it is.

 

[The Big Guy]

From my understanding, according to what Don Turner, Pres of NVFAC, wrote me, the NVFAC is an invited guest so they don't get to make the rules. He further states it is an opportunity to change some minds by attending.

I think we can change more minds by not attending. Let them know why we can't attend. If you don't get to make the rules, you use their rules against them. Unfortunately we live in a world of instant gratification. Everyone wants to take the path of least resistance. All that does is prolong the struggle. If we attend we give them exactly NO incentive to change their rules.

Even above the firearm issue, NO ONE lays a hand on me or mine.

TBG

 

[MAC702]

Which statement is more powerful?

An NVFAC that is invited and officially passes on this invitation to us members who have to be the ones to point out the reasons why many of us will not attend, and therefore there is weak presence of the NVFAC, or...

An NVFAC that respectfully and officially declines the invitation and tells the organizers why.

The whole purpose of having a "coalition" is to present a united front.

One wonders if Don Turner even carries a sidearm everyday.

 

[The Big Guy]

Which statement is more powerful?

An NVFAC that is invited and officially passes on this invitation to us members who have to be the ones to point out the reasons why many of us will not attend, and therefore there is weak presence of the NVFAC, or...

An NVFAC that respectfully and officially declines the invitation and tells the organizers why.

The whole purpose of having a "coalition" is to present a united front.

One wonders if Don Turner even carries a sidearm everyday.

I choose "B".

My memory is that Don told me that his sidearms are in AZ because he does not want to register them.

TBG

 

[Vegassteve]

Which statement is more powerful?

An NVFAC that is invited and officially passes on this invitation to us members who have to be the ones to point out the reasons why many of us will not attend, and therefore there is weak presence of the NVFAC, or...

An NVFAC that respectfully and officially declines the invitation and tells the organizers why.

The whole purpose of having a "coalition" is to present a united front.

One wonders if Don Turner even carries a sidearm everyday.

To the first part of that I can answer, because Turner told me the answer. His words,"
we must suck it up, and go with the flow.We have been losing in Clark County for years and standing on 100% principles has not made it any better."

So there you have it the nvfac goes with the flow. And they dont want to stick to any principals. They will bend them, read capitulate with the antis.

Losing Clark Co? Well if that is the case why have they not been helping in The Big Guys work? Where were they in the parks issue?


To the second part does he carry? I cant say for sure, but when invited to a open carry lunch he wasnt oc. Was he CC? who knows maybe he did it so well we couldnt see. My gut tells me he doesnt.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

I see the ownership text: "we are honored to be invited to participate by the Lily Claire Foundation who sponsors “WildFest.” P"

It appears that you mistakenly left out part of the quote, Here is the part you left out:

This is our first MAJOR event,

I am sure if the NVFAC had wanted that left out, THEY would have left it out.

 

[wrightme]

It appears that you mistakenly left out part of the quote, Here is the part you left out:



I am sure if the NVFAC had wanted that left out, THEY would have left it out.

Do you disagree that it is their first major event?



That does not make it 'owned' by them. But, nice try.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

Do you disagree that it is their first major event?



That does not make it 'owned' by them. But, nice try.

I made the point that you altered their quote. twist it any way you want, we are used to it!

 

[MAC702]

...My memory is that Don told me that his sidearms are in AZ...

If true, I am ashamed this man represents me.

 

[Vegassteve]

Do you disagree that it is their first major event?



That does not make it 'owned' by them. But, nice try.

Fact NVFAC did not sponsor the event.
Fact the event is advertised as a 2nd rally.
Fact the event is a GFZ and subject to search.
Fact the NVFAC could have said no.

Simple really. The nvfac in no way, shape, or form represents liberty loving gun owners.

Your need to argue such small points, that have been refuted,is merely your way of consistently deflecting the facts and trying your hardest to put a nice face on the nvfac.

 

[The Big Guy]

If true, I am ashamed this man represents me.

Ask him. See what he says.

TBG

 

[wrightme]

I made the point that you altered their quote. twist it any way you want, we are used to it!

I didn't alter the quote. I pointed out the ownership of the event itself. You seem to prefer to claim that the NFC owns the event. The twisting is on your end.

 

[wrightme]

Fact NVFAC did not sponsor the event.
Fact the event is advertised as a 2nd rally.
Fact the event is a GFZ and subject to search.
Fact the NVFAC could have said no.

Simple really. The nvfac in no way, shape, or form represents liberty loving gun owners.

Your need to argue such small points, that have been refuted,is merely your way of consistently deflecting the facts and trying your hardest to put a nice face on the nvfac.

Nope.

Simple really. Their decision to participate at the Wild Fest does not mean that.


Advocacy can happen, whether participants are allowed to be armed or not. The choice to attend or not, is to each. I understand the desire by many to NOT patronize any business that prohibits firearms. I also believe that limiting the spreading of information using that metric, limits the spread of information.


I accept your choice. Why are you and others, so unwilling to accept the choices that others make?