Son of SB 59 Introduced

[TheQ]

Brian and Rob, you are my friends and I know you well enough to know that your responses to me to just basically "take it up with Sen. Green" are weirdly short and curt...

Does that mean they owe you something?

To be quite honest, I lack the time and energy to debate the merit of two very small concessions with you.

When you put references on a job application do they usually allow you to list family members?

As I explained, the other "concession" was more about creating a standard.

Let me tell you about my day:

7:45 - Up and at em
8:30 - Reported to work
5:30 - Leave work and head to WLNS for a TV interview about a shooting in Holt
5:50 - WLNS Interview
6:10 - Head to Woodhaven for MOC Dinner
7:40 - Arrive in Woodhaven
9:20 - Leave dinner, head home.
11:10 - Arrive home
11:10-11:50 - Personal quiet time.
11:50-12:30 - Post a new MOC event on Facebook and send an email promoting another
12:30 Come check out OCDO.

I saw my wife 3 minutes this morning, talked to her on the phone for 2. She was in bed when I arrived home.

How was your day?

BTW, I have lonely drives in the car -- why don't you call some times? We can chat while I'm driving....

ETA: don't mistake this post as complaining. I enjoy my life. Just stating facts, I don't have time to be your personal magic 8-ball and answer every question.

http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html

 

[TheQ]

given that MOC itself announced they are partnering with Green.

You go into business with someone. They have the majority equity in the operation. They are your partner. You make decisions together. Do you agree with everything they do? Do you have the equity or shares to stop them? Are you willing to ruin your partnership because they want to spend $10 in a way you don't approve?

All interesting questions. What are your answers?

 

[Bronson]

Pretty much

Ok, another fair answer.

Bronson

 

[TheQ]

Ok, another fair answer.

Bronson

Thanks

Some people (like you) are more easily satisfied than others.

 

[Bronson]

Thanks

Some people (like you) are more easily satisfied than others.

I try to be fairly reasonable....sometimes I'm better at it than other times The whole pre-emption angle was one I hadn't considered.

Overall I'm liking this one much better than the last one. You and others have answered my questions with reasonable answers. In my idealistic perfect world we'd be putting forth uber-strong constitutional carry bills....and they could be delivered to the Governor by unicorns that poop rainbow flavored soft-serve ice cream.

Bronson

 

[TheQ]

I try to be fairly reasonable....sometimes I'm better at it than other times The whole pre-emption angle was one I hadn't considered.

Overall I'm liking this one much better than the last one. You and others have answered my questions with reasonable answers. In my idealistic perfect world we'd be putting forth uber-strong constitutional carry bills....and they could be delivered to the Governor by unicorns that poop rainbow flavored soft-serve ice cream.

Bronson

And the Governor would sign it with his 30.06 round shaped pen while smiling and surrounded by law abiding citizens openly bearing AR-15's?

...and then you wake up, it's morning, and you're in your bed.

 

[Raggs]

I am sure he is, however unlike Sen Green you spent over an hour on ocdo and was your normal sarcastic patronizing self, you could have simply answered the questions, but yes you likes you some drama don't you!

Sorry to say, the President of MOC is a very very busy man. He can't do everything for you -- he's just one guy . Maybe you should ask yourself?

 

[scot623]

you spent over an hour on ocdo and was your normal sarcastic patronizing self, you could have simply answered the questions

Love him or hate him, that is Phil. Not his most endearing quality I'll admit.

 

[scot623]

your responses to me to just basically "take it up with Sen. Green" are weirdly short and curt, given that MOC itself announced they are partnering with Green.

Think of the hottest chick you've ever seen( I'm thinking Jennifer Aniston in Horrible Bosses or Olivia Wilde...yum). Now imagine you're dating her, she lights years above your pay grade. Sweet, huh? Would you ruin your "partenrship" by complaining about every little thing annoying thing she does? She leaves toothpaste residue in the sink, doesn't rinse out her cereal bowl, too lazy to grab a fresh hand towel to replace the dirty one in the bathroom. Ugh...annoying.

Do you really ruin your "partnership" by nagging the hell out of her?? Or are you the smartest guy in the room who doesn't say anything and gets to keep banging her while every guy around can't figure out why the hell she's dating a shlep like you?

Maybe that's a terrible analogy, I don't know.

I can only assume the Senator wouldn't appreciate much Phil reporting the minutia of every meeting/negotiation/decision made behind closed doors. Phil tells us what he can, getting pissed at him or MOC because they can't answer every question about a bill seems a bit unfair.

Lets not forget Phil is one mistakenly leaked statement away from getting kicked to the curb, he clearly does NOT wear the pants in that "partnership".

 

[mikestilly]

I am sure he is, however unlike Sen Green you spent over an hour on ocdo and was your normal sarcastic patronizing self, you could have simply answered the questions, but yes you likes you some drama don't you!

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Bashing another gun rights organization

 

[scot623]

Considering MOC has zero pull they will once again go along with whatever MCRGO tells them to.

Since MOC has zero pull, why don't you throw the considerable weight of UFO behind the bill? Surely UFO MUST have pull? Just look at the size of that font in your signature line!!

 

[mikestilly]

Since MOC has zero pull, why don't you throw the considerable weight of UFO behind the bill? Surely UFO MUST have pull? Just look at the size of that font in your signature line!!

UFO is my gun rights website which I've told you several times and is right there on the page.

 

[scot623]

UFO is my gun rights website which I've told you several times and is right there on the page.

OCDO is just a website...but I think we can all agree it and John Pierce have "pull". Don't cut yourself short.

 

[TheQ]

I am sure he is, however unlike Sen Green you spent over an hour on ocdo and was your normal sarcastic patronizing self, you could have simply answered the questions, but yes you likes you some drama don't you!

Note: Bronson managed to ask a question without irking me...2 in fact -- and they were both answered.

But when you preface your question with the assumption that I am a piss poor negotiator, or out of the loop, or incompetent… Well…
Don your flame suit

 

[DanM]

Because we had a bill like that last session, SB 58. It was never heard. We're trying get a bill that has a remote possibility if being heard.

SB 213 looks ok so far, but I do have a question at this point as I'm reading it.
Why, then, does SB 213 have written into it from the outset the following concessions?

--The time between CPL training and application can't be more than 5 years.

As to the first question, see the quote above, particularly the bold part.

Thanks, Phil. Again, SB213 is good . . . much appreciation to MOC/Sen. Green . . . I'm just asking questions that may be relevant to the grass-roots. Relevant because the grass-roots may want to follow up with the representatives who felt there was a need to have the concessions in order to have "a remote possibility" of the bill being heard. Who were those representatives that felt specifically we needed a pre-emptive concession limiting our pool of people we could use as references? Perhaps, particularly, their constituents here and elsewhere can talk to them and get that concession struck out of the bill.

As to the second question, some counties have a "policy" of saying your training is no good after 1 year. There was a desire to make a clear ruling on this matter in statute in a reasonable timeframe, as to preempt any question on the topic in the future.

Understood. Who are representatives with that desire? That may be relevant to the grass-roots, if they want to try and get this struck out and better language put in. For example, the following argument:

This bill moves the process away from the counties and to the MSP. MSP seems to be pretty good on such things as basing policies, bulletins, PR communication, etc. sticking to the letter of the law, and I don't think we've ever had a problem of their organization reading something into the law that isn't there. But, in case we want to prevent them from establishing their own policy on training "expiration", let's consider language to the effect of "MSP shall not promulgate nor enforce any policy with regard to setting limits on the time elapsed between training and application."

Again, Phil, thanks for the feedback and I'm just asking questions and discussing things that maybe several of the grass-roots folks here would like to take up and try to get improvement on or striking out of the concessionary language.

 

[TheQ]

Rule #1 of fight club: you do not talk about fight club

Rule #2 of fight club: you do not talk about fight club.

Questions involving "who" are likely to be ignored. Other questions (especially about things not yet published) are answered on a: as I am able (that it is something I can talk about), as I have time, and as I have energy basis.

Questions (post 52, 58) that start with the assumption that I am either: out of the loop, don't know how to negotiate, or are incompetent don't get answered. If they do, they get answered in kind -- with snark.

 

[Raggs]

Actually Senor Snarky I never said you were a piss poor negotiator, I suspect you miss quoted what with how busy you are.

Note: Bronson managed to ask a question without irking me...2 in fact -- and they were both answered.

But when you preface your question with the assumption that I am a piss poor negotiator, or out of the loop, or incompetent… Well…
Don your flame suit

 

[Raggs]

Neither of which were my posts.

Rule #1 of fight club: you do not talk about fight club

Rule #2 of fight club: you do not talk about fight club.

Questions involving "who" are likely to be ignored. Other questions (especially about things not yet published) are answered on a: as I am able (that it is something I can talk about), as I have time, and as I have energy basis.

Questions (post 52, 58) that start with the assumption that I am either: out of the loop, don't know how to negotiate, or are incompetent don't get answered. If they do, they get answered in kind -- with snark.

 

[DanM]

You go into business with someone. They have the majority equity in the operation. They are your partner. You make decisions together. Do you agree with everything they do? Do you have the equity or shares to stop them? Are you willing to ruin your partnership because they want to spend $10 in a way you don't approve?

All interesting questions. What are your answers?

I understand. My questions don't pertain to MOC's level of partnership equity relative to Green's, MOC's agreement with Green, MOC's ability to stop Green, or MOC's willingness to ruin partnership with Green. And neither do I suggest anything on those.

I simply expressed curiousity about why concessions are already in the bill, and interest in MOC's feedback, whatever it might be, on that.

 

[mikestilly]

I understand. My questions don't pertain to MOC's level of partnership equity relative to Green's, MOC's agreement with Green, MOC's ability to stop Green, or MOC's willingness to ruin partnership with Green. And neither do I suggest anything on those.

I simply expressed curiousity about why concessions are already in the bill, and interest in MOC's feedback, whatever it might be, on that.

I'm just waiting for the criminalizing OC in a PFZ to be added in to the bill. It will be interesting to see who still supports it and if things will be the same this time around. Just because it isn't in the bill yet doesn't mean its not going to be added. Considering the nerd govs opinion of OC, I expect to see it back in before all is done with it.