• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Snyder: Economy, Not Guns, Should Be Top Priority

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
743
Location
Erie, MI
Yep. While I agree job creation should be issues should are important and need to be addressed, they should not just arbitrarily throw out pro gun legislation. I am sure they have time to work on both. To make it easier on the pro gun side items, just sign them instead of trying to haggle of changes he wants made. Then they will take little time at all. Listen to the will of the people and abide by it.
 
Last edited:

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,514
Location
Secret Bunker
Yep. While I agree job creation should be issues should are important and need to be addressed, they should not just arbitrarily throw out pro gun legislation. I am sure they have time to work on both. To make it easier on the pro gun side items, just sign them instead of trying to haggle of changes he wants made. Then they will take little time at all. Listen to the will of the people and abide by it.

Hence the problems. Many who seek to become "public servants" quickly try to change that to: "served by the public". :mad:
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
The Republican governor told The Associated Press Wednesday that the GOP-led Legislature should focus on economic issues . . .

This is the leverage I've talked about, when it comes to making this anti-gun governor sign pro-gun bills that don't contain criminalizations of currently legal gun rights.

Our pro-gun legislators should tie the pro-gun bills each to a bill he wants accomplished, either through tie-bar, packaging the bills together, informal "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" negotiation, etc.

Then our pro-gun legislators should tell him amendments to the gun bills are off the table, and if he wants to get the bills he wants, then he needs to get busy signing all the d*mn bills.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,341
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
This is the leverage I've talked about, when it comes to making this anti-gun governor sign pro-gun bills that don't contain criminalizations of currently legal gun rights.

Our pro-gun legislators should tie the pro-gun bills each to a bill he wants accomplished, either through tie-bar, packaging the bills together, informal "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" negotiation, etc.

Then our pro-gun legislators should tell him amendments to the gun bills are off the table, and if he wants to get the bills he wants, then he needs to get busy signing all the d*mn bills.

While there is some merit to this approach, the danger lies in creating Bills that are Too Big and end up including Other Items that have the potential to erode Rights.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
DanM said:
This is the leverage I've talked about, when it comes to making this anti-gun governor sign pro-gun bills that don't contain criminalizations of currently legal gun rights.

Our pro-gun legislators should tie the pro-gun bills each to a bill he wants accomplished, either through tie-bar, packaging the bills together, informal "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" negotiation, etc.

Then our pro-gun legislators should tell him amendments to the gun bills are off the table, and if he wants to get the bills he wants, then he needs to get busy signing all the d*mn bills.

While there is some merit to this approach, the danger lies in creating Bills that are Too Big and end up including Other Items that have the potential to erode Rights.

This approach actually is independent of the sizes of the bills involved. It merely is implementation, legislatively, of a playground rule we all learn as children. That rule being: if you want a lift up getting your drink of water at the fountain, you've got to agree to lift me up for my drink.

The problem with the last iteration of SB-59 is that we were asking The Nerd for a lift from him for a drink, but we didn't tie that to helping him get a drink. So he had no incentive to shut up and sign it, but rather he was free to go all anti-gun nut on it.

Now, part of the problem also sometimes is with size, yes (and SB59 did have this problem, too). Increase in a bill's size correlates to increase in the potential for sponsors and supporters "going along" with unfavorable amendments. Opponents play on the supporters' thirst to "just get something done". I've written before that the solution to that is step back, take a breath, break your big bill down to smaller new bills, and go incremental.

No bill is "too big to fail". We gun owners have to be willing to give up on a big pro-gun bill if opponents start demanding criminalizations of currently legal gun rights, if not other gun control demands depending on their nature. Unfortunately, the recent history of SB59 showed that pro-gun people will feverishly fall into a "too big to fail" mentality and they will go along with gun rights being burned around the edges, which of course is the way we have historically lost gun rights. A little bit of a burn here, a little bit of a burn there . . . sooner or later it adds up to rights lost that will take several generations of back-breaking hard-nosed gun-rights advocacy to get back . . . if they are ever successfully clawed back at all.

Hard-nosed gun-rights advocacy is a certainty, either now or later. I argue that the time for hard-nosed gun-rights advocacy should always be "now", not after the "going along" has eventually gotten us deep into the pit again.
 
Last edited:

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
439
Location
Eastpointe Michigan
yeah, somehow during the "republican revolution of 2010" we ended up with the only republican governor who is anti-gun and keeps wanting to raise taxes and fees.

The fact that during the primary 1 million fewer democrats voted, and completely coincidentally 1 million MORE "republicans" voted, and all 1 million for snyder might have something to do with it.

They knew that they were going to lose no matter what so they did what they do best, and cheated, and gamed the system, and deliberately ensured that we got the weakest most feckless RINO there was just out of spite.

We need a closed primary.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,157
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
Here're some more of these "important" issues that the Legislature is working on.

SB 79 --license to sell and taste wine at farmer's market

SB 78 --
designation of biodiversity areas; prohibit by DNR and remove biological diversity from list of state forest management goals.

SB 68 --
definition of ATV; revise to create separate category of recreational off-road vehicles.

HB 4106 --
Michigan natural resources trust fund; dredging of Great Lakes harbors for use by recreational watercraft; clarify allowable use of funds.

HB 4089 --
Highways; name; certain bridge in Jackson county; designate as the "Officer James Bonneau Memorial Bridge".

HB 4092 --
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for certain attempts to return nonrefundable containers

HB 4090 --
Courts; funding; juror compensation; allow reimbursement if funding unit pays increased mileage.

HB 4091 --
Courts; funding; mileage reimbursement rate for juror; increase.

This is the same crap sandwich they fed us last year. "Ooooh we don't have time for pro-gun bills we have to work on important economy stuff." Meanwhile piddly little bills kept being introduced and popping up in my newsfeed and email alerts while we begged and badgered them to push our bills through to no avail.

Bronson
 
Last edited:

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,514
Location
Secret Bunker
@ Bronson - of course they will not do anything for gun owners/carriers. Why should they? We are a footnote to them. Why would our lawmakers take such a casual approarch towards our concerns? Well I can only guess that they know our stats. Meaning many here are CPL holders. As such we are eight times less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen. Or put another way, per 2006 Bureau of Justice stats. We are 800 times less likely to commit a crime than a member of law enforcement. :eek:

You see they have no fear of us at all because they know we won't show up in the middle of the night with pitch forks and torches....:rolleyes:

/off sarcasm.
 
Last edited:

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
892
Location
Okemos, MI
We are 800 times less likely to commit a crime than a member of law enforcement.

Here are a few news stories for you. These are just some stories from within a two week period from about four months ago I put together elsewhere for something.

Four Houston police conspire to bilk government out of $1 million in OT pay

Unprovoked police attack caught on dashcam, cops lie about transporting suspects to hospital after being ordered to

LEOs charged with obstruction of justice, writing false reports, illegal searches and arrests, Sgt. turns FBI witness against his own guys to avoid prison

Cop admits stealing 831 bags of heroin

Cop steals, uses meth

Cop in court for racketeering, fraud, and official misconduct.

State trooper sentenced to prison in drug trafficking and sex-for-drugs trade

Cop sentenced to prison for planting evidence, lying to a grand jury, and stealing money and drugs. Three more cops await sentencing.

Sheriff suspended for seizing biker’s camera, making up false charges

Sheriff indicted for raping seven women

Detective attempts to trick step-daughter into making sex tape with him

Cop charged with manslaughter in shooting

Cop steals cash

DEA probes drug thefts from Beckley Police Department's evidence room

Cop suspended after kidnapped man found tied up in his garage

Cop with past problems suspended pending murder investigation

Sheriff sentenced 3 to 5 years in prison

Cops break into home and execute warrantless search, falsify police reports, perjure themselves

Some prison guard incidents:

IN prison guards arrested for drug possession, smuggling drugs, cell phones into prison

NC prison guards arrested for drug possession, smuggling drugs into prison

Just to end this with a summary article:

Over 90 D.C. police have been arrested since 2009

Although I should probably use this instead:

Cops charged in Canada cheese-smuggling ring

Hey, I guess they’re getting $1K to $2K a run!
 

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,870
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
This approach actually is independent of the sizes of the bills involved. It merely is implementation, legislatively, of a playground rule we all learn as children. That rule being: if you want a lift up getting your drink of water at the fountain, you've got to agree to lift me up for my drink.

The problem with the last iteration of SB-59 is that we were asking The Nerd for a lift from him for a drink, but we didn't tie that to helping him get a drink. So he had no incentive to shut up and sign it, but rather he was free to go all anti-gun nut on it.

Now, part of the problem also sometimes is with size, yes (and SB59 did have this problem, too). Increase in a bill's size correlates to increase in the potential for sponsors and supporters "going along" with unfavorable amendments. Opponents play on the supporters' thirst to "just get something done". I've written before that the solution to that is step back, take a breath, break your big bill down to smaller new bills, and go incremental.

No bill is "too big to fail". We gun owners have to be willing to give up on a big pro-gun bill if opponents start demanding criminalizations of currently legal gun rights, if not other gun control demands depending on their nature. Unfortunately, the recent history of SB59 showed that pro-gun people will feverishly fall into a "too big to fail" mentality and they will go along with gun rights being burned around the edges, which of course is the way we have historically lost gun rights. A little bit of a burn here, a little bit of a burn there . . . sooner or later it adds up to rights lost that will take several generations of back-breaking hard-nosed gun-rights advocacy to get back . . . if they are ever successfully clawed back at all.

Hard-nosed gun-rights advocacy is a certainty, either now or later. I argue that the time for hard-nosed gun-rights advocacy should always be "now", not after the "going along" has eventually gotten us deep into the pit again.


Dan, logic is out with these politicians. They are mostly out for self interest and willing to use our rights as bargaining chips as they did in SB59. Here's a little insight as to how MCRGO is on 2A rights.

The comment:
Mikestilly (December 5, 2012): I've voiced my Thoughts of the bill to the appropriate people. This bill is fundamentally flawed. I and I hope many others would not support a bill that would criminalize open carry in PFZs. This is a terrible component of the bill and is a slap in the face to gun owners. I suggest everyone voice your displeasure of this and push to have it removed from the bill or reject it!
Content URL: http://www.facebook.com/mcrgo/posts/563137527045020


Brady Schickinger
Mike, no one can currently open carry in a PFZ without a concealed weapons permit. Very few people who hold concealed weapons permits want to open carry but would carry concealed in PFZs. Consequently, the status quo leaves those zones unprotected by legal gun owners where SB 59 would result in far more legal guns in those zones. The bill doesn't outlaw open carry, it simply requires concealed carry rather than open carry with a concealed pistol license. Please don't lose sight of the larger goal of more people legally carrying in more places in order to combat armed criminals.

12:27pm
Mikestilly
I disagree with your opinion doesn't outlaw open carry. It surely does in PFZs. I'm so sick of seeing the greater good point too. I completely agree with the need to be carrying in more places but we should not criminalize a form of carry in order to allow concealed carry in those zones. it's currently legal to open carry in pistol free zones with the exception of federal property. This bill will criminalize open carry spelled out specifically in the bill. It's a terrible thing to include and I and many others agree. More people open carry then you think just because more people cc doesn't change the facts I included above.

12:31pm
Brady Schickinger
Mike, for every 1 person who carries openly now with a CPL, 20 people don't who would carry concealed. Your position would rather keep those 20 people from carrying concealed with a concealed pistol license in order to allow the 1 to continue to carry openly with a concealed pistol license. If that same course of opinion prevailed 11 years ago, Michigan would still be a may-issue state. That no-compromise mentality endangers Michigan's legal gun owners and the general public.

12:36pm
Mikestilly
The compromises on principals is how is government has become as screwed up as it is. To add in anti gun legislation in order complete pro gun legislation is not
a win win. I disagree I'm sorry. Next thing you know this state will be like Florida and Texas with regard to open carry. This country is a Republic for a reason. Next thing I'll be hearing we should lower taxes by allowing in a little more socialism. No difference in this conversation in my opinion.

12:49pm
Brady Schickinger
Mike, that's how democratic systems of government work. They always have, always will. Compromise is a core part of democracy. By focusing on open carry, you've lost sight of the larger reason why we carry in the first place. SB 59 isn't perfect but it's a major improvement over current law.

1:11pm
Mikestilly
No thats how politicians work. I don't compromise my principals for the greater good. I lead by example and it will be something I can pass on to my children.
I don't replace morality by a cost benefit analysis. Read this and you may understand how I feel better. Http://lfb.org/today/the-myth-of-the-greater-good/


For these reasons I dont support MOC or MCRGO. They will not get my money nor my support if they support giving away our 2A rights.
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
12:49pm
Brady Schickinger
Mike, that's how democratic systems of government work. They always have, always will. Compromise is a core part of democracy. By focusing on open carry, you've lost sight of the larger reason why we carry in the first place. SB 59 isn't perfect but it's a major improvement over current law.

"Compromise" does not mean "everything is on the table as a potential bargaining chip". Nor does it mean "compromise is our only tool". Brady is correct in his generalization, but in error by implying the generalization means there can be no specific core principle(s) not on the table or methods other than compromise to get legislation passed over opposition to it.

Yes, compromise and concession are tools, but they aren't tools that require all principles to be subject to them, nor are they the only tools available.
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
Nor should they be the first tools used.

Bronson
The following is a general statement not directed at any individual.....

In my not so humble opinion....

A wise man walks into a negotiation demanding what he wants and only allows a "compromise" to be dragged out of him by force.

But it is the idiot who walks into a negotiation telling everyone what he will give up hoping his opponent will be sympathetic and benevolently "compromise".
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,337
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
The following is a general statement not directed at any individual.....

In my not so humble opinion....

A wise man walks into a negotiation demanding what he wants and only allows a "compromise" to be dragged out of him by force.

But it is the idiot who walks into a negotiation telling everyone what he will give up hoping his opponent will be sympathetic and benevolently "compromise".

Very well stated. I would also add that one should maintain a set of givens that should never become part of any compromise. Some things are, quite simply, not negotiable.
 

Shadow Bear

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,018
Location
Grand Rapids
Very well stated. I would also add that one should maintain a set of givens that should never become part of any compromise. Some things are, quite simply, not negotiable.

And, unfortunately, quite likely not winnable....The OC movement does not have the weight to demand no compromise.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
And, unfortunately, quite likely not winnable....The OC movement does not have the weight to demand no compromise.
Only because there are those within the gun rights community that are willing to sacrifice OC as long as it will further their favorite government controlled permitted CC privilege.

A rant.............

What is needed is for the gun community to come together... and that means OC'ers standing with CC'ers to get rid of (not protect or increase!!!!!) the permit system .... but it also means CC'ers standing with OC'ers to prevent OC from becoming illegal. And from where I stand I see many more OC'ers willing to promote any and all things that will regain the real right to bear arms, including CC, than there are CC'ers... or hunters... or skeet shooters... or target shooters... or collectors... or just Saturday afternoon plinkers... who are willing to stand up for OC.

Now... am I correct? Or am I just standing in the wrong place?

The thing is.... at least it is supposed to be....

We have the right to bear arms. And no matter what a person's personal preference is, CC.. OC.. hunting.. whatthehellever.. we all need to keep in mind the goal is... the right to bear arms. And I get so damn sick of hearing folks talk about a CC "permit".. or OC in a PFZ with a CC "permit".. or hunting... as a gun "right".

Having a "right" means not needing a permission slip called a "permit" to bear an arm regardless of the manner it is borne or the purpose for bearing that arm.

Imagine if all gun owners would stand in unity each and every time even one small portion of the right to bear arms were threatened..................

But that won't happen as long as each segment of gun owners thinks their little corner of the right to bear arms is the one true holy grail and all others are...... expendable.... during a "compromise" to protect their personal favorite little niche.

And I will never understand the logic behind thinking that those in control will give up any amount of that control if folks "prove" they are good little boys and girls. Good grief.... there are decades of statistics that prove those who legally carry guns don't do stupid stuff and have been good little boys and girls.... but none of that data has stopped any anti gun regulations yet... nor, at least to the best of my knowledge, has it resulted in any gun control laws being dropped.

The way we, the gun owners/carriers, have been responding to the gun grabbing anti right to keep and bear arms folks isn't working because the system is rigged in their favor... and as long as we play their game according to their arguments.. arguments that divide gun owners/carriers into small easily controlled groups squabbling amongst themselves...........

"we the people" will never ever win. Not ever.

Rant over..

Edited to add.... Someone please correct me if my understanding is incorrect........

Since a purchase permit... that license to purchase, carry, transport, a pistol is no longer the law wouldn't that make OC much closer to the actual "right to bear arms"? And if OC is made illegal now wouldn't that trash... the right to bear arms leaving only the privilege of CC permits?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,448
Location
Lansing, Michigan
We would oppose any efforts to get rid of the permit system completely as it would destroy reciprocity. We'd support making a permit optional (not required to carry concealed in MI)...like Alaska and Arizona, not like Vermont.
 
Top