Jump to content

NRA Update 3/15/17 Updated #1


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

I certainly recall GSL doing so which is goofy. Still, they are right on this issue. I think this was the wrong priority to focus on. Carry for temporarily stationed military personnel great of course. Doesn't help the permanent residents here who rely on public transportation every day. It doesn't have the big symbolic victory that suppressors would either.

 

I fear, as Todd pointed out, that the antis will use this as cover to avoid any further pro-gun laws. And I worry that because of their "generous" compromise we'll end up with dealer licensing anyway. Or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever been more disappointed on IC than seeing advocates directly calling each other out in public. You may be angry, and you might even have a point, but doing it in the IL Politics forum is a bush league move. Did that advance anybody's agenda or improve anybody's position? I don't see how, other than a Festivus style Airing of Grievances that made you feel better at the cost of a public rift. The rift was probably already there, but you didn't need to broadcast it and demoralize your own side and give aid and comfort to the enemy. From the view out here, there was already tension between you and Todd. Fine, we all bicker. Jumping on a thread that was clearly indicated as his (or their) opinion and not yours even after you got your bill out of committee may have felt good, but was counterproductive in the bigger picture. I fully realize you both feel this is about the bigger picture and you wanted to defend your point of view. You didn't need to do it like that.

 

The GSL drama? I figured that there were lots of strong personalities there, stuff happens. Now this. It makes me wonder.

 

I continue to appreciate the work done by IllinoisCarry, NRA, ISRA, and GSL. I continue to admire the dedication of Molly for being a one-woman safety net and Mauser for never missing a legislative day, and Todd for working the floor. I realize that tactically, your goals may sometimes diverge. We, as citizens, will probably support them all with our calls, letters, and slips. Try not to demoralize your own side out of short-term frustration.

 

Edited to add: If you want to ban me for respectful (and I believe constructive) criticism after years of support, that tells me everything I need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's accurate to summarize a number of posts in this thread as saying these kinds of topics should not be started in the open forum, I agree.

 

We have email, and we have cell phones. We know how to contact each other. Failing to get the answer one hoped for in private is not a good reason to make that frustration public.

 

I can only hope better judgement will be used going forward, as to when to start a new topic and what that topic should address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I read Todd's initial posting as informative and cautionary so that we would know what to keep an eye on and what to expect from the other side.

 

I was not aware on first reading of this apparent subtext until the divide was made blatantly clear in later posts.

 

I don't think anyone can discount the invaluable and tireless efforts of each of the three powerhouses present in this forum. When it comes from those aforementioned powerhouses, I'm not sure what to think.

 

I will say, that I do not want to see the flow of all information and guidance stop simply because those powers are not in alignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've personally lost interest in GSL's articles/posts. They tend to take an approach that does not lend itself to being taken seriously.

 

Add to that the fact that they seem to go out of the way to throw Molly and Mr Molly under the bus whenever they have a chance to, leads me to lose respect for them, and I've seen it a handful of times now. Even today I saw one that caused me to shake my head in disbelief. It was written in the style of a teenage troll.

 

I appreciate the work that they do, but I really wish that they'd take a different approach publicly than taking a dump on people trying to work towards the same goals. It's extremely childish and completely unprofessional.

 

We're fighting an uphill battle against a foe that is completely retarded, combined with straight up lying through their teeth. We should be making more ground given the fact that they're short on facts and we're awash in them.

 

To GSL if they're reading this, from ALL gun owners, please try to bury the hatchet, apologize if necessary, and start working together towards the same goals.

 

There's more drama in our pro gun lobby groups than in an Italian family or on a Mexican soap opera. Hire a mediator if necessary. Some people may need to swallow their pride, but from my perspective, when you have people not willing to swallow their pride to make positive steps forward and make gains, then that's not a good sign of things to come.

 

ETA: I will say this though, and corroborate Black Flag's post above, that I've not seen much at all coming from the IC team. That should say quite a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've personally lost interest in GSL's articles/posts. They tend to take an approach that does not lend itself to being taken seriously.

 

Add to that the fact that they seem to go out of the way to throw Molly and Mr Molly under the bus whenever they have a chance to, leads me to lose respect for them, and I've seen it a handful of times now. Even today I saw one that caused me to shake my head in disbelief. It was written in the style of a teenage troll.

 

I appreciate the work that they do, but I really wish that they'd take a different approach publicly than taking a dump on people trying to work towards the same goals. It's extremely childish and completely unprofessional.

 

We're fighting an uphill battle against a foe that is completely retarded, combined with straight up lying through their teeth. We should be making more ground given the fact that they're short on facts and we're awash in them.

 

To GSL if they're reading this, from ALL gun owners, please try to bury the hatchet, apologize if necessary, and start working together towards the same goals.

 

There's more drama in our pro gun lobby groups than in an Italian family or on a Mexican soap opera. Hire a mediator if necessary. Some people may need to swallow their pride, but from my perspective, when you have people not willing to swallow their pride to make positive steps forward and make gains, then that's not a good sign of things to come.

 

ETA: I will say this though, and corroborate Black Flag's post above, that I've not seen much at all coming from the IC team. That should say quite a lot.

You're absolutely right. I've lost all respect for GSL and will not read their crap anymore. I was a fool taking anything they said as fact. Time to accept that, move on and support IC. Don't roll with the troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.......... After a yr or two of absence I just rejoined GSL. Went to their forum and the only topic there is a yr or two old tirade against IC and certain moderators. Oh well, I will monitor the GSL site from time-to-time to see if there is any reason to continue my membership.

Even more interesting. When I returned to the GSL site an hour later, the topic I was concerned about had disappeared. That's good. I also deleted my comments in the forum.

 

Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the content on GSL. It's very reactionary. But they are strong supporters of our rights. They are in line with the NRA-ILA and ISRA. I still don't understand why Illinois Carry is breaking from the unified front. What's the point?

 

That's an odd way to describe it.

 

Todd said the NRA supports the bill we're working on earlier in this thread. GSL posted yesterday that they support it and I saw someone there linked to one of their older pieces calling it shameful when military carry was removed from the trailer bill. And the ISRA lists it as a bill they support on their legislation page.

 

So, the point is to move a bill we all support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not a fan of the content on GSL. It's very reactionary. But they are strong supporters of our rights. They are in line with the NRA-ILA and ISRA. I still don't understand why Illinois Carry is breaking from the unified front. What's the point?

 

That's an odd way to describe it.

 

Todd said the NRA supports the bill we're working on earlier in this thread. GSL posted yesterday that they support it and I saw someone there linked to one of their older pieces calling it shameful when military carry was removed from the trailer bill. And the ISRA lists it as a bill they support on their legislation page.

 

So, the point is to move a bill we all support.

 

I don't think it's necessarily contained to this thread, or even GSL in particular I haven't been around alot , kids and life have been keeping me busy for the last yr...... but it seems every time I drop in there is a thread where someone sometimes including you seem to be in a junk waving contest with Todd or someone else. I'm not sure where is started, not sure where it ends, not sure if it's even intended or meant for it to be that way, but that is how it looks on from the outside looking in, and I think I can speak for all of the pleebs here, we wish it would stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly recall GSL doing so which is goofy. Still, they are right on this issue. I think this was the wrong priority to focus on. Carry for temporarily stationed military personnel great of course. Doesn't help the permanent residents here who rely on public transportation every day. It doesn't have the big symbolic victory that suppressors would either.

I fear, as Todd pointed out, that the antis will use this as cover to avoid any further pro-gun laws. And I worry that because of their "generous" compromise we'll end up with dealer licensing anyway. Or worse.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the content on GSL. It's very reactionary. But they are strong supporters of our rights. They are in line with the NRA-ILA and ISRA. I still don't understand why Illinois Carry is breaking from the unified front. What's the point?

 

Like mauserme says, everyone says they support this bill. We're all united on that, right?

 

The point is not leaving anyone behind when it comes to the right to carry, especially our military service members who have targets on their backs. They defend our country, we should be defending them.

 

Sen. Forby was able to pass a similar bill out of the Senate last year 53-1. The reason it passed, it was said was because Sen. Forby needed cover in the election. But I would like to point out that passage of that bill did not cause dealer licensing or lethal violence OPs to advance in the Senate. At the same time, the suppressor bill passed in the House, pointing out again - passage of that bill did not cause dealer licensing or lethal violence OPs to advance in the House.

 

Suddenly this year it is being said passing the military carry bill will serve as cover to shove through dealer licensing or lethal violence orders of protection. But somehow passing a suppressor bill won't.

 

We were urged to drop the military carry bill and go with the mass transit carry ban instead - huge problem there - not enough votes to pass that bill. When it all boils down, the military carry bill has the votes to pass - other pro-gun bills don't. It does not make sense to push pro-gun bills that don't have the votes and leave behind one that does.

 

If dealer licensing or other anti-gun bills can be fended off if a suppressor bill gets passed, it can certainly be fended off for a military carry bill.

 

The military carry issue should have been fixed years ago, let's get it done and then move on to other issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not a fan of the content on GSL. It's very reactionary. But they are strong supporters of our rights. They are in line with the NRA-ILA and ISRA. I still don't understand why Illinois Carry is breaking from the unified front. What's the point?

 

That's an odd way to describe it.

 

Todd said the NRA supports the bill we're working on earlier in this thread. GSL posted yesterday that they support it and I saw someone there linked to one of their older pieces calling it shameful when military carry was removed from the trailer bill. And the ISRA lists it as a bill they support on their legislation page.

 

So, the point is to move a bill we all support.

 

 

The point is that there are priorities and strategy. Having the same objectives is great, but we need to be on the same path. Otherwise a win can turn into a loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not a fan of the content on GSL. It's very reactionary. But they are strong supporters of our rights. They are in line with the NRA-ILA and ISRA. I still don't understand why Illinois Carry is breaking from the unified front. What's the point?

Like mauserme says, everyone says they support this bill. We're all united on that, right?

 

The point is not leaving anyone behind when it comes to the right to carry, especially our military service members who have targets on their backs. They defend our country, we should be defending them.

 

Sen. Forby was able to pass a similar bill out of the Senate last year 53-1. The reason it passed, it was said was because Sen. Forby needed cover in the election. But I would like to point out that passage of that bill did not cause dealer licensing or lethal violence OPs to advance in the Senate. At the same time, the suppressor bill passed in the House, pointing out again - passage of that bill did not cause dealer licensing or lethal violence OPs to advance in the House.

 

Suddenly this year it is being said passing the military carry bill will serve as cover to shove through dealer licensing or lethal violence orders of protection. But somehow passing a suppressor bill won't.

 

We were urged to drop the military carry bill and go with the mass transit carry ban instead - huge problem there - not enough votes to pass that bill. When it all boils down, the military carry bill has the votes to pass - other pro-gun bills don't. It does not make sense to push pro-gun bills that don't have the votes and leave behind one that does.

 

If dealer licensing or other anti-gun bills can be fended off if a suppressor bill gets passed, it can certainly be fended off for a military carry bill.

 

The military carry issue should have been fixed years ago, let's get it done and then move on to other issues.

 

Molly, just to confirm, I deeply appreciate Illinois Carry's long time support for our Military through the military carry bill. It's important all Illinois Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen can be armed to protect themselves and their families while on duty in Illinois. All the recruiters in the Center that I guarded served in combat. Many have purple hearts. How can any gun bill take priority over those heroes being armed?

 

And they will be armed as soon as the military carry bill passes. They, and their families are targets. And there have been attacks that the press doesn't cover and threats that aren't in the public arena. If anybody thinks these heroes won't get CCL's, I'm repeating an earlier post below.

 

"All the resident military at the Recruiting Center I guarded have Concealed Carry Licenses. Many instructors offer free CCL class for active military (they just need one day.) The non-resident military in that Center will all jump on the opportunity to get CCL's and get same free training if military carry bill passes. Military on other Illinois bases and centers will probably have the same attitude (based on the "visitors" I talked to.). They all know they are targets."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not a fan of the content on GSL. It's very reactionary. But they are strong supporters of our rights. They are in line with the NRA-ILA and ISRA. I still don't understand why Illinois Carry is breaking from the unified front. What's the point?

 

Like mauserme says, everyone says they support this bill. We're all united on that, right?

 

The point is not leaving anyone behind when it comes to the right to carry, especially our military service members who have targets on their backs. They defend our country, we should be defending them.

 

Sen. Forby was able to pass a similar bill out of the Senate last year 53-1. The reason it passed, it was said was because Sen. Forby needed cover in the election. But I would like to point out that passage of that bill did not cause dealer licensing or lethal violence OPs to advance in the Senate. At the same time, the suppressor bill passed in the House, pointing out again - passage of that bill did not cause dealer licensing or lethal violence OPs to advance in the House.

 

Suddenly this year it is being said passing the military carry bill will serve as cover to shove through dealer licensing or lethal violence orders of protection. But somehow passing a suppressor bill won't.

 

We were urged to drop the military carry bill and go with the mass transit carry ban instead - huge problem there - not enough votes to pass that bill. When it all boils down, the military carry bill has the votes to pass - other pro-gun bills don't. It does not make sense to push pro-gun bills that don't have the votes and leave behind one that does.

 

If dealer licensing or other anti-gun bills can be fended off if a suppressor bill gets passed, it can certainly be fended off for a military carry bill.

 

The military carry issue should have been fixed years ago, let's get it done and then move on to other issues.

Now that Molly explained it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point is that there are priorities and strategy. Having the same objectives is great, but we need to be on the same path. Otherwise a win can turn into a loss.

 

 

Absolutely correct. This highlights the difference between idealists and realists.

 

I admire the high-minded, uncompromising approach of the idealist who stick to their strongly held beliefs. But if they were always correct, we wouldn't need the FCCA, because the Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms.

 

I also admire the practical, experienced approach of the realist who knows how to pick their fights. But when you jump in the pen and wrestle with the pig to fight for what you want, you get covered in mud and sometimes your friends can't tell you apart from the pig you're fighting.

 

We need both to protect and advance our rights.

 

 

-- Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...