Sb126

DVC said:

The guys in the T-shirts could have cost us, just for not being dressed properly.

Someone who is representing an organization should be in suit and tie (with or without coat), someone representing himself should be in "business casual" and NOBODY should wear anything that could be considered "Bubbawear" (T-shirts, hats, cammies, etc).

Click to expand...

I think it depends on what kind of t-shirts that they are wearing. Definitely avoid t-shirts that have offensive or overly controversial messages on them.

I don't agree with the need to wear a suit and tie if you represent an organization. I think that if your organization has nearly 800 members from all over the state, it is appropriate to wear attire that represents your organization.

It doesn't matter what YOU or I agree or disagree with, what counts is the impression made to the legislators.

When you are trying to convince someone of your argument, you want your audience to think "this is someone just like me . . .and if he is like me, maybe I can agree with what he is saying." You want them to have their focus on your words, not your appearance. I have never seen legislators in session wearing T-shirts, hats or any other kind of "Bubbawear."

Lobbyists learned this lesson long ago -- and you won't find them wearing anything but a suit and tie when they are at the Capitol, even when not on the job. They work to maintain an image that doesn't draw the focus of the legislators.

When you go before any legislative body, you are a walking, talking advertisement . . .you want to be the argument in FAVOR of your point of view.

"I think that if your organization has nearly 800 members from all over the state, it is appropriate to wear attire that represents your organization. " So, if you are a lobbyist for the trash-collectors' union, you would come wearing stained coveralls? How would this be any worse than wearing a T-shirt?

DVC said:

It doesn't matter what YOU or I agree or disagree with, what counts is the impression made to the legislators.

When you are trying to convince someone of your argument, you want your audience to think "this is someone just like me . . .and if he is like me, maybe I can agree with what he is saying." You want them to have their focus on your words, not your appearance. I have never seen legislators in session wearing T-shirts, hats or any other kind of "Bubbawear."

Lobbyists learned this lesson long ago -- and you won't find them wearing anything but a suit and tie when they are at the Capitol, even when not on the job. They work to maintain an image that doesn't draw the focus of the legislators.

When you go before any legislative body, you are a walking, talking advertisement . . .you want to be the argument in FAVOR of your point of view.

"I think that if your organization has nearly 800 members from all over the state, it is appropriate to wear attire that represents your organization. " So, if you are a lobbyist for the trash-collectors' union, you would come wearing stained coveralls? How would this be any worse than wearing a T-shirt?

Click to expand...

If you can't differentiate between club apparel and stained work garments, then you either belong to a low rent club or you're an idiot.

Although some lobbyists may wear suits and ties, not all do. I can tell you that at least one has lobbied for our rights for several sessions, is known by most of the veteran legislators by name, and does not wear a suit and tie. I have heard several legislators praise him for his effective efforts and never once did I hear them say that he should wear a suit and tie to be more effective. Club attire was encouraged by some of these same people.

Although I agree "Bubbawear" is not a great idea, not wearing a suit and tie does not equal "Bubbawear".

Gordie said:

Although I agree "Bubbawear" is not a great idea, not wearing a suit and tie does not equal "Bubbawear".

Click to expand...

You need to read what I wrote.

Lobbyists wear suits.

People who are not official reps wear business casual.

People who are willing to be considered ignorant, to annoy or even offend our Elect Officials, or be laughed at on the Six O'Clock Follies wear T-shirts.

Argue all you like -- it's not me that you have to convince, it's THEM, and they aren't all that eager to change the way it's been done since before any of them were elected.

DVC said:

You need to read what I wrote.

Lobbyists wear suits.

People who are not official reps wear business casual.

People who are willing to be considered ignorant, to annoy or even offend our Elect Officials, or be laughed at on the Six O'Clock Follies wear T-shirts.

Argue all you like -- it's not me that you have to convince, it's THEM, and they aren't all that eager to change the way it's been done since before any of them were elected.

Click to expand...

Wearing affiliation attire to support the specific viewpoint of a group is not "Six O'Clock Follies T-shirt" apparel. You are out of line.

You are treading very close to presenting an opinion that Free Speech can be limited by a dress code.

Another reason AB143 is better is that SB126 seems to imply that you must own the guns you carry concealed.

wrightme said:

Wearing affiliation attire to support the specific viewpoint of a group is not "Six O'Clock Follies T-shirt" apparel. You are out of line.

You are treading very close to presenting an opinion that Free Speech can be limited by a dress code.

Click to expand...

Come on now...really? He's out of line...let's tone it back a bit and be friends.

It's not an opinion that limits free speech, you are still free to say what you want. The opinion is that people just don't take it as serious when you don't dress professionally.

Try and get a professional and respectable job interviewing in a t-shirt...same principle.

Your friends might take your opinions seriously as you both stand wearing t-shirts chatting with each other. The problem is that the senator, who you really need to convince, dismissed you the moment he laid eyes on you.

jdholmes said:

Come on now...really? He's out of line...let's tone it back a bit and be friends.

It's not an opinion that limits free speech, you are still free to say what you want. The opinion is that people just don't take it as serious when you don't dress professionally.

Try and get a professional and respectable job interviewing in a t-shirt...same principle.

Your friends might take your opinions seriously as you both stand wearing t-shirts chatting with each other. The problem is that the senator, who you really need to convince, dismissed you the moment he laid eyes on you.

Click to expand...

That is just your opinion of it, as it is of the other who labeled it for us all. His comment WAS out of line. He had a choice to either simply voice his view, or add insult. He added insult.


But, as has been stated, what matters is the impression made upon the legislators. Lobbyists are definitely one thing. Citizens in attendance are another. Should they not expect equal footing, even if they do not dress "properly?" Is there seriously a dress code for being taken seriously? This isn't employment, this is taking part in the legislative process. There isn't an interview for that position; we all already hold that position if we choose.

Picture if you will, a committee hearing that is to go over a bill that subsidizes mammograms, and in the committee hearing, there is no room to sit, because the room is filled to capacity with women AND men, all wearing pink t-shirts. THAT WILL present a solid image in the mind of the legislators, and it will NOT be a negative one. It will show them without question that there is plenty of support for that legislation.

And it isn't "bubbawear."

jdholmes said:

Come on now...really? He's out of line...let's tone it back a bit and be friends.

It's not an opinion that limits free speech, you are still free to say what you want. The opinion is that people just don't take it as serious when you don't dress professionally.

Try and get a professional and respectable job interviewing in a t-shirt...same principle.

Your friends might take your opinions seriously as you both stand wearing t-shirts chatting with each other. The problem is that the senator, who you really need to convince, dismissed you the moment he laid eyes on you.

Click to expand...

You should know that Wrightme has done more for us in Nevada and our gun rights than most do in a lifetime. His work and that of Stillwater Firearms are the reasons we have these new bills.

Wrightme knows how to lobby.

wrightme said:

You are treading very close to presenting an opinion that Free Speech can be limited by a dress code.

Click to expand...

I do not think he is saying that at all, I think he is saying that people are free to judge you by the clothes you wear.
For instance, even though I'm a sophisticated Manhattanite I often dress like a complete bubba slob or wear camo because I work on a ranch and its more comfortable. If I attend a meeting in Carson city I plan to wear business casual because I want to make an impression.

Free speech is very important and it doesn't matter if your naked, free speech is important, but also its just plain common sense that if you look like a slob no one will take you seriously at the legislative level.

chrsjhnsn said:

I do not think he is saying that at all, I think he is saying that people are free to judge you by the clothes you wear.

Click to expand...

Actually, he came very close to exactly that:

DVC said:

The guys in the T-shirts could have cost us, just for not being dressed properly.
Someone who is representing an organization should be in suit and tie (with or without coat), someone representing himself should be in "business casual" and NOBODY should wear anything that could be considered "Bubbawear" (T-shirts, hats, cammies, etc).

Click to expand...

Felid`Maximus said:

Another reason AB143 is better is that SB126 seems to imply that you must own the guns you carry concealed.

Click to expand...

That should be changed in SB126, or move support to AB143.

For CC, it should not matter if the firearm is owned or loaned.

wrightme said:

Wearing affiliation attire to support the specific viewpoint of a group is not "Six O'Clock Follies T-shirt" apparel. You are out of line.

Click to expand...

Okay, in small words:

"Clothes make the man."
"Dress for success."

Like it or not, these are REALITY. You are talking about IDEALS. What is your goal? Do you want to convince the legislators that you are like them -- thus, that they should pay attention to what you're saying -- or do you want to show off your "colors" . . ?

Lastly, consider that if I'm wrong, but you wear business casual clothing, nobody loses.

If I'm right, but you wear T-shirts, nobody gains.

Vegassteve said:

You should know that Wrightme has done more for us in Nevada and our gun rights than most do in a lifetime. His work and that of Stillwater Firearms are the reasons we have these new bills.

Wrightme knows how to lobby.

Click to expand...

And then . . ?

If we're playing the points game, I've been active in the gun-rights campaign since 1972, and I singlehandedly started the movement which got CCW for Arizona, which finally culminated last year in Constitutional Carry -- using the law that I wrote in 1989. I created the "Every 48 Seconds" T-shirts which were popular for a few years (and of which I see knock-offs at gun shows to this day), so I'm not only no stranger to T-shirts, but have been known to promote their wear. I wouldn't want you to wear one of MY T-shirts to a Senate hearing, even though it directly has a pro-gun message.

This is only important because I've seen what works and what costs us, so don't try to impress me with someone's history. The only impression which counts is the NEXT one.

If you are confident that a majority of the legislators are on our side, then we don't need to go to the hearings in the first place -- but if there is any doubt, then you need to make the best impression possible on anyone who needs to be convinced. ANYTHING that takes away from that impression is to be avoided as best we can.

We are already at a disadvantage, because we're male. The perfect spokesperson against Unilateral Victim Disarmament would be a 21-year-old college coed, 4'10" and 90 lbs, with long straight hair, big eyes, a baby and a job that brings her home to an apartment complex at midnight while her husband is working graveyard.

Since that's not any of us, we have to work as hard as possible to overcome the first impression that we're "just guys who want to carry guns." Looking at guys in gun club T-shirts, which impression are they the most in line with? YOU AND I know the difference, but we're already on board.

In addition, legislators want respect. Are you going to argue that a T-shirts shows it?

DVC, how many of our legislators have you personally met and had a conversation with? How many have you had dinner with? How many have attended a function sponsored by a group that you are a part of? None of these have ever said that our club apparel put them off in any way. Most have relayed how effective it is to see a room full of people "showing their colors".

If you judge respect by the clothes a person wears then I guess you would be easily fooled. Most of our legislators judge respect by how you speak to them and conduct yourself. A suit does not an honorable person make. I've known many a shyster who could put on a suit.

Besides, if the person who does a great deal of lobbying for our rights in Nevada and is considered one of the most effective at doing so, says wear our club apparel to a hearing, I'll listen to him.

DVC said:

Okay, in small words:

"Clothes make the man."
"Dress for success."

Like it or not, these are REALITY. You are talking about IDEALS. What is your goal? Do you want to convince the legislators that you are like them -- thus, that they should pay attention to what you're saying -- or do you want to show off your "colors" . . ?

Lastly, consider that if I'm wrong, but you wear business casual clothing, nobody loses.

If I'm right, but you wear T-shirts, nobody gains.

Click to expand...

The legislators are like us.

I gave a clear example of my viewpoint on this. I did it without insulting a group of people as you chose to do.

I do not see a purpose in attempting to impose a dress code for participation in the legislative process.

I do understand that impressions matter. I do NOT agree that dress will make a legislator ignore a person. You seem to think so, by your own words.

DVC said:

And then . . ?

If we're playing the points game, I've been active in the gun-rights campaign since 1972, and I singlehandedly started the movement which got CCW for Arizona, which finally culminated last year in Constitutional Carry --

Click to expand...

I could give 2 shits about what you did in Arizona. I know Wrightme and what he has done for ME and NEVADA.

So please if you are such a great lobbyist give us your name so we can check out what you really did do.

Wrighme and Varminter and Stillwater Firearms are the only ones on this board that give us any info on the state gov. They are the ones who lobby for us in this state. They are the only ones who put names and emails and phone numbers up for us to know who to contact in the state gov.

I dont see you doing that.

Gordie said:

DVC, how many of our legislators have you personally met and had a conversation with?

Click to expand...

Nevada legislators? 3.

From other states, about 100.

United State Senate: 9
US House of Representatives: about 40

But, hey, what do I know about meeting and testifying before legislators . . ?

How many have you had dinner with?

Click to expand...

REAL dinner, maybe 5, political dinners maybe 20.

How many have attended a function sponsored by a group that you are a part of?

Click to expand...

About 30 of those noted above. At events which I was part of the organizing committee, about 15. At events which I organized or started, 10.

None of these have ever said that our club apparel put them off in any way.

Click to expand...

Why would they have done that? They want your votes.

Most have relayed how effective it is to see a room full of people "showing their colors".

Click to expand...

Effective among those who are already on our side. That's not the same as winning over those who are not.

If you judge respect by the clothes a person wears then I guess you would be easily fooled.

Click to expand...

Ooh, getting to the personal stuff now . . .I'm devastated. See me bleed.

What church do you go to, that the preacher wears a T-shirt when he's in the pulpit? Does your attorney wear a t-shirt when he's arguing your case? How about your doctor, does he wear a T-shirt during office visits?

Most of our legislators judge respect by how you speak to them and conduct yourself.

Click to expand...

. . .and selection of clothing isn't "conducting yourself" . . ? Does your mommy lay out your clothes in the morning?

A suit does not an honorable person make. I've known many a shyster who could put on a suit.

Click to expand...

Agreed on the last. So, knowing that, why does the shyster spend so much on his suits?

Besides, if the person who does a great deal of lobbying for our rights in Nevada and is considered one of the most effective at doing so, says wear our club apparel to a hearing, I'll listen to him.

Click to expand...

Whatever. Just ask yourself, though, is this an advantage for us? If not, then what would be a GREATER advantage, and why aren't you doing that?

Or, to put it into gun talk, you have spent all of your time and money to get where you have one shot at a prize elk -- why would you willingly give up even the slightest possible advantage?

. . .and who would defend that choice . . ?

That's the bottom line. DOES IT HELP OUR SIDE?

This bickering doesn't, so I will end it.

wrightme said:

T I do NOT agree that dress will make a legislator ignore a person.

Click to expand...

Dress will make YOU ignore a person, so why not a legislator?

Don't believe me? When is the last time you listened to someone holding a "Will work for food" sign? Or who was wearing a hoodie with a Raiders logo? Or who had a faceful of wire piercings? Or an anti-gun-rights T-shirt?

We automatically categorize everyone we see. We don't think about the possibility that the guy in the hoodie is Officer Trent, in his 6th month undercover, or that the bum with the sign is a detective on a stakeout.

You DO listen to someone wearing "success dress" -- until they say something that you can't agree with. We all listened to Mr Brown, didn't we? Do you think that Mr Brown paid the slightest attention to anything said by one of the guys in the T-shirts? He had his mind made up before they even got to the seats, because he knew that they were the opposition.

Does he have a counterpart on the committee, someone who saw the shirts and simply tuned out? Someone who may have been reached by an argument that he didn't even hear because he was doing his email as soon as he saw the logo and categorized the wearer?

It comes back to advantages. It is easiest for them to leave things the way they are. We have to use every slightest advantage to shift them to do what we want done. Why give one up?

DVC said:

Dress will make YOU ignore a person, so why not a legislator?

Don't believe me? When is the last time you listened to someone holding a "Will work for food" sign? Or who was wearing a hoodie with a Raiders logo? Or who had a faceful of wire piercings? Or an anti-gun-rights T-shirt?

Click to expand...

Hyperbole.

DVC said:

We automatically categorize everyone we see. We don't think about the possibility that the guy in the hoodie is Officer Trent, in his 6th month undercover, or that the bum with the sign is a detective on a stakeout.

You DO listen to someone wearing "success dress" -- until they say something that you can't agree with. We all listened to Mr Brown, didn't we? Do you think that Mr Brown paid the slightest attention to anything said by one of the guys in the T-shirts? He had his mind made up before they even got to the seats, because he knew that they were the opposition.

Does he have a counterpart on the committee, someone who saw the shirts and simply tuned out? Someone who may have been reached by an argument that he didn't even hear because he was doing his email as soon as he saw the logo and categorized the wearer?

It comes back to advantages. It is easiest for them to leave things the way they are. We have to use every slightest advantage to shift them to do what we want done. Why give one up?

Click to expand...

I detect that you are simply attempting to force your view on others.


I choose to disengage. Enjoy.