TERMINATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION MEMBERSHIP

IDAHO COWBOY · Aug 19, 2009

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

ricecountyrefugee wrote:

I terminated my contributions and asked to be removed from SAF membership roles also.

Yes, Alan could have said that HE would conceal, maybe that's what he should have said and stopped right there. He did not stop there. That made his spiel unacceptable for me.

Folks, if we don't do everything that we can to show that we object to creeping socialism today, tomorrow we may find that it's too late to stop "change".

NO compromise, accept nothing less than what's included in the Second Amendment.

PS: TAWNOS please accept my apologies for using two caps in the word "NO" and in "HE", I hope you'll forgive me. (lighten up fella)

Click to expand...

I don't care if you use it once or twice when you want to emphasize a word the way YOU would say it. Idaho Cowboy just uses all caps for almost every (maybe even every) thread he submits, and randomly starts capitalized sections.

It makes the voices in my head that read the forum yell at me, and I don't like being yelled at.

If you are really hearing voices in your head, I would suggest you need to see a professional - either a medical doctor or a bartender, the doc might listen to you, might give you some meds, and will take your money, the bartender will listen to you and will talk back to you, will give you another kind of meds, and will take your money - a good and experienced honky tonk queenwould definitely be best though, she will listen to you, will give you a massage, will let you drink in peace and quiet, and will take you money. Choose the one that will best relax and satisfy you. Anyway have a nice day, ask yourself - should I really be carrying a gun ifI am really hearing voices in my head ....

Tomahawk · Aug 19, 2009

imported post

ricecountyrefugee wrote:

Mike wrote:

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.

Click to expand...

And the name of this forum is OpenCarry.org ? Mike, I think that you're confused about what the Second Amendment says and I disagree with your statement above.

Having known Mike for several years, and given the fact that Mike is one of the two founders of this website, I think you are confused about what you are talking about.

As Hawkflyer once instructed me: proper order of fire is read, think, then type.

ricecountyrefugee · Aug 19, 2009

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Having known Mike for several years, and given the fact that Mike is one of the two founders of this website, I think you are confused about what you are talking about.

As Hawkflyer once instructed me: proper order of fire is read, think, then type.

Tomahawk,

I disagreed with Mike, do you take care of him ?

I don't know Hawkflyer, do you think I need instruction from him too ?

HankT · Aug 19, 2009

imported post

ricecountyrefugee wrote:

Mike wrote:

My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.

Click to expand...

And the name of this forum is OpenCarry.org ? Mike, I think that you're confused about what the Second Amendment says and I disagree with your statement above.

I think Mike knows what the name of this forum is...

But, why exactly do you agree with his opinion above, RCR?

Can you articulate what it is that you think is wrong with it?

ricecountyrefugee · Aug 19, 2009

imported post

HankT wrote:

ricecountyrefugee wrote:

Mike wrote:

My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.

Click to expand...

And the name of this forum is OpenCarry.org ? Mike, I think that you're confused about what the Second Amendment says and I disagree with your statement above.

Click to expand...

I think Mike knows what the name of this forum is...

But, why exactly do you agree with his opinion above, RCR?

Can you articulate what it is that you think is wrong with it?

How come you're taking care of Mike too ?

And I didn't "agree" with his opinion.

Did you watch the YouTube video ? The guy with the AR didn't talk much about health care and I'm not either.

"Keep and Bear Arms" means to some of us that we can bear those arms anyplace, anytime and also choose which arms we want to bear.

HankT · Aug 19, 2009

imported post

ricecountyrefugee wrote:

How come you're taking care of Mike too ?

And I didn't "agree" with his opinion.

Did you watch the YouTube video ? The guy with the AR didn't talk much about health care and I'm not either.

"Keep and Bear Arms" means to some of us that we can bear those arms anyplace, anytime and also choose which arms we want to bear.

Sorry, I goofed. I meant "disagree."

What the heck are you talking about "taking care of Mike too?" You diverge from the point with a tired old schoolyard ploy.

I am simply asking you to delineate your reasons for disagreeing with Mike's stated opinions. Shouldn't bethat difficult for you to do. Read Mike's full statement and have a go at it.

para_org · Aug 19, 2009

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:

Why not email the SAF with your feelings instead of ditching your memberships right away? Maybe get them to change their stance.

I thought everyone would learn from the Jim Zumbo experience a few years back. If you're not familiar with it, he made some negative remarks about AR-15's being used for hunting that sent everyone up in an uproar. He lost sponsors, lost his show for a while, and was able to see what everyone was mad about. After actually taking them out and using them, and being helped out by The Nuge, he changed his position on the subject.

Funny you should mention this. I called them on the phone while the program was airing here.

It was not pretty. I was yelled at by a woman who treated me as though I was off. She said I was wrong about what Alan said. I later checked the transcript and I was correct about exactly what he said and *still* feel that Alan was not as careful as he needed to be.

I was also told that I would *never* get an apology letter from Alan concering his disrespecting my personal open-carry practice. (It could have been me that CNN taped in Arizona bacause in my case I open-carry virtually all the time in public.)

I was also careful to point out that I believe the press would haunt Alan about this "waffle" in one way or another. I have worked in both network and local television newsrooms and I would be surprised that this moment of bumbling on Alan's part would go un-noticed. And yeah, regardless of what he said later in the broadcast, it is clear in reading the transcripts that he did very clearly state that he would not have personally done what the fellow in Arizona did for "political" reasons. It is contextually whole and sadly could easily be used as such.

I called SAF back a second time a few minutes later BTW, and this time I got pissed at them. They actually admitted that Alan's remarks in this area were planned and that they were "correct". They sure seem to be unconcerned about any "slippery slope" resulting from Alan's poorly considered remarks. (Afterall he could have not bothered to speak about his own personal beliefs as easily as he offered them, let alone have planned them as "Tom" at SAF **specifically** offered in our conversation.)

Oh well for the SAF. Caveat emptor applies with this group too I guess.

WCrawford · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

Mike, I, too, disagree with your opinion. I open carry every waking moment.

Why should my wanting to exercise my 1st Amendment rights on a non-gun issue make my 2nd Amendment rights null? Is not our objective as Open Carry advocates to let people know that just the sight of a gun is not a big deal? If even we aren't Openly Carrying at all times (where legal of course) how will we get the gun on the hip to be viewed the same way as a cell phone on the hip?

cato · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

Why should my wanting to exercise my 1st Amendment rights on a non-gun issue make my 2nd Amendment rights null? Is not our objective as Open Carry advocates to let people know that just the sight of a gun is not a big deal? If even we aren't Openly Carrying at all times (where legal of course) how will we get the gun on the hip to be viewed the same way as a cell phone on the hip?

I agree with Mike and Alan Gottlieb and I still love OC. We're in a political fight to define the Federal Rights protected by the 2nd A. Judges are political and can be fence sitters who can be swayed by perceptions of eventsand public opinion.

A rifle is not normal OC (yet). Should it be? Yes. But that is better established socially AFTER the 2nd A. is secured with SCOTUS precedent. You want AK/AR's to be constitutionally protected? Well SAF is suing DC right now to establish that. You want carry (bear)protected? SAF is suing DC right now to establish that! Heller was only that beginning and even that was a close call at 5-4.

These cases are being funded and fought by SAF right now! But do realize that for those of us in States with no Right to Arms our only hope of relief IS from a strong Federal Right protected by the Federal Courts. We need to expand and secure the Federal Right to arms strategically and with politically wise behavior. Alan Gottlieb with attorney Alan Gura are doing just thatwithour money. They willkeep getting my support and I really hope yours too.

para_org · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

1 - I agree that the fight to secure our rights must be won. But that should not include first saying that you would not do what someone else did for "political" reasons. Time will most certainly confirm that saying nothing would have been the best course to follow.

2 - I also agree that it is important to FULLY secure our rights (more especially those that actually exist in writing, such as the 2nd Amendment) without having to ask any permission from our courts or regulators so I can exercise them at any particular time and place. When our spokesmen plan to discuss this by conceeding that there are "political" reasons to not openly carry they severely dilute our message. They directly enpower our detractors. It will certainly make securing our rights harder and take longer than what would happen if we did not allow them this compromise. (If you do not believe this, look at the recent advances in our country towards becoming a socialist state. Each step is a full committed/no compromise undertaking by those that would enslave you. They do not let up and they do not so willingly compromise.)

3 - I finally agree that in the oldest societies it was ALWAYS encouraged that free men attend political meetings with their personally carried weapons in hand (bearing arms). It was the symbol of a free-man. This is still the case. Among other places it is a well established tradition in the 700 year old canons of Switzerland. While this may seem at first seem trivial, upon further examination it is clear that you cannot be a free-man when someone else decides what is "politically" correct for you. More especially while in public.

SO.....it is entirely reasonable to say that I also agree that Alan bumbled badly. The coverage in our media and this discussion here fully indicates that. I expect this to haunt him. It is also reasonable to ask Alan to reputiate this mis-guided effort to appease or agree with our detractors. Alan should be encouraged to not so willingly give up the millenia old traditions of showing up to public meetings as a free-man, openly and fully armed. (Because ONLY free-men may carry openly.)

It is also clear that you cannot defend Alan by pointing out the other things he has done, or will do in the future, as a defense for this situation he created. Specifically his own office told me that he first planned to state what he did. And then he went ahead and actually did state that he would NOT openly carrying a personal weapon in order to be "politically" correct. A defense of this is not made up of other good things he did or will do in the future.

Alan specifically NEEDS to not be given **any** reason to think it was acceptable to behave as he did. He must be encouraged to refrain from stating his own "political" reasons why he would not carry a firearm if he is to remain a **fully** effective spokesman. He elected to speak out as he did and he can also elect NOT to speak out just as easily.

IDAHO COWBOY · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

HankT wrote:

ricecountyrefugee wrote:

How come you're taking care of Mike too ?

And I didn't "agree" with his opinion.

Did you watch the YouTube video ? The guy with the AR didn't talk much about health care and I'm not either.

"Keep and Bear Arms" means to some of us that we can bear those arms anyplace, anytime and also choose which arms we want to bear.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I goofed. I meant "disagree."

What the heck are you talking about "taking care of Mike too?" You diverge from the point with a tired old schoolyard ploy.

I am simply asking you to delineate your reasons for disagreeing with Mike's stated opinions. Shouldn't bethat difficult for you to do. Read Mike's full statement and have a go at it.

RCR, already did that in plain simple words, even you should be able to understand.

A few words from The Second Amendment:

"Keep and Bear Arms" means to some of us that we can bear those arms anyplace, anytime and also choose which arms we want to bear.

You failed to answer his question - did you watch the video ?

IDAHO COWBOY · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

para_org wrote:

Brass Magnet wrote:

Why not email the SAF with your feelings instead of ditching your memberships right away? Maybe get them to change their stance.

I thought everyone would learn from the Jim Zumbo experience a few years back. If you're not familiar with it, he made some negative remarks about AR-15's being used for hunting that sent everyone up in an uproar. He lost sponsors, lost his show for a while, and was able to see what everyone was mad about. After actually taking them out and using them, and being helped out by The Nuge, he changed his position on the subject.

Click to expand...

Funny you should mention this. I called them on the phone while the program was airing here.

It was not pretty. I was yelled at by a woman who treated me as though I was off. She said I was wrong about what Alan said. I later checked the transcript and I was correct about exactly what he said and *still* feel that Alan was not as careful as he needed to be.

I was also told that I would *never* get an apology letter from Alan concering his disrespecting my personal open-carry practice. (It could have been me that CNN taped in Arizona bacause in my case I open-carry virtually all the time in public.)

I was also careful to point out that I believe the press would haunt Alan about this "waffle" in one way or another. I have worked in both network and local television newsrooms and I would be surprised that this moment of bumbling on Alan's part would go un-noticed. And yeah, regardless of what he said later in the broadcast, it is clear in reading the transcripts that he did very clearly state that he would not have personally done what the fellow in Arizona did for "political" reasons. It is contextually whole and sadly could easily be used as such.

I called SAF back a second time a few minutes later BTW, and this time I got pissed at them. They actually admitted that Alan's remarks in this area were planned and that they were "correct". They sure seem to be unconcerned about any "slippery slope" resulting from Alan's poorly considered remarks. (Afterall he could have not bothered to speak about his own personal beliefs as easily as he offered them, let alone have planned them as "Tom" at SAF **specifically** offered in our conversation.)

Oh well for the SAF. Caveat emptor applies with this group too I guess.

This is very disappointing to hear about, esp from the SAF and all the many many years I "had been" a member.

Yes, Alan words were planned and practiced many times before he went on the air, he made no mistakes in what he planned to say, it is jus what he planned to say and did say was against the Second Amendment, which is the same as his organization name.

Alan, failed to support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

IDAHO COWBOY · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

Mike, I, too, disagree with your opinion. I open carry every waking moment.

Why should my wanting to exercise my 1st Amendment rights on a non-gun issue make my 2nd Amendment rights null? Is not our objective as Open Carry advocates to let people know that just the sight of a gun is not a big deal? If even we aren't Openly Carrying at all times (where legal of course) how will we get the gun on the hip to be viewed the same way as a cell phone on the hip?

Roger that.

IDAHO COWBOY · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

cato wrote:

WCrawford wrote:

Why should my wanting to exercise my 1st Amendment rights on a non-gun issue make my 2nd Amendment rights null? Is not our objective as Open Carry advocates to let people know that just the sight of a gun is not a big deal? If even we aren't Openly Carrying at all times (where legal of course) how will we get the gun on the hip to be viewed the same way as a cell phone on the hip?

Click to expand...

I agree with Mike and Alan Gottlieb and I still love OC. We're in a political fight to define the Federal Rights protected by the 2nd A. Judges are political and can be fence sitters who can be swayed by perceptions of eventsand public opinion.

A rifle is not normal OC (yet). Should it be? Yes. But that is better established socially AFTER the 2nd A. is secured with SCOTUS precedent. You want AK/AR's to be constitutionally protected? Well SAF is suing DC right now to establish that. You want carry (bear)protected? SAF is suing DC right now to establish that! Heller was only that beginning and even that was a close call at 5-4.

These cases are being funded and fought by SAF right now! But do realize that for those of us in States with no Right to Arms our only hope of relief IS from a strong Federal Right protected by the Federal Courts. We need to expand and secure the Federal Right to arms strategically and with politically wise behavior. Alan Gottlieb with attorney Alan Gura are doing just thatwithour money. They willkeep getting my support and I really hope yours too.

If these"people" have not figured out the simple straight forward words that our fore fathers used in the Second Amendment, then they never will either because they do not want too or they are plain ......

"A rifle is not normal OC (yet)." I know you are from the PRC and I have spent time inthe PRC and what you stated is true in "some" parts of the PRC but not all of the PRC, and certainly is 100% not true in ID WY MT. I carry a rifle (Marlin Lever or AR-15 or AK-47) everyday (unless carrying shotgun every now and then) and it is not concealed, others do too.

Take a look at ID WY MT law, we do not neednorwant any more fed meddling in ID WY MT,all the feds in ID WY MT are more than welcomed to packup and leave today never to return.

As I stated before:

If Alan Gottlieb's wants to go back on Lou Dobbs and change his position to the correct position of fully supporting the Second Amendment then that is fine with me, I would then re-new my membership with SAF, but until that happens I am not and several will not be members of the SAF.

There is no riding the fence or playing two sides of the fence on the Second Amendment, to borrow a quote "your either with us or against us".

Alan's remarks that he thought it inappropriate to carry a rifle, where it was completely legal to do so, flies in the face of the Second Amendment, the very name of the organization he represents.

IDAHO COWBOY · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

para_org wrote:

1 - I agree that the fight to secure our rights must be won. But that should not include first saying that you would not do what someone else did for "political" reasons. Time will most certainly confirm that saying nothing would have been the best course to follow.

2 - I also agree that it is important to FULLY secure our rights (more especially those that actually exist in writing, such as the 2nd Amendment) without having to ask any permission from our courts or regulators so I can exercise them at any particular time and place. When our spokesmen plan to discuss this by conceeding that there are "political" reasons to not openly carry they severely dilute our message. They directly enpower our detractors. It will certainly make securing our rights harder and take longer than what would happen if we did not allow them this compromise. (If you do not believe this, look at the recent advances in our country towards becoming a socialist state. Each step is a full committed/no compromise undertaking by those that would enslave you. They do not let up and they do not so willingly compromise.)

3 - I finally agree that in the oldest societies it was ALWAYS encouraged that free men attend political meetings with their personally carried weapons in hand (bearing arms). It was the symbol of a free-man. This is still the case. Among other places it is a well established tradition in the 700 year old canons of Switzerland. While this may seem at first seem trivial, upon further examination it is clear that you cannot be a free-man when someone else decides what is "politically" correct for you. More especially while in public.

SO.....it is entirely reasonable to say that I also agree that Alan bumbled badly. The coverage in our media and this discussion here fully indicates that. I expect this to haunt him. It is also reasonable to ask Alan to reputiate this mis-guided effort to appease or agree with our detractors. Alan should be encouraged to not so willingly give up the millenia old traditions of showing up to public meetings as a free-man, openly and fully armed. (Because ONLY free-men may carry openly.)

It is also clear that you cannot defend Alan by pointing out the other things he has done, or will do in the future, as a defense for this situation he created. Specifically his own office told me that he first planned to state what he did. And then he went ahead and actually did state that he would NOT openly carrying a personal weapon in order to be "politically" correct. A defense of this is not made up other good things he did or will do in the future.

Alan specifically NEEDS to not be given **any** reason to think it was acceptable to behave as he did. He must be encouraged to refrain from stating his own "political" reasons why he would not carry a firearm if he is to remain a **fully** effective spokesman. He elected to speak out as he did and he can also elect NOT to speak out just as easily.

Good words - all - Thank you.

I esp like this " ... in the oldest societies it was ALWAYS encouraged that free men attend political meetings with their personally carried weapons in hand (bearing arms). It was the symbol of a free-man. This is still the case. Among other places it is a well established tradition in the 700 year old canons of Switzerland. While this may seem at first seem trivial, upon further examination it is clear that you cannot be a free-man when someone else decides what is "politically" correct for you. More especially while in public."

If you have done so - Thank you. If you have not done so, as free man as your words show, please e-mail Alan at SAF. Thank you - You are a True American Patriot.

IDAHO COWBOY · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

I think I saw that interview and thought Alan's comments were pretty balanced and that he said something like that the people were within their rights though perhaps not politically smart. He then went on to make fun of the Brady's guy's statements pretty good.

My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.

I know I saw and heard the video not just "think" it.

Please explain "My personal view is that open carrying guns, """"let alone long guns""" - what does "let alone long guns" mean ?

The Second Amendment states "Arms" which is Handguns, Long Guns, Knives, Tomahawks, and whatever else one as an individual wants to carry as "Arms", this is not government decision but an individual decision.

From WCrawford post:

"Why should my wanting to exercise my 1st Amendment rights on a non-gun issue make my 2nd Amendment rights null? Is not our objective as Open Carry advocates to let people know that just the sight of a gun is not a big deal? If even we aren't Openly Carrying at all times (where legal of course) how will we get the gun on the hip to be viewed the same way as a cell phone on the hip?"

Thank you WCrawford, you are a True American Patriot.

IDAHO COWBOY · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

ricecountyrefugee wrote:

I terminated my contributions and asked to be removed from SAF membership roles also.

Yes, Alan could have said that HE would conceal, maybe that's what he should have said and stopped right there. He did not stop there. That made his spiel unacceptable for me.

Folks, if we don't do everything that we can to show that we object to creeping socialism today, tomorrow we may find that it's too late to stop "change".

NO compromise, accept nothing less than what's included in the Second Amendment.

PS: TAWNOS please accept my apologies for using two caps in the word "NO" and in "HE", I hope you'll forgive me. (lighten up fella)

Thank you, You are a True American Patriot.

Roger that on esp your words below:

Folks, if we don't do everything that we can to show that we object to creeping socialism today, tomorrow we may find that it's too late to stop "change".

NO compromise, accept nothing less than what's included in the Second Amendment.

IDAHO COWBOY · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not a word about open or concealed.

Not a word about gun or handgun or pistol or rifle or knife or tomahawk just "Arms".

Not a word about restrictions in fact states "shall not be infringed", which makes all laws related to this subject illegal since against the Constitution, yes it is just that simple. A Free Man doesnot need any lawyers or Congress or Supreme Court or anyone else to understand the Second Amendment or Bill of Rights or the Constitution, that's whyour fore father's wrote it they way theydid. Anybody tells you different then they are just looking out for their'sor someone else's job security, pocketbook, or power control.

What do you think ? Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Crockett, Boone,and others in that day would say if they could see the USA today in regard to the Second Amendment and other subjects we have today that are against the Constitution ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaPA8fGeRUc&feature=related
The REPUBLIC, RIGHT & WRONG, DOING WHAT'S RIGHT

The silent majority has been silent far too long on far too many matters, part of 5 generations - 100 years today at least since 1909, and we can all see where we are today.

We have maybe two chances to turn this Country around by voting in 2010 "and" 2012, for the Republic and not the opposite ......

Venator · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

I think I saw that interview and thought Alan's comments were pretty balanced and that he said something like that the people were within their rights though perhaps not politically smart. He then went on to make fun of the Brady's guy's statements pretty good.

My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.

Mike, your are continuing to soften on your view of the second amendment and open carry. This is your second comment in regards to OC that has made me wonder what has happened to your views. Either THEY have gotten to you or I'm seeingpolitical ambition in your future.

Tawnos · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

Venator wrote:

Mike wrote:

I think I saw that interview and thought Alan's comments were pretty balanced and that he said something like that the people were within their rights though perhaps not politically smart. He then went on to make fun of the Brady's guy's statements pretty good.

My personal view is that open carrying guns, let alone long guns, only as a way of expressing your opposition to health care policy proposals risks garbling the message and confusing the target audience.

Open carry as a form of expressive conduct re non-gun rights issues does not help us in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Mike, your are continuing to soften on your view of the second amendment and open carry. This is your second comment in regards to OC that has made me wonder what has happened to your views. Either THEY have gotten to you or I'm seeingpolitical ambition in your future.

Couldn't possibly be that he doesn't want to see all the good work done in this arena to be undone by those acting overzealously, scaring the voting people into prodding their legislators to reduce or remove our freedoms, could it?

TERMINATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION MEMBERSHIP

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member