DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
Um, they are less than 1.5 years since their start.
That excuse is on page 3 of the Obama excuse book LOL :banana:
Um, they are less than 1.5 years since their start.
Um, they are less than 1.5 years since their start.
Yes, it takes numbers, as in 'the abc group speaks for 2,450 gun owners from ....' That IS reality. That has nothing to do with whatever someone does at a dui checkpoint, that is a separate issue.Here is the Crux of the real problem, I do not have as big an issue with the NRA or the NVFAC or any other "gun rights alphabet soup" out there "protecting our rights" as you may beleive. Here is the issue. They ALL have shortcomings, you do not use a air brush gun to do the job of a sledge hammer. The NVFAC is a tool... that when used effectively can be productive, however it is not designed to do every job.
That being said the NVFAC/NRA has no appetite for going to the Strip and making the Cops obey the laws Etc. The minuet someone points out this fact, or another that is obvious, the peanut gallery goes off on this forum by a couple of great guys who have chosen to work the legislature, not to go out and risk their butts to get the laws enforced properly.
I agree that legislature is important, but that type of work is not for everyone. All the legislative guys say it takes numbers, well if you truly believe that then why do I not see your numbers out there with Yardsale at the DUI checkpoints up North. If you believe it takes numbers, where were all the volunteers when I sued the NV Sheriffs and Chiefs Assoc. Turns out there are a lot of pieces to a puzzle.
Actually, vegassteve did just that today about the NVFAC and the Heck get-together, iirc.DTOM said:I do not hear anyone that participates in the "activism" part ever put someone down for not being at an event but, they aren't upset about not having numbers.
We show up, have a good time and that is that.
Then you should be pleased that I do NOT live in that fairy tale land. But, without the legislation, you don't even get that far.DTOM said:To think that getting a law passed is the end of the story would be a nice world to live in.
Yes, I hear you about the DUI checkpoints. And I do not dispute what you say about how the laws are mispresented by le. Those are great efforts. That does NOT make it valid to say 'where is the NRA or NVFAC when...' if it isn't what they typically do, or what they are working on. YOU want to, great, have at it. That doesn't make the other things not worth supporting; nor does it mean what YOU choose will always get supported.DTOM said:But if you ever did go to a DUI checkpoint, and pre-read NRS486B.570 you would see that breaking the law is no problem for these cops, pass as many as you can, but someone has to hold them accountable.
Very good, work on it. But, if it isn't about gun rights, placing that effort into a gun rights packet wastes their resources. If AB31 isn't about gun rights, I would not expect the NRA, the GOA, or the NVFAC to spend ANY time on it, except to monitor for poison amendments that drag gun issues into it. Those gun rights groups resources will be NEEDED in this session to counter the anti-gun legislation that WILL be coming in. It is good that you recognize that.DTOM said:AB 31 is a very important issue this session, it has nothing to do with gun rights on the surface, but it is all about the transparency of Government. I have been quietly working on it and I do not expect the NVFAC to show up, there are many more issues than the NVFAC can handle. So let the issues get brought up without trying to dispute they exist or slap them down some other way. How do you know that someone out there does not have a solution to the problem brought up by myself or one of the other forum members, until the defenders come on here an "assure" us it is only because of the young age of the NVFAC, or other reasons it is not being handled.
When someone is incorrect, where they are has no relevance.DTOM said:By refusing to acknowledge the issues we cannot even come close to solving the problems. We are speaking for southern Nevada and the trials we have down here. Getting told we are incorrect from someone miles away geographically, and demographically, hurts our progress.
What? I have no idea what you are even getting at with that.DTOM said:Why do you argue our life experience? Just for example the State of Nevada has "motorcycle rights organizations just like other states, Our most powerful org? ... you guessed it, is from Elko, not Vegas, for some reason the Orgs. have a tough time in this State and I am not hanging my hat on them. That does not mean I wont get involved, I go to the ABATE (motorcycle meeting) every month, but also do not have to defend myself there for bringing up a chink in the armor.
I do not recall that specific one, but I do recall the 'CCW FAQ crap' they had for a while. Masto was baffled when I handed her the printouts and my emails from some asshat there about those 'faq's.'DTOM said:Does anyone remember the AG website, and how it used to proclaim that "while open carry is generally legal in the State of Nevada, Doing so in a large METRO area will result in a confrontation with law enforcement" I remember well, and can think of no law to pass in the legislature to remedy this. It is called Government out of control, No Organization wants to do this kind of work, so don't beat on the people willing to do it!
Why? Please keep up your good efforts. I do NOT have any desire to minimize what you accomplish. I just wish you spent less time making claims like that about AB237. It hurts when I was one of the ones actually involved that year, who had first-hand knowledge about what happened. Do I have any meeting notes or such to back up what I say? No. That does not mean that I won't challenge to prove your claims when you present baseless allegations.DTOM said:If someone points out a legislative item that needs work, and I get defensive.....? Feel free to throw this post in my face!
Wrightme...
I accept you and your views unconditionally, You are the man!
I am 100% serious with unconditional acceptance.
To the Big Guy: we have been told they cannot ignore the numbers in the helmet fight as well, every session it is in the top 5 for Pro comments, as well as flooding the committee rooms with motorcyclists. How is it that we have the most (non paid for) comments. the largest in your face constituency, and get ignored. meanwhile 31 other states have achieved adult choice?
I do not think we should not be engaged but I pose this question. How is it that protecting individual liberty's is best accomplished by utilizing collectivism?
Wrightme, I will try to arrange for you to attend a future meeting with the progress now folks if you want.
On the numbers: Filling the room is part of it. Having a lobbyist in the room with a view supported by 10,000 members is over the top. And, NONE of it guarantees a good outcome, which does not negate the value. As you found out with the helmet law thing, sometimes it just doesn't go our way.
I have no desire to meet with people who would knowingly post false statements as if 'counterprotestors' have said something they did not say. I see no value in meeting with them. It sounds as useful as a meeting with representatives of the Brady Bunch.
The comment referred to, was on the blog site you linked, which IS the 'progress now' site, not the news.The news is responsible for the counter protesters statement if you are referring to the newscast you cited. Not the liberals.
Partisan broad brush.DTOM said:The Left thinks guns are bad, so they lobby for laws to enable govt agents to bust down the doors of anyone in possession.
The right thinks Pot is bad, so they lobby for laws to enable govt. agents to bust down the doors of anyone in possession.
I do not agree with this statement.DTOM said:Both sides propagate violence against the other in the name of safety and non violence. Oddly the people who sign up to support this violence on both sides do not believe they are violent people. they think they are truly "bettering" their country, and would never think they are being "USED" by the "power grabbers."
I am a firm believer that the 2nd Amendment should be viewed the same as other civil Rights, and at least the NV arm of the ACLU agrees in policy.DTOM said:Same goes for immigration, wars, and a host of other issues. If they do pass a magazine capacity bill and you get into an encounter with an officer wanting to know how many rounds your "Clip" holds, you may end up with some appreciation for the ACLU types, should you need exercise your rights that the traditional (police are always right) conservatives have all but forgot about!
I wasn't referring to polarization, I was referring to how the group you counter-protested, misrepresented one of you on their blog site.DTOM said:We don't agree with them (liberals) all the time, but don't fall for the "polarization" tactics. Us fighting each other is what keeps tyranny in power.
I do not confuse the Brady group as anything similar to rational-thinking persons. That isn't a partisan comment, it is based in how they lie in attempts to present their agenda.DTOM said:The Brady people might not be friendly towards us, and have not been down the same road as us, but I see no reason to "discount a fellow American for not understanding.
I had similar awakenings, not that far in the past. Mine were more of apathy and ignorance. Becoming a gun owner first, a CCW holder second, and an OC'er third, has been my progression, within the past 15 years or so.DTOM said:It was 2009 that I got woke up to the fourth amendment, Does that make me less of an American? It was not until I understood the fourth that I was able to realize I had been misled on the second amendment. (I thought having a CCW was exercising my rights.)
Good on you for seeing that potential in those like the Brady Campaign. I do NOT see that capability in them. They are not of the stripe of 'thinking CCW is a Right Exercise,' they are of the stripe of 'ban the damn things!'DTOM said:At the end of the day, Who am I to Judge them. If I can wake up why can't they?
A collective isn't required for that. BUT, a large collective group in session WILL have great impact. Otherwise, we are back at where you complained about when the SB237 committee received the amendment and no one was there........DTOM said:Why is a collective is required to ensure my individual rights?
I am 100% serious with unconditional acceptance.
To the Big Guy: we have been told they cannot ignore the numbers in the helmet fight as well, every session it is in the top 5 for Pro comments, as well as flooding the committee rooms with motorcyclists. How is it that we have the most (non paid for) comments. the largest in your face constituency, and get ignored. meanwhile 31 other states have achieved adult choice?
I do not think we should not be engaged but I pose this question. How is it that protecting individual liberty's is best accomplished by utilizing collectivism?
Wrightme, I will try to arrange for you to attend a future meeting with the progress now folks if you want.
Well it appears that my efforts are misdirected, Since I am only one person, the upside is there is no chance I can make enough of a difference to mess things up! To the Big Guy, you said you do not have the funds to go to court, What happened to recruiting like minded people? The lawsuit I am involved in cost 400.00 so far, and I have two donations for twenty each. If 17 more people contributed I might have the luxury of donating to the NVFAC...
Note to the folks who contri8buted, We filed our points and authority's, and Specifically outlined the privileged docketing outlined in NRS 239 (the AB31 Bill that has nothing to do with gun rights) I will try to email you those documents before the weekend!
"The NICS background check database isn't as solid as a long of people think it is. One problem which has always plagued law enforcement records keeping, is getting arrest records into the system," said Randy Mackie with the Nevada Firearms Coaltion.
I would like to point out that the Supreme Court has it wrong, in regards to, the right to bear arms, so do most gun advocates, including the NRA. Arms have been defined as those tools, which we can be hand carried. In fact, I recently heard a judge, who is a gun advocate, use this argument as well. He stated the word bear indicates weapons that can be carried, or shouldered.
The erosion of the term Arms, which in old American English meant armaments, to a narrow meaning of guns, or small arms, is going to be the death of us. The fact is, and it is easily verified, the definition of word bear, as used in the constitution is, to be equipped with or furnished, to carry or possess.
Arms, as used in the constitution, refer to Armaments, Armaments include any device or weapon used for defense or offense.
Americans seem to forget that the shots fired in Concord and Lexington, were not in defense of personal handguns or even rifles. The fact is they were defending their right to have and control their cannons. The British were coming to seize their cannons, and the citizens knew what this meant to their liberty.
Throughout our American history, there are many examples of communities and individuals using cannons, and machine guns, to protect themselves and their community, even as late as the mid 20th century.
Today, according to federal and state law, there is a huge list of weapons, that you cannot own, or transport in your vehicle. These include machine guns, artillery, armed aircraft, certain swords, double-edged knives, (such as the dirk,) nunchuks, billies, even defensive body armor is illegal in most jurisdictions. The long list of banned arms is staggering.
Now let us consider this. If the founders believed that cannons, swords, knives, rifles, and handguns, were all arms, (armaments) should not we.
Until the prohibition era, no one even questioned this. Americans were free to own any weapon, including machine guns, cannons, and even armed airplanes. We understood that the right to bear arms, was the right to defend ourselves against tyrants. Clearly, we knew that in order to defend ourselves, we needed to be equally armed. The right to be to equally armed was undisputed. Only the civilly dead, that is those incarcerated, or those who were executed, lost their right to bear arms.
No matter what we think, standing up with our small arms against the post 9/11 unified militarized police force is certain suicide. If our small arms are not even match for the unified, and heavily armored, militarized police force currently acting as a standing army within the United States, what chance do we have against the most modern military in history? What chance would we even have against an invader, such as China?
I am sorry to say this, but the fact is, we are all but disarmed already. We were effectively disarmed in the 20th century. The only right remaining is that of owning small arms, bad news for Bambi, good news for tyrants...