Nevada Firearms Coalition Screws up again

usmcmustang said:

Not voting is not sitting on the fence. Problem is most believe voting is what makes "us" who we "are"... democratic and all. That's the problem. When most see that voting simply empowers those who have "authority" over us, then not voting will make a difference. The "will" of the people will take a form that is definitely not "sitting on the fence."

Click to expand...

Your logic escapes me. Your "will" means nothing unless you push for it. You want people to not participate allowing a very small minority command over your life? How does that enforce your "will"? That is exactly what we have now because of apathy. How do you ever win in that situation? When the minority rules the majority by passive approval of the majority the only way left to make a change for those who really care is with great violence. Let's remember that the American Revolution was fought by less than 20% of the population. I'd prefer to try it the non violent way first.

TBG

The Big Guy said:

Your logic escapes me. Your "will" means nothing unless you push for it. You want people to not participate allowing a very small minority command over your life? How does that enforce your "will"? That is exactly what we have now because of apathy. How do you ever win in that situation? When the minority rules the majority by passive approval of the majority the only way left to make a change for those who really care is with great violence. Let's remember that the American Revolution was fought by less than 20% of the population. I'd prefer to try it the non violent way first.

TBG

Click to expand...

My "logic" is that voting simply puts another "ruler" in place... YOU may "like" that "ruler," but a "ruler" he/she still is... with the "superstition" of "authority" to rule... with no moral authority to do so. No person or persons have any moral authority to rule over another or others, whether it be by a "democratic" process or otherwise. That is a reality that most can't comprehend... but more are coming to that realization. When the scales tip to that reality, a new age will be forthcoming and it won't be the result of the ballot box. It doesn't require "violence," simply "disengagement."

The non violent thing to do is to not vote! When you vote, you are initiating a sense of authority to someone who is trying to control otherwise free people. that control is produced through "threats and violence."

Participation in the system is what leads to bloodshed, it has happened consistently throughout history.

Voting is perhaps one of the MOST violent things that you can do. It tacitly "authorizes" force against others for non violent, and victimless acts. The power mongers, when voted in believe they can do things no one else can. Examples below:

• Take a portion of your earnings, utilizing threats and violence.
• Design "rules" that are enforced through violence. (whether through the legislature or the judicial bench)
• Send the military into peoples homes in the middle of the night to look for "leafy vegetable like substances."
• Set up road blocks to stop every driver in hopes of finding a small percentage in violation of the rules made up by the folks who received votes.
• Send your children to go initiate violence throughout the world.
• Utilizing the Draft (selective service) for the violent acts above despite the constitutions clear prohibition on indentured servitude.

Just a few examples of the violence perpetuated by "authorizing" people to control us.
History shows that nearly everyone who is given this type of authority by the vote of the people causes violence to be initiated against another who has victimized nobody. In other words, humans cannot handle that type of responsibility, it has been demonstrated through the ages, and to keep giving people power over us, is insanity in its finest form.

Hello, DTOM... I was waiting for you to "show up." As you say, voting is a collective means by which to incite violence against one's fellow man... plain and simple.

While 'not voting' may give the person doing it some level of 'feel like I am making a statement,' all it really does is voluntarily disenfranchise that person. Those who do not follow that 'not vote' will be left to make the selection without those who are making their statement. IOW, it is a useless gesture.


But, that is far afield from the thread subject, which hinges upon disagreeing about methods of activism.

wrightme said:

While 'not voting' may give the person doing it some level of 'feel like I am making a statement,' all it really does is voluntarily disenfranchise that person. Those who do not follow that 'not vote' will be left to make the selection without those who are making their statement. IOW, it is a useless gesture.


But, that is far afield from the thread subject, which hinges upon disagreeing about methods of activism.

Click to expand...

By ‘not voting’ I, and others evidently, are refusing to “feed the beast.” The “beast” being the government and all its “rulers.” In reality, as has been proven over and over, it matters little who one may vote for… the basic tenants remain the same, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, ad infinitum. Putting a believed “good” man/woman in office by YOUR vote only replaces a believed “bad” man/woman… And, “good” or “bad” is only in the eyes of the beholder because they cannot see beyond their “patriotic duty” or political persuasions that government in all its forms is and has been forever an immoral institution of coercion, intimidation, force, and aggression. Hard to stomach and a threatening idea, I know… but on a very basic level that IS what government IS and certainly what it does to and for those it “governs.”

And as far as “activism” goes, I do not consider myself an activist. Activism is a complete waste of time and energy, with no fruitful outcome other than to allow oneself to believe that it will make some sort of immediate or perhaps lasting “change.” Government likes activists… activism is “busy work” engaged in by otherwise troublesome individuals and groups. Change will only come (and probably not in my lifetime or even two lifetimes) when those being “ruled” have a self-realization that government is immoral and that their superstition that there are those among us who have “authority” to rule, by any means, is challenged by a disengagement from that superstition.

Now, go right ahead and support or vote (Clark County residents) for who YOU believe will be a “good” sheriff.

You miss.

When you and others choose to not vote, those who DO choose to vote, get to select who they desire. You are left off the process; voluntarily.


As for 'activism,' that was the original thread topic; and had nothing to do with someone choosing to not vote.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

The non violent thing to do is to not vote! When you vote, you are initiating a sense of authority to someone who is trying to control otherwise free people. that control is produced through "threats and violence."

Participation in the system is what leads to bloodshed, it has happened consistently throughout history.

Voting is perhaps one of the MOST violent things that you can do. It tacitly "authorizes" force against others for non violent, and victimless acts. The power mongers, when voted in believe they can do things no one else can. Examples below:

• Take a portion of your earnings, utilizing threats and violence.
• Design "rules" that are enforced through violence. (whether through the legislature or the judicial bench)
• Send the military into peoples homes in the middle of the night to look for "leafy vegetable like substances."
• Set up road blocks to stop every driver in hopes of finding a small percentage in violation of the rules made up by the folks who received votes.
• Send your children to go initiate violence throughout the world.
• Utilizing the Draft (selective service) for the violent acts above despite the constitutions clear prohibition on indentured servitude.

Just a few examples of the violence perpetuated by "authorizing" people to control us.
History shows that nearly everyone who is given this type of authority by the vote of the people causes violence to be initiated against another who has victimized nobody. In other words, humans cannot handle that type of responsibility, it has been demonstrated through the ages, and to keep giving people power over us, is insanity in its finest form.

Click to expand...

This will be the last thing I say on the subject.

Our founding fathers had the common sense to realize that there is no workable perfect system, so they gave us a republic, as Franklin said, "if you can keep it." The idea that we send like thinking representatives to the congress to represent our thoughts and beliefs. State and local governments adopted this system as well. It was to be held in check by the Bill of Rights and your right to vote. They knew that an all powerful government would not work, and they knew that no government would not work, so they gave us limited government.

They knew that pure democracy would not protect the human or God given rights of minorities. They gave us the Bill of Rights to guarantee lest we forget that fact. Through apathy and non participation we are losing our natural rights. Not because of participation, but because of the lack of it mostly from those who sit back and expect to be handed everything. The very thing you espouse is exactly why we have the bill of rights.

Anarchy has never worked either. It has caused the rise of countless systems of War Lords and Tyrants. Rulers without limits. Oppressing the masses for their own benefit. It is a system of the strong preying on the weak. In analogy it is much like the idea of the redistribution of wealth. Take all that everyone has, divide it equally and return evenly to us all. The only problem is that in a very short time the same people you took the wealth from in the first place will have it all back. The same is true for power. This is the reason we have the Second Amendment. The Founders were smart enough to know that it was likely that sooner or later the power would gravitate to a controlling few and would have to be taken back by force. Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Communism does not work as it assumes every human being has the same abilities. That we are all equal in all areas. Same strengths and weaknesses.

A dictatorship assumes that we are all too stupid to lay out our own course through life.

I like the creature comforts that limited government can provide such as water coming to my house and a sewer system taking it away. I like paved roads to drive on. I like a “fair” system of justice so no one will be able to take it into their own hands resulting in feudalism. The best idea is not “no government”, the best idea is still "limited government". That which you will not have without participation.

TBG

TBG,

You said that VERY well.

These are great thoughts for another thread. This thread was about the one true Nevada gun group being part of a anti event. Lets not lose sight of the mistakes they are making.

Vegassteve said:

These are great thoughts for another thread. This thread was about the one true Nevada gun group being part of a anti event. Lets not lose sight of the mistakes they are making.

Click to expand...

Well, no. That is how you chose to see it.

wrightme said:

Well, no. That is how you chose to see it.

Click to expand...

Im not the president of the gun group that continues to give time and money to anti groups. I am not the president of the gun group that failed to follow the by laws they set, and shut down discussion at the only meeting they ever held. It has nothing to do with how I chose to see anything. The facts are very easy to see.

Vegassteve said:

The facts are very easy to see.

Click to expand...

This

Vegassteve said:

Im not the president of the gun group that continues to give time and money to anti groups. I am not the president of the gun group that failed to follow the by laws they set, and shut down discussion at the only meeting they ever held. It has nothing to do with how I chose to see anything. The facts are very easy to see.

Click to expand...

"Anti groups?" What 'anti groups' have they been donating time and money to? Do you think that the only place to advocate is with those already advocating? You and they have different views on how to proceed, that is all.


What IS a fact, is that it really will not matter what they try, you will find fault.

Would you set up an information booth in a school to try to present a pro-2A view there? Even though it is an 'anti' place?


The 'best,' IMHO, would be if the NFC could set up a booth, share information, while being visibly armed; and no one is harmed.
The second best, would be if the NFC could set up a booth, and share information.


EITHER ONE is better than not being out there visible.

wrightme said:

"Anti groups?" What 'anti groups' have they been donating time and money to? Do you think that the only place to advocate is with those already advocating? You and they have different views on how to proceed, that is all.


What IS a fact, is that it really will not matter what they try, you will find fault.

Would you set up an information booth in a school to try to present a pro-2A view there? Even though it is an 'anti' place?


The 'best,' IMHO, would be if the NFC could set up a booth, share information, while being visibly armed; and no one is harmed.
The second best, would be if the NFC could set up a booth, and share information.


EITHER ONE is better than not being out there visible.

Click to expand...

When I was a member I offered my time and efforts to do things. They didnt want it. I and others offered things like helping with a simple match and get together and were rebuffed. They didnt want to follow the very by laws and goals they set.

They are now advertising as part of a stand up for your 2nd Amendments rally being held by a group that A. Has a no firearms policy, and B. Wants to search everyone. Thats not standing up that is bowing down.

The other Anti group they give time and money to is Clark County.

They have continued to ignore real issues that members have brought up. They refused to be a part of the what is now a very successful lawsuit against the sheriffs and chief org.


And NO I wouldnt set up so much as a water bucket at a Anti event. Because I couldnt be armed, I would be allowing the antis to control the situation. All it does is give the anti ammo to say,"look even the gun group admits you need not be armed they feel safe enough to be here"

They do not wish to make any real impact. They begged for a year and half for members and money. Saying they could only do the work with enough members and money. Laymen in this forum have done MORE and made PROGRESS that the NVFAC never have. All done without huge numbers or money. I would rather have set the 50 dollars in money I gave them on fire than give them another penny.

Vegassteve said:

When I was a member I offered my time and efforts to do things. They didnt want it. I and others offered things like helping with a simple match and get together and were rebuffed. They didnt want to follow the very by laws and goals they set.

Click to expand...

If you approached them in any bit of the way you speak of them in these fora, I do not doubt that one bit.

Vegassteve said:

They are now advertising as part of a stand up for your 2nd Amendments rally being held by a group that A. Has a no firearms policy, and B. Wants to search everyone. Thats not standing up that is bowing down.

Click to expand...

Would you set up a booth in a school to provide pro-2A information, though it is an 'anti' area? You keep sidestepping that.

Vegassteve said:

The other Anti group they give time and money to is Clark County.

Click to expand...

The place to share information, is where it isn't already accepted. Don't you get it?

Vegassteve said:

They have continued to ignore real issues that members have brought up. They refused to be a part of the what is now a very successful lawsuit against the sheriffs and chief org.

Click to expand...

Good for those who supported it. They cannot be part of each item that some desire.

Vegassteve said:

And NO I wouldnt set up so much as a water bucket at a Anti event. Because I couldnt be armed, I would be allowing the antis to control the situation. All it does is give the anti ammo to say,"look even the gun group admits you need not be armed they feel safe enough to be here"

Click to expand...

Then you will continue to have difficulty expanding the message.

Vegassteve said:

They do not wish to make any real impact. They begged for a year and half for members and money. Saying they could only do the work with enough members and money. Laymen in this forum have done MORE and made PROGRESS that the NVFAC never have. All done without huge numbers or money. I would rather have set the 50 dollars in money I gave them on fire than give them another penny.

Click to expand...

Bull crap. Serious bull crap. If you do not believe that they had an impact in the legislative session last year, you are blind.


It takes laymen as you say. It also takes orgs such as the NFC. It also takes going where it isn't liked, to share information. I know you disagree. Your disagreement, does NOT make it wrong.


You would not set up an information booth in a school? Seriously? Sigh.


Have you gone to any legislative sessions or committee hearings to present support? Did you disarm and go anyway? Or did you disenfranchise yourself there also?

I can only guess why you have such an affinity for nfac, but you definitely aren't making a strong case for them.

vegaspassat said:

I can only guess why you have such an affinity for nfac, but you definitely aren't making a strong case for them.

Click to expand...

??

It isn't that I have some affinity for them or that I am attempting to make any case for them. It is simply that I point out that the wailings against them are misplaced.


Would you set up an information booth in a school, where you were not allowed to carry? The place to further the 2A, is where it isn't currently accepted. Otherwise, it is 'preaching to the choir.' I understand the desire to not patronize establishments that do deny rights. I also believe that placing that limitation upon others, misses the point.
Simply put, there are more than one way to get things done. Some here seem to simply talk down about anything NRA, or anything not full on 'don't patronize.' That places the incorrect emphasis upon methods of their own choice, to the detriment of other valid modes.


But, I am amenable to discussing the specifics, if that does not get in the way of your attempt to characterize me in some way due to my 'such an affinity for nfac.'

Wrightme: You keep insisting that people who do not agree with you set up a 2-A booth at a public school. suggesting that is against the rules on this forum as it is against the law (ZERO TOLERANCE.) Also see NRS 207.190 that is your Cite Please seek help!

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

Wrightme: You keep insisting that people who do not agree with you set up a 2-A booth at a public school. suggesting that is against the rules on this forum as it is against the law (ZERO TOLERANCE.) Also see NRS 207.190 that is your Cite Please seek help!

Click to expand...

What? I have not said for anyone to break any laws. What law do you claim makes presenting information illegal on school property?

I have not insisted that people who do not agree with me, to do such. I have asked if they would.


I pointed that out, as carry is prohibited there. But, it is a perfect place to share information where it is needed.


What point do you attempt with your 'cite?'

NRS 207.190  Coercion.

1.  It is unlawful for a person, with the intent to compel another to do or abstain from doing an act which the other person has a right to do or abstain from doing, to:

(a) Use violence or inflict injury upon the other person or any of the other person’s family, or upon the other person’s property, or threaten such violence or injury;

(b) Deprive the person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder the person in the use thereof; or

(c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force.

2.  A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 shall be punished:

(a) Where physical force or the immediate threat of physical force is used, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.

(b) Where no physical force or immediate threat of physical force is used, for a misdemeanor.

[1911 C&P § 475; RL § 6740; NCL § 10424]—(NRS A 1967, 522; 1979, 1455; 1995, 1239)

Click to expand...

Who do you claim is doing that?