Manchin, Toomey both interested in reviving gun control push

[Syntyr]

In the wake of the Charleston shooting, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) are considering ways to renew their failed push to pass meaningful gun control legislation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powe ... ntrol-push

Here come the idiots again! You knew it was going to happen. Lets start fighting now!

[Bitter Clinger]

[Tracker]

[Jumping Frog]

Watch Alan Gottlieb of the 2nd Amendment Foundation support this effort.

When he helped author the original bill, supported it, and then defended his support personally to me over 6 months later, that was the triggering event that caused me to stop supporting the SAF.

If he comes out and publicly rebuked the current effort, maybe I'll start reconsidering the SAF.

[C-dub]

Bye bye Toomey

[stevie_d_64]

You know, I feel I must interject something that may very well sting a little bit to some people in our community...I will do my best to be as short as possible, and I may fail, but this is an observation that needs to be clear, and as unambiguous as possible...Please bear with me...

I feel that over the many years this battle for our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a just cause, and we should absolutely be on top of our game to combat, with all the means at our disposal the constant attacks on that inalienable right, a right granted to us by an authority higher than any government instituted among men...

We should defend against those infringements with as much controlled reason, logic, and morality as we can muster...Never let up...

But at the same time, why are the very same leaders, the movers and shakers we ALWAY hear about, applaud, celebrate and reward, why some of them DO NOT do very much to expand, to push the edge of the envelope to enhance, and unfetter our ability to Keep and Bear Arms, as we the people see fit to do so???

Why not use tactics, ideas, and discuss/debate openly how to better make the argument to expand our presence publically and directly confront the opponents of our cause???

To some it could be argued that that would be stooping to their level, and yet I see parallel agendas, albeit agendas that are morally, and politically abhorrent to our cause, yet they get people that we elect into office to acquiesce to their cause and grant waivers, and give special considerations and passes to advance their cause, and when some of us propose similar tactics for our advantage, that is considered beneath us...

I am still the same ole Steve who has for many years been a part of the game plan, laid out years ago, been patient with the rate of our re-establishing our RKBA's in that time, and with people I respect, and admire for their counsel, and knowledge...But I took a sabbatical (from this website) for a period of time because I felt I had not a lot to offer (anymore) the same old topics, issues, and arguments for, and against, challenges to our overall cause...I feel like I have learned, and been able to contribute to the progress in very practical ways, and have been told it has helped, as many other here have proven themselves to be...

I am not above being told I am wrong about some things...It goes with the territory, but I feel it should be time for all of us to take a long, hard objective look at what and how we, as individuals participate in the defense, and promotion of our cause...Try to find ways to push the envelope, think, and be unapologetic about your ideas to innovate our message, be fantastic Ambassadors to the Second Amendment...I cannot be more adamant about this last part...Even though we may have some successes, we need to really innovate our processes, think outside the box, look at the ways the opposition uses their techniques, and try the same ideas to work to our advantage...

I just feel there are so many people (other factions) who do get it wrong, yet their passion, is un-channeled, and those, even on the same side, chide, ridicule and force those passions to even greater absurdness where it hurts our overall progress...I believe, in the future, those people should still be allowed to give their input, and be valued by everyone for their passion, exuberance, and it should give us all inspiration to keep up on a high level of knowledge and activism...

There may be some fences that need to be mended with some groups and people who are onboard the same ship here, but may go about how to steer the boat a little differently...We may all support the overall cause, but our divisions (factions) on how we get to the next port of call, may vary...

For the record, I do not agree, and will oppose any effort by these elected officials in the OP's reference...Its the same old argument, just a different day...

Mr. Speaker I yield for questions, and the balance of my time...

[The Annoyed Man]

stevie_d_64,

First of all, you're right. But......

There is a big hurdle to overcome on the way to unity in defense of the 2A.....and that is the categorical inability on the part of some to admit when their own actions have been harmful to the cause by having been very poor ambassadors for it. In their feckless devotion to full-steam ahead and damn the torpedoes, they commit three cardinal sins in defending the 2A:

1. They fulfill the worst stereotypes held by antis of gun owners as knuckle-dragging troglodytes who are carrying guns as "gender enhancements", if you will.
2. Whenever it is suggested to them that they'll attract more flies with honey and maybe their efforts are counterproductive, their response to the person making the suggestion is that he or she is anti-2A, and that their suggestion is therefore invalid.
3. Whenever someone on the adult side of things wins a great victory on behalf of the 2A, these knuckleheads immediately claim that "we got it passed", in direct defiance of truth.

I'm going to point out some things from current and past national events which parallel this situation.......

• Civil Rights - Racial Equality: who was more effective, Martin Luther King, or Malcolm X? MLK never threatened violence, he never was disrespectful to white people (even to his persecutors), he appealed to reason and justice, he advocated calm non-violent protest, and he publicly beseeched Almighty God to pour out His blessings upon this endeavor and upon this nation. When he wrote his letter from the Birmingham jail, and gave his "promised land" speech, and spoke of the importance of content of character over color of skin, MLK appealed to ALL Americans, because those were words we could ALL believe in. With that kind of appeal to reason and decency, he could not fail even if someone killed him.
  
  Malcolm X, on the other hand, did threaten violence, he was disrespectful to the white people he interacted with, he did appealed to violence of action if his demands were not met, and he called on Allah to curse the society to which he was opposed. He never spoke of a greater dream, of a greater vision, one which could be shared by all people of all colors. Eventually, MX came to realize that his way was the path to defeat, and he began to adopt MLK's kind of advocacy......and he was killed for it by his former supporters.
• Civil Rights - Marriage Equality: Whatever anyone thinks about the recent SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage, there is a distinct difference between the way James Obergfell, the gay plaintiff in this case, presents himself to the public, and the way men walking in gay pride parades present themselves. The former challenges society at large to explain why gays should be barred from marriage law, while the latter makes most of us glad that these folks aren't breeders.
• Civil Rights - 2nd Amendment protections: Compare Dick Heller (an active duty capitol policeman), the plaintiff in Heller v. DC, or Otis McDonald (a dignified elderly black retiree), the plaintiff in McDonald v. City of Chicago, to either Kory Watkins or CJ Grisham. Heller and McDonald should be considered as heroes of the gun rights movement. Conversely, Watkins and Grisham have done damage to the movement, and not just here in Texas. Because their stories have been picked up nationally, they have become the faces of pro-gun advocacy for a large part of the mainstream media. Why? Because A) those two fit the media's own prejudices and memes, and B) their self-aggrandizement knows no end. Neither Heller nor McDonald, on the other hand, craved the limelight the way these two self-promoting charlatans do, and so the gun-rights movement's face has defaulted to a couple of yahoos. (And sadly, McDonald passed from this world not too long after the decision named after him.)

My point is that the face we put forward in defense of the 2A matters at least as much as the correctness of our argument. Watkins and Grisham are enjoying being at the center of their little personality cults because it keeps their narcissistic egos stroked. Outrage on the cheap is their stock in trade. If we want to sway the undecided, we need to present the face of a rational group of people, interested in the preservation of our individual liberties, of which the 2A is only one, and we need to do it by cajoling the undecided to want to be part of the age of enlightenment........ and not in scaring the crap out of them by strutting around with our "gender-enhancements" on display. And no, I am NOT saying don't OC. What I AM saying, is don't turn OC into a political demonstration that scares the bejabbers out of decent people.

[Tracker]

Well said AM

[Tracker]

Does CJ and Watkins have any politician worth their salt willing to ally themselves with those two?

[The Annoyed Man]

Does CJ and Watkins have any politician worth their salt willing to ally themselves with those two?

On the state level, yes: Senator Huffines and Representative Stickland.

..... oh wait.... you said "worth their salt".....

Forget what I said.

[Dave2]

<lots of stuff>

For me, there are two parts:
WRT "stooping to their level"... To some degree, they're at "their level" because they can't be convinced otherwise. Employing their tactics would not only fail to change anybody's mind, but it'd stir up strife within the community as well. And personally, I think there's already too much of that going around as it is. Which is a nice segue into my second point...
I happen to be "between ideas" (unemployed) at the moment. With our current socio-political climate, I feel like I can't risk making public statements that *might* be misinterpreted, because while I know that I'd never go on a shooting spree, the legal department of whatever company I'm trying to work at is likely to tell their HR dept to pass on me simply because they don't want to deal with a lawsuit if they knowingly hire some "gun nut" and something happens.

So those are the two big reasons that I personally don't say much about it publicly.