doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Shotgun News Editorial

"There is no parallell between flying the line with a major carrier and dealing with Liberal Socialist Politicians who wish to "dictate gun control" over the present and future sporting population of this great nation......

You are mixing reality with direction my friend.......the task at hand requires "no middle ground" if we wish to maintain our gun rights as they stand at present......

The liberals on this board and elsewhere, "would give up some middle ground" as long as "their specific individual" gun rights are not effected......

The "true second amendment partisans" on this board and all over our great land, will not give up one second amendment right as originally ratified in 1791........this is where we differ......as others have said here, not debateable,......."

X2 Well said Doug,especially the "no middle ground" part. Not one inch,no gun, no magazine,no bullet ban nothing is on the table when dealing with the likes of Biden,Obama,Feinstein,Trumka (yes he is on the committee ),Holder and all the other progressive gun grabbers.

I offered a heretical notion concerning turning back governments and grabbers. It's not a debate for me. I flagged giving up principle on slippery slope. Choosing your battles, not dissipating energy and goodwill was directed toward considering what Washington can do arbitrarily (if only as a sop to the ignorant) compared to the conflagration of registration. Tactically and strategically, all warriors engage with "no middle ground"---there is no other way to do it---but use resources where they can win with less losses and popular support.

King, you must be one of the shy ones you spoke of, who only quietly works within their organization, because you still have not given us one specific verifiable thing which led to the demise of your gun registry that we can look upon and emulate.

I read your sage advice and shake my head in wonderment.

"Take every supporter willing to work with you."--- Please name one of the coalition of the willing that I have rejected.

"Don't look to politics or where one disagrees on other matters..."--- So what you're saying here is that King Brown can give political opinions, and disagree on non-gun matters... but Doug, or DaveK, or Jim, or myself, or others should not... because only you are qualified.

Since you have been utilizing your secret successful formula for decades, rational thinking persons must be wondering how the gun registry and other gun control measures in Canada ever took root in the first place. Are you like one of those pool sharks who lets a mark win now and then just so he can beat them handily at a later time?

I read your post in the other thread and replied that we needed you to intervene on our behalf to turn Biden back and make him see the light. Only you seem to have that kind of effective lobbying leadership, and we are falling flat according to you.

I call your formula "secret" because we still don't have one specific thing that you personally did to hang our hat on. Would you compare your stature in the Canadian anti-gun battle to that of Wayne Lapierre, John Lott, Charleton Heston, or just some lumberjack who once called a radio talk show? It sounds as if you may have been on the winning side of a protest over the location of a highway project, but even there, you don't show us anything any more effective that you yourself, though you "unblushingly ran that campaign", did more than any other opposition member who carried a sign or wrote an editorial. But I wasn't asking what you did to stop some highway interchange, was I? I was asking for specifics in the battle to rid Canada of the gun registry. As the old lady in the Wendy's commercials said, "Where's the Beef?"

Once again, you take Doug and I to task, but as I observed, you have never done that with the overt anti-gunners here. I have asked you why that was. Still nothing.

I'm not insulting and shouting, but I am having my doubts. Someone as literate and well read as you surely knows the meaning of "hoist by his own petard." Are you getting my drift?

I been reading this thread on a catch as catch can basis for days as we have an unending stream of visitors and my wife gets miffed when I get on the computer.
Here's the jist of it as far as I can see.
King Brown has informed us all of his considerable experience dealing with the anti's in Canada and played a key role in getting their registry reversed. I would recommend that he get in touch with W. Lapierre the Executive VP for the NRA and present him with those credentials and perhaps Mr LaPierre will enlist him to provide assistance and advice in the upcoming battle we're facing.
However; Since we tend to be proactive and Keith is a life member I am sure he would be more than willing to contact Mr LaPierre, inform him of K. Browns extensive background in opposing firearms restrictions in Canada and give him contact information for K. Brown.
Perhaps, in the meantime, King Brown could take direct action and form a "Canadian Committe to Adopt the 2nd Amendment". This group could immediately get to work in amending the Canadian Constitution to insure the the rest of Canada's oppressive gun laws are abolished.
What say Ye??
Jim

I only have one problem with that suggestion Jim. What if Wayne Lapierre should check Kings' credentials in the fight for Canadian gun rights, and finds nothing? I'm not quite ready to put my foot in my mouth and ruin any future credibility I might have with Mr. LaPierre.

I have no trouble getting your drift. You apparently completely misunderstand my messages. Reading with comprehension is integral to communicate, keith. I made no reference to you rejecting anyone or taken Doug or anyone else to task or all the other nonsense you attributed to me. What I have done at your request is describe how Canadians turned back the registry and offered opinions of what worked better than others.

Not one specific? One is not to use foul language slagging those who have different opinions from yours if you want to recruit warriors to our cause. Two, is to get the shooting sports fraternity on the same page. Three, is for those not comfortable in public combat to work through their various organizations to make Reason prevail. Four, use your neighbour's example where citizens convinced their government that registration was wrong, the result of an overzealous government and populace reacting to a massacre.

The overarching lesson of the Canadian experience---and we're the only country in the world to do what we did---is to diminish confrontation among those who want to win. Then over the barricades to victory. You're a long way from it from the evidence I'm reading here. You'll get there. The USA always gets it right over time.

Why not start with Canada's foreign minister and current Defence Minister who asked for my assistance to beat back gun control a long time ago. I could put in a word with him to take Mr. LaPierre's call.

King, my reading comprehension is just fine. Your first line of advice suggests that where we are mistaken is in not taking on every supporter we can. We are, and we are also trying to motivate more all the time. I'm not preaching to the choir. I'm after fence sitters and those who are reluctant because of public perceptions or misinformation or lulling.

Your second line above is very clear. King Brown can get into unpopular political discussions and give his opinion, as he has a hundred times... the rest of us should play it close to the vest lest we ruffle any feathers.

You say you have not taken Doug or I to task, but your whole previous post was taking me to task and asking what I have done in comparison to the great King Brown. I included the last line of your smug reply to Doug which gave us a glimpse of your son's co-pilot resume, but nothing of yours as pertains to rolling back gun control. I can indeed read and comprehend and interpret meaning. I still have not seen you once correct the incorrect assertions of the "grabbers" on this board. You keep dancing around the questions and diverting the discussion to airplanes and highway projects.

I get it that you have not used any foul language in your dealings with us. I note however that you are often adept at denigrating or insulting without being overt. I always considered that sneaky and disingenuous.

Before I'd contact Wayne Lapierre to recommend he enlist someone willing to give up semi-autos and "clips" in order to forestall any registration, I'd like to hear from that former foreign minister and current defense minister myself. I still haven't seen anything specifically of any great import that you did to reverse the registry, and I'm still questioning how, with your activism and effective tactics, the registry came to be in the first place.

Gotta go, I've been called out to work on some problems.

An exchange of opinions isn't taking a person on nor is it a confrontation in civil affairs.
It may be a whole other thing where differences of opinion make a country unable to manage its affairs. It's not that way where I live.

The analogy of my son's interview should have been clear from the opening sentence to Doug. Persons engage in useful and significant activities every day without sharing the same opinions, as successful anti-grabbers do.

As for "correcting the incorrect on this board"---There it is, keith. See what I mean? I may quibble, differ, offer my opinion respectfully without spite and spleen. Correcting implies I know better, holder of "truths," an arrogance too often displayed here.

No, I have never used foul language on this board. It's usually regarded as a sign of poor vocabulary, at the least. Other members have remarked of being offended by language that gets us shoved off into Misfires, instead of discussing important issues civilly as we try to do here.

My highway example of activism was in reply to suggestion that Biden's access to money and printing presses militates against the those fighting the grabbers. This was a case of the community defeating money, government and business, all politicians.

How did the Canadian registry get to be in the first place? See above today, keith. There it is plain to see. An overzealous government reacting to a massacre. Exactly why Obama is promising "something better" for America today?

I promise to reply to your posts if you read them carefully.

King, I think you meant to say that you'd reply to my posts if I read your posts carefully. I promise you, I do read your posts carefully before I respond. I wish you would read mine as carefully as I do yours.

Your "Aha" moment where you say, "As for 'correcting the incorrect on this board'---There it is, keith. See what I mean. I may quibble, differ, offer my opinion respectfully without spite or spleen. Correcting implies I know better, holder of "truths", an arrogance too often displayed here.", is a perfect example. Can't you see what you just did? This paragraph, and your entire post really, is doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. Why is it OK for you to correct me (and others), implying that I may arrogantly act like I know better than others, while you are doing exactly what you say you don't do. We're right back to the "Do as I say, not as I do" type of preaching that is reserved especially for those of us who are unapologetic pro-gunners. And still, the grabbers on board get a pass. You know, quite often when we debate the grabbers, we really do know better and we provide proof to support our positions. It has been they, who offer only strong opinions on gun control while constantly dismissing the facts when their solutions have been tried and failed. We might be more convinced of your pro-gun activist proclivities if you took them to task one tenth as often as you do us. There is something very strange about that. Is it because they NEVER resort to "spite and spleen"? (That last sentence was sarcasm, just to be clear)

I really laughed when I read your line about how the Canadian gun registry came to be. "An overzealous government reacting to a massacre.", you said. I had asked, "How could this be with you on watch?" Apparently the solutions that work which you've been touting sometimes just aren't enough. But it's OK. Gun-owners and even the NRA itself have made the same mistakes in this country. Mistakes like that can be very costly in terms of both freedom and resources. They are especially costly when we learn nothing from them. Solutions that might get one a promotion or a raise or even turn back a highway project just don't work when the adversary is dishonest and pursuing a premeditated agenda by exploiting grief and tragedy.

Your strategy didn't work when it came to Canadian politicians first implementing the Gun Registry. Why should we think the same stategy would work under similar circumstances here and now?