View Full Version : Ripping RMGO now
BPTactical
04-21-2015, 17:08
630 KHOW
John Caldera is hosting, ripping RMGO and DB
Yup.
Quite a few guests tearing the Dud up.
You mean telling the truth?
Did we lose Senator Holbert's valuable information? I would like to read it again just to make sure that putting this 30 round compromise in effect isn't breaking Colorado law.
Michael Brown has been beating on his little brother Dudley all week.
Heck of a job Browny.
USMC88-93
04-21-2015, 18:20
Did they finally quit airing those Gunsmoke commercials on that station as well?
Slapps74
04-21-2015, 18:24
Trying to find where to cancel my monthly donation to RMGO, not having any luck. Looks like I will have to call the pricks!
You mean telling the truth?
This for the win!
After dealing with the dudster a few years back here, if he was dying of thirst and on fire, Well, some of you may know how the rest goes.
After dealing with the dudster a few years back here, if he was dying of thirst and on fire, Well, some of you may know how the rest goes.
He'd send an email asking for funds to buy Gatorade and a fire extinguisher?
spqrzilla
04-21-2015, 18:54
After dealing with the dudster a few years back here, if he was dying of thirst and on fire, Well, some of you may know how the rest goes.
I'd bring a jug of gasoline.
Caldera seems really ticked about this.
I'm not sure what the big deal is, because it's not like a repeal or modification to moving the limit to 30 rounds is going to pass out of the House anyway.
Great-Kazoo
04-21-2015, 19:05
Caldera seems really ticked about this.
I'm not sure what the big deal is, because it's not like a repeal or modification to moving the limit to 30 rounds is going to pass out of the House anyway.
It puts our reps on record who does & does not support it. The Left ALWAYS wants gun owners to COMPROMISE. Compromise by a thousand cuts. Time to take what we can get / push for.
BPTactical
04-21-2015, 19:07
He'd send an email asking for funds to buy Gatorade and a fire extinguisher?
15.3 Million brought in by RMGO last year according to Caldera.
Tell me you can't buy a few votes with that kind of glue......
Caldera seems really ticked about this.
I'm not sure what the big deal is, because it's not like a repeal or modification to moving the limit to 30 rounds is going to pass out of the House anyway.
Sounds like they might just have enough dims to squeak it through. The big problem would be comrade loopy. I'm sure like his hero, he has a pen and a phone.
Enough votes to get it out of committee and bring it to a vote in the House?
The looper would sign it, he doesn't want to be on the hook for not signing it.
Enough votes to get it out of committee and bring it to a vote in the House?
From what I heard earlier, even if dudsters whores go against, there are at least 3 dems that will vote for it to get out of the committee. All subject to the political winds of course.
The looper would sign it, he doesn't want to be on the hook for not signing it.
As long as he can get St. Michaels blessing.
15.3 Million brought in by RMGO last year according to Caldera.
Tell me you can't buy a few votes with that kind of glue......
It has proven to buy a few houses for Dudley though....
BPTactical
04-21-2015, 19:57
Did they finally quit airing those Gunsmoke commercials on that station as well?
Seems like 5280 took that timeslot.
Everyone.. How many times has Sen. Holbert told you that there is no 30 round compromise? That false information/fairy tale arose from some town meeting where Salazar commented about magazine capacities and that's all, no where has there been any formal legislation/bill entered that would raise the limit from 15 to 30. The mag ban repeal is already dead, there was never a compromise option, any change to that would require a new bill.
All of this bitch fest between Caldera and Dudley is based on nothing more than a "what if"..
End of story.
Aloha_Shooter
04-21-2015, 21:40
Dudley is an arse but I'd still give him a bottle of water in the desert -- especially if I only had one to give away and the other person in the desert was Obama. However, if the other person is Kate Upton, Dudley can eat my dust ... [Coffee]
Everyone.. How many times has Sen. Holbert told you that there is no 30 round compromise? That false information/fairy tale arose from some town meeting where Salazar commented about magazine capacities and that's all, no where has there been any formal legislation/bill entered that would raise the limit from 15 to 30. The mag ban repeal is already dead, there was never a compromise option, any change to that would require a new bill.
All of this bitch fest between Caldera and Dudley is based on nothing more than a "what if"..
End of story.
Why is this the end of the story? The Sen. also made it clear he stands with DB on this. I for one think this is a worthwhile debate to have out in the open.
I donated to RMGO one year, and Dudley repeatedly spent more time beating up the NRA over debunked BS than going after the anti-gunners. I've voted with my wallet ever since.
Dudley Brown is a cancer; the only thing he has ever been good at is starting fights among his own supporters. I've disliked him since his antics against Bill Owens at the state convention in '02 and will not support him. He does not help our cause. This last display of idiocy is representative of the man, and it just hurts us.
newracer
04-22-2015, 07:58
http://www.colorado2a.org/give-them-nothing-and-take-from-them-everything/
Very recently, there has been a great deal of turmoil on the pro-rights front as to whether a proposed increase on the magazine limit from 15 to 30 rounds was worth considering. First off, let’s get a couple of things straight.
1. There was nothing more than an offhand comment made by Representative Joe Salazar stating that he would consider raising the limit to 30 rounds, but would not entertain the idea of a full repeal. The conversation amongst pro-rights proponents turned into an argument, complete with mudslinging, from there.
2. This isn’t a discussion on whether firearm owners and advocates would have the choice between no magazines and all magazines, it was whether they would have the choice of 15 round or 30 round magazines. An improvement on the status quo.
3. Any discussion on this specific incident is speculation at this point. No bill, nor any amendment has been introduced to even begin a conversation as to whether the mag limit should, or could, be increased.
Now to the point, which is about compromise and political agendas. You must understand that every politician and every political party has an agenda. Whether that agenda is in favor of individual liberty or in favor of some other selfish reasons is moot. An agenda always exists and it’s up to you to determine what the agenda is in any political fracas. Is the agenda in this instance to create more freedom? Is it to create more control? Is it to create turmoil in order to raise money? Is this nothing more than an opportunity to fracture a movement?
When in the course of negotiating, offering a choice to your opponent of “all or nothing” will get you one of those two things, guaranteed. That is the compromise of “no compromise”. That said, here’s an example where “no compromise” works brilliantly: If legislators, bureaucrats, tyrants, et al. are trying to take your rights away, or asking you to compromise your rights for “security” or “safety,” do not compromise. Ever. Stand your ground and fight like hell to keep your individual choices and individual liberty secure. Once that liberty is eroded, it’s damn tough to get it back.
As an analogy, look at the Greeks and the Persians. The Persians wanted the Greeks to compromise their liberty. If they chose to allow the Persians to rule, they would be allowed to live in “peace”. The Spartans said “no compromise” and fought like hell. At the risk of going into a long drawn out history lesson, King Leonidas and his 300 stood and fought a battle at the Hot Gates, slowing down the Persian advance. This no compromise warrior spirit swayed the Athenians to go all in and help the Spartans continue the fight, which eventually led to the defeat of the Persian army, the greatest the world had seen at the time.
However, if your liberties have already been partially or completely taken away from you and you have a chance to get even a small piece of them back, why would you decline? Even in this situation, you still have a choice. You can take one step forward or you can scream “all or nothing!” Both are a compromise, but only one choice takes you one inch, one bite, one step closer to your goal of getting all of your rights back. The other choice may well get you nothing. Regardless of the choice you do make, the fight must continue. Those trying to take your rights will never give up and neither should you.
As another analogy, let’s look at Europe during WWII. The Allies took Europe back from the Germans on the Western front, one inch at a time. The Russians advanced from the East, one inch at time as well. They didn’t scream “all or nothing” and then drop the Airborne into Berlin with high hopes that they would get “all”. They fought for every piece of ground until Germany was defeated. Ironically, Hitler did go “all or nothing” with Russia, which ended up getting him nothing at all.
Of course the above analogies are simplified (perhaps overly simplified), but the point stands. Always fight for “all,” but in the process of doing so you have to realize it may not be an “all or nothing” war. You may have to fight for years and take ground one battle at a time and one inch at a time. For those that might suggest, in this instance, that a compromise to raise the limit to 30 rounds would diminish the fight to repeal the law entirely, please look to Ohio and the Buckeye Firearms Association for guidance.
For years Ohio had a 30 round magazine limit and they just recently got that limit repealed. This is among a multitude of other gun friendly laws that have been passed there in the past few years. The Buckeyes have become very adept at fighting for every inch, taking everything they can and giving up nothing, in order to restore liberties lost. They win by taking small bites and incrementally removing infringements.
This is not theoretical musing. The strategy works and has been used in very recent history to great success. Ohio proves it.
The 2nd Amendment has been infringed upon since at least 1934, with the National Firearms Act. In 1968 we got the Gun Control Act. In 1986 we got the Hughes Amendment. In 1993 we got the Brady Bill. In 2013, Colorado enacted universal background check laws and a magazine ban. That’s a lot of infringement to fight back against and to think that it can all be won back in one fell swoop, without chipping away at it, is a fool’s errand. Incrementalism has worked for the anti-rights community since before 1934 and it can work for us just as well. The “all” is the return to the language “shall not be infringed” and the “nothing” is the status quo. Never give up the fight for the “all” and never accept “nothing” as a compromise.
http://www.colorado2a.org/give-them-nothing-and-take-from-them-everything/
Lot of wisdom in this post.
On the one hand, I somewhat agree with Dudley, no compromise, let's just end the prohibition altogether. However, what damn dream land is he living in? A repeal isn't possible until we get full control of the house, senate and governor's mansion. Period. If the offer to get 30-round magazines back comes to the table and the dems are willing to go for that, as Mr. Caldera is happy to accept, then what's so wrong with that. The left isn't the only one who can incrementally maneuver... we can too! What's to say we can't work something out now, get our 30-round magazines legal, and then when the day comes to us winning back the legislature and getting a conservative (gun loving) governor elected we pressure them for a full repeal? The left will cry and complain "but we gave you 30-round magazines!" So what? Time for them to feel our pain that we've felt since 1936. Time for them to understand our frustrations since the gun control of the 60's, 70's and 80's. Not an inch? We've been giving the left MILES for decades. I say we push back and incrementally take back what shouldn't have ever been taken. Shall not be infringed extends to suppressors, machine guns, SBRs and SBSs.
Firehaus
04-22-2015, 11:04
It's quite simple, RMGO's revenue will be all or nothing if the conflict is reduced to incrementalism and he can't constantly get people's panties in a bunch to donate money.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RblDiver
04-22-2015, 11:27
I must admit, I sort of slightly sympathize with the "no compromise" position and look for full repeal. Upping the limit reduces the pressure on lawmakers for a full repeal. They can say "You have 30, good enough" and since there's less general impact, there's less public pressure for change. Hence, for many the issue would drop off the radar.
Then again, there's the Reagan policy of (I'm probably misquoting, but think I get the general gist) "If they offer you half a loaf, take it and then start working on the other half." So I can go either way here.
It's often been said that the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time, and the way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. Dudley can posture "no compromise" all he wants. When I buy a Powerball ticket, if I win $100 instead of $100,000,000, I'm not gonna tear up the ticket in disgust, I'm gonna take the winnings, and try again for the big win. All or nothing usually ends in "nothing", and then your effort is truly wasted.
It's often been said that the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time, and the way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. Dudley can posture "no compromise" all he wants. When I buy a Powerball ticket, if I win $100 instead of $100,000,000, I'm not gonna tear up the ticket in disgust, I'm gonna take the winnings, and try again for the big win. All or nothing usually ends in "nothing", and then your effort is truly wasted.
That is why the communists have been so successful here....incrementalism.
I think part of the concern is that the democrats will be able to claim that they worked with us, thus presenting themselves as centrists. If we can't get them out of office in our fine purple state, then they can maintain their control and take more freedom.
It's often been said that the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time, and the way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. Dudley can posture "no compromise" all he wants. When I buy a Powerball ticket, if I win $100 instead of $100,000,000, I'm not gonna tear up the ticket in disgust, I'm gonna take the winnings, and try again for the big win. All or nothing usually ends in "nothing", and then your effort is truly wasted.
I've heard a few analogies in my day, but on this, that's one of the best, especially describing Dudley, I've ever heard. And I agree 100%!
I think part of the concern is that the democrats will be able to claim that they worked with us, thus presenting themselves as centrists. If we can't get them out of office in our fine purple state, then they can maintain their control and take more freedom.
If they actually work with us, they they ARE centrists. If they continue to work with us, then they are shifting their party to the right, which may not be a bad thing. I won't like or hate someone because of how they are labeled, I'll base my opinion on their deeds.
In case any of you missed it: http://www.5280.com/magazine/2013/08/Dudley-browns-war
Again, lost in the last crash:
Dudley Brown is like a blind special needs child that wants to cut your hair - to make you look 'pretty'. He really thinks he is helping you, but in the end the results may be less than desirable.
I'd like to revise my position from my previous posts.
I think that Caldera et al are trying to build a consensus to get a modification to the law passed.
However, before such legislation is even brought forth, they clearly believe that they need to marginalize and outgroup Dudley Brown and rmgo in order to keep him from screwing up the whole thing.
If so, it's an interesting strategy.
newracer
04-22-2015, 16:18
That is a good point. Salazar said himself that the only way he would consider changing the limit to 30 is if it could never be repealed.
My position: I can wait for a year or two and work towards getting the whole damn thing eradicated. HAVE PATIENCE.
A complete repeal will not happen in the next year or two. It will not happen in the next three years, and I doubt it will happen in the next seven years.
This state will not be electing a favorable Governor and Legislature together in the foreseeable future. Given the new demographics and the re-districting map, it could take decades; yes, decades. I don't know if it could be done through initiative or not; maybe last election cycle. All or nothing will be nothing; people are just not looking at the reality of the situation. Our state is growing hostile and that will not get better with time.
Raising the mag limit to 30 or even 20 should have been a priority during the debate, but it was all or nothing then too...look at where it got us.
I'd rather gamble and go for repeal than compromise. If we can't get it killed then we can revisit compromise in the future.
If you compromise on this it's over for good. FOREVER. So many people here are this: "I want to buy a 30 rounder tomorrow without worrying about it".
My position: I can wait for a year or two and work towards getting the whole damn thing eradicated. HAVE PATIENCE.
You talk about incrimentalism and what you are actually talking about is letting the liberals succeed at incrimentalism. You actually think they are giving you something by letting you have 30 rounders, which will stick - forever.
You know what anti-firearm types have over us: PATIENCE. They grandfather weapons - or magazines and wait for the generation to die off. You won't resist. If they see the writing on the wall and know they can't keep legislation (at all), they'll gladly move to get you to agree to a slightly-less-bad form of it. At your cost.
Again: you will never repeal a 30 round ban. Fight for your right to own something don't be "satisfied" with them eliminating your freedoms even if you don't intend to use them. If your mindset is "Oh, I don't own any guns that have a capacity over 30 so that works for me" - you are no better than the Fudds happy to see AR's banned, or pet owners happy to see other pets banned, etc.
For the same reason that some people are ecstatic about a compromise here "Oh, I don't own any guns that have a capacity over 30 so that works for me" is the same reason a 30 round ban will never get repealed. When you combine that with media assaults .... "Colorado is trying to legalize 100 round baby killer magazines and belt fed machineguns to kill children in schools". Don't fool yourself. 0.0000% chance.
Grow a pair people.
Not too optimistic about the future are you. There is no reason to think that if we get 30 rounds back we cannot get belt fed back...none.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.