Now have you had enough of the Nevada Firearms coalition

[Grapeshot]

Where exactly is the bashing?

Ken presents statements that are summations of facts and immediate inferences of facts. Where is the bashing?

The forum rule does not say "no criticism is allowed." Nor, does it say, "passing along deleterious fact-based information is prohibited."

If his summations and inferences are proven wrong, then he'll look like a fool.

But, where is the bashing? Exactly. No twists. No stretches. Exactly where is the bashing?

Being critical of, flaming, speaking derogatorily of, etc. so as to impinge the character of the organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

(12) NO BASHING OF OTHER GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS: Regardless of how convinced you are that another gun rights organization is not doing their job, this is not the place to air those concerns unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization. All other rants against other gun rights groups will be deleted or the thread locked.

 

[CowboyKen]

Being critical of, flaming, speaking derogatorily of, etc. so as to impinge the character of the organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

Really?

im·pingedim·ping·ing
Definition of IMPINGE
1: to strike or dash especially with a sharp collision <I heard the rain impinge upon the earth — James Joyce>
2: to have an effect : make an impression <waiting for the germ of a new idea to impinge upon my mind — Phyllis Bentley>
3: encroach, infringe <impinge on other people's rights>

I find it difficult to imagine how I could have done any of this by stating FACTS. But you are also entitled to your opinion.

Maybe you should look at the latest publication from the NVFAC and Mr. Cole's exposition on page 4.

http://www.nvfac.org/Portals/0/documents/Newsletters/2013-4th-Quarter.pdf

Ken

p.s.: You might also want to read about their support for the CCSC further down on the same page, a place that does not allow open carry. The NVFAC comes across as more an anti group then a pro group much of the time.

 

[Vegassteve]

Maybe you should look at the latest publication from the NVFAC and Mr. Cole's exposition on page 4.

http://www.nvfac.org/Portals/0/documents/Newsletters/2013-4th-Quarter.pdf

Ken

p.s.: You might also want to read about their support for the CCSC further down on the same page, a place that does not allow open carry. The NVFAC comes across as more an anti group then a pro group much of the time.

And this little nugget from that page. QUOTE"It is important that all firearm owners
secure their guns by either putting a lock on them or
by putting them in a safe. "

I can only ASSume he does not favor any sort of self defense in the home.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

I read about the new program in the 4th Quarter news bulletin that I received yesterday, There was much cheer leading going on. What persists is the silence over the NSCA lawsuit.... Hmmm

 

[28kfps]

Being critical of, flaming, speaking derogatorily of, etc. so as to impinge the character of the organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

No Bashing of other gun rights organizations? How else are we to point out a group that is in many opinions lost its backbone, actually never really had one. Sending the impression they are representing gun owners whom by their actions showing the willingness to compromise and weakened their stance on the 2nd Amendment.

If a gun rights organization is in the opinion of many slipping into a guns wrong organization aren’t we obligated to voice our opposition?

 

[Citizen]

Excuse me. Why was I deleted for enumerating shortcomings?

I laid out, without personal insult or attack, the logic failures of the poster accusing Ken of a rules violation.

Why was I deleted? The poster I refuted can either sustain his position or not. He can either do it without resorting to non-sequitur and inapplicable information, or he can't.

The deletion note says, "More of same" when clearly it was not more of the same. More of the same would necessarily be more of the same questions asked earlier. Clearly, I called attention to the illogics and non-sequiturs or that poster's reply. Clearly, my deleted post was not more of the same. There is no way the deleted post can be legitimately called "more of the same" with intellectual honesty.

So, why was it deleted?

 

[fighting_for_freedom]

"Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post"
Now Don Turner thinks any gun store (commando) employee can "be able to identify potential suicide risks."

It takes years of university level education to qualify as a psychologist. IMO Mr. turner is (a fool, and dangerous to himself and others) not so qualified.

Ken

Made some changes - please incorporate these in the future.

Ya know, Grapeshot, it would seem you are suffering from a worse case of 'can't play fair' then Mr. Ken here. From a thorough read of this entire thread, it would seem that Ken does make a few incendiary statements. Only one of which could be possibly construed as a direct attack, and only barely, at that. He did make a number of statements about this NVFAC. They could be more or less true, but that could only be ascertained by a thorough investigation of the facts. A statement of fact is not bashing, nor is it slander. Only by proving that he did not, in fact, state fact, could any of his statements be considered bashing. And, in my opinion, no person, nor group, should be above criticism, whatever their standing is in the gun rights community.

But THIS. Above. Is absolutely ridiculous.

Cowboy Ken said absolutely NOTHING that violates any sort of rules, or even any unwritten code of ethics in the above statement. Your changing his 'commando' is purely juvenile petulancy. And the next statement, from 'a fool, and dangerous to himself and others' to 'not so qualified', is just as infantile.

Let the man have his opinion. If we can't voice our opinions in the slightestly offending manner, then why the hell are we even posting here?

And to think I actually used to respect you, Grapeshot.

 

[wrightme]

If we can't voice our opinions in the slightestly offending manner, then why the hell are we even posting here?

If anyone feels some 'need' to post in even a remotely offending manner, it is they who are the problem, not grapeshot.

 

[Vegassteve]

This link is from a gun rights group in New Hampshire warning of the very thing the nvfac and cole are into.

Cole himself used lifted words from the harvard and joyce study, that they warn about.


http://www.pgnh.org/nh_suicide_and_guns_ploy_funded_by_top_anti_gun_groups

 

[varminter22]

Oh, so hiring someone, is different somehow?


Unless those who registered to lobby were retired, I can fully understand hiring a lobby firm. When we were lobbying from the SFA, we sure wished we had the funds to do such, as we simply could not attend all sessions we needed to attend.


Which firm do you feel was the 'out of state' one?
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Lobbyist/reports/LobbyistEmployerList.cfm?Employer=79&Session=77

I'll not wade into general topic; as others have said in the past, why wade in when it matters little what one says - opponents incessantly counter.

However, there ARE inaccuracies. For example:

wrightme is correct. The lobbyist firm was Grassroots 2.0 in Reno. That firm is now called Amplify Relations. http://amplifyrelations.com/welcome/ As you can see on their contact page, they are in Reno. (And what difference would it make if a superb lobbyist firm was from out of state if they are duly qualified to represent us?)

Some have inferred the 2011 legislative session lobbying efforts were fruitless. That too is inaccurate. The 2011 legislative session was purely a defensive session for Nevada gun owners. The majority party (Democrats) saw to that. SB-221 is the prime example. Everyone should be well aware of SB-221.

Sure, we did have some great bills. We even had a Constitutional Carry bill (again). But if you think good pro-gun bills are 'easy' to enact when both houses are controlled by the current majority party, well, you simply don't have an understanding of the process and the hurdles. Want to change that? There are MANY seats in the Assembly (and some in the Senate) that would make a huge difference. The 2014 election is extremely important.

Having a good, paid lobbyist firm is important. I lobbied for SFA since 2007, using most of my personal vacation time from work to go to Carson City. Although we had many successes, that simply is NOT enough. (In the 2013 session, I simply could not burn my vacation time again and hence was unable to attend much in Carson City.)

The NSCA, for example, sends their paid lobbyist to Carson City for the entire session. Nevada's gun owners need a lobbyist during the session.

 

[Vegassteve]

I'll not wade into general topic; as others have said in the past, why wade in when it matters little what one says - opponents incessantly counter.

However, there ARE inaccuracies. For example:

wrightme is correct. The lobbyist firm was Grassroots 2.0 in Reno. That firm is now called Amplify Relations. http://amplifyrelations.com/welcome/ As you can see on their contact page, they are in Reno. (And what difference would it make if a superb lobbyist firm was from out of state if they are duly qualified to represent us?)

And I have already said I wrong on that point. What difference would it make if they were out of state? If I was in the leg and some out of state firm was trying to lobby me, I would have a problem with that.


Now Larry can you say 100% that you are behind this effort by Cole and the NVFAC? After seeing some shred of evidence of the harm it has already done? After seeing some shred of evidence from N.H that there are possibly bad people behind it?

 

[varminter22]

Now Larry can you say 100% that you are behind this effort by Cole and the NVFAC? After seeing some shred of evidence of the harm it has already done? After seeing some shred of evidence from N.H that there are possibly bad people behind it?

Nope. Am reserving judgment until I learn more and give it more thought.

And I do thank you for posting that New Hampshire link.

Do I think Mr Cole's words were not carefully chosen? Yes.

Do I think Mr Cole is somehow "anti"? No, I do not.

 

[Vegassteve]

Nope. Am reserving judgment until I learn more and give it more thought.
.

Dont you find that a bit odd? That you someone who is a area VP of the group dont have more info? Did they just come up with this without bringing it to the board or the group? As an outsider to the nvfac, I gave up my membership when Don Turner decided he didnt have to play according to the by laws, it sure seems odd.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

This program is being initiated as a "preventative measure"according to my conversation with Don Turner. It is a response to Governor Sandoval's proclamation declaring September 8th -14th2013 as Suicide Prevention Week.The proclamation is alarming, and appears focused on firearms.

I read the NH, materials written by the attorney, and his links look straightforward and valid. I also checked the Nevada Mental health site, but could find no info about the partnership with any gun store or the NFC.

The governors proclamation, specifically mentioned gun statistics while ignoring all other "means" of suicide. I believe it is important to find out where the Governor sourced this information, whether from his office,the AG, or a suicide prevention group. More importantly we should let the Governors office know that Highlighting the "means," diminishes the tragedy.

From my research of the Nevada coalition for suicide prevention, it appears they are working to prevent suicide, regardless the "means" While I cannot make a family connection, the NCSP (Nevada coalition for suicide prevention) has a member named Carrie Leigh Sandoval who has written a book about her experiences with addiction, and cutting.

I think that the Nevada coalition for suicide prevention could be clean, as far as our rights are concerned, I see no outward signs of attempting to control any "means" of suicide, they concentrate on treating the person. However it is still possible there is a hidden agenda.

The safeTALK program that Adam from G&AG spoke of also seems to concentrate on the problems, not the "means" I am interested in actually participating in that, as it could be rewarding.

On the other side of the coin I found "Means Matter," where the focus is on the method of suicide, not the suicide itself. Programs like "CALM" counseling on access to lethal means, are teaching people to separate the firearm and ammunition, and lock up the gun. These methods do not treat the ill person, and can prevent someone from defending their life.

In a nutshell I found that there are groups who have no other agenda than preventing suicide. It is important to me that they exist. However I see no shortage of groups who (big surprise coming) will not hesitate to turn a tragedy into a push for their immoral agenda.

Suicide prevention is not inanimate, Hopefully we can get a grip on our governor, as well as our Gun rights groups, and teach them that in suicide talk, you replace the word "means" with gun to understand fully what these groups are talking about.