Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) Article on Dudley Brown/NAGR

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

I don't see how you can say that by arguing to lose less of what we already had freedom wise, that we "gained more". We lose ground on our rights every time more laws are passed, and it seems to be accomplished quite a bit via the "meet me half-way" approach.

[newracer]

The same can be said about Dudley but groups on the same side accomplish nothing by attacking each other.

[BPTactical]

WTF?
"Compromise"?




What part of: "Shall Not be Infringed" is not understood?

"Shall" is a very powerful word in legal circles.

[Gman]

we need to quit compromising on things...the liberals refuse to compromise on gay rights, on abortion, on healthcare, on government dole programs...but yet how dare we not compromise on a RIGHT granted by the Constitution.

A right granted by our Creator, guaranteed by the Constitution. There's an important difference.

[XC700116]

I don't see how you can say that by arguing to lose less of what we already had freedom wise, that we "gained more". We lose ground on our rights every time more laws are passed, and it seems to be accomplished quite a bit via the "meet me half-way" approach.

If this is directed at me/my comments, you're confusing 2 different subjects and/or not bothering to read the whole thing and understand what is truly going on with it. <-----Exactly what Dudley is counting on people doing.

1. The article I quoted is about Gottleib's work on current proposed legislation in WA, and IMO, it's a net win, even if it passed with his revisions. (Read, abolishment of the current handgun registry in WA, and no BGC's for CHL/otherwise holders etc.) It's an exchange of a one bad thing to get rid of a worse thing. However, as TFOGGER mentioned, the whole idea is it's a poison pill/political game to make it unpalatable to the anti's and therefore kill it. (ie US WINNING) Or if by some crazy stroke of something resembling clarity by the libtards, they go ahead with it, with the revisions, our side comes away with a major win on one hand and a minor loss on another. Meanwhile, that loss as mentioned here, and all but proven in court, is essentially unenforceable.

2. The horse has left the barn in CO and it's going to be a lot harder to repeal it now than it was to try and stop it then. Dudley doesn't help our cause, because instead of being rational and working with other groups side by side, he'd rather torch them to try and gain donation $$. He spends far more time bashing other pro 2A groups over the head and raising money than he does doing anything productive. Honestly, he's far more Jessie Jackson than Charlton Heston.


If you're all about getting all bent out of shape about any sort of compromises on 2A issues, even if it gains us ground in the long run and is essentially lip service just to corner the anti's into killing their own bill, thereby giving us a win, then you're pretty far down a road that is paved by those that practice political firebombing for fund raising and chest thumping like Dudley, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc have been doing for years, and you're being duped into falling for it. What Dudley does is in the same spirit as what the Jackson's/Sharpton's of the world have been doing for years. It's about them and $$ and it's not about really fixing a damn thing. We have to use every weapon in the arsenal to win in the war and not just the single battles. That includes strategic stances like this that present our side in a more inviting light to the non-gun owning public that honestly doesn't get it, and on the back side highlight the anti's irrational/blatant side of the "issue".

[Ronin13]

Dudley is doing exactly what the left wants... divide! They cannot beat us if we all stand, together, as a collective of gun owners (NRA, NAGR, SAF, etc) with the common goal of no more infringement. However, divide and conquer is the only way we will lose, and Dudley is right on par with this idea. Sure he's fighting, but it's one step forward, two steps back when he isn't joining forces to defeat the antis. A united front will win, look how well it's working for the antis...

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

If this is directed at me/my comments, you're confusing 2 different subjects and/or not bothering to read the whole thing and understand what is truly going on with it. <-----Exactly what Dudley is counting on people doing.

It was, and I'm not....you brought up Washington and a handgun registry, but outside the same registry that already exists in every state via the 4473 everyone fills out for new firearms I have never heard of this.....private party sales aren't traced, and anyone who believes that being asked personal info and what gun they are buying isn't a gun database is a fool. I do not agree with everything Mr. Brown does, nor do I agree with everything Mr. Gottleib does, nor anyone for that matter. The one thing I do believe is that we should not keep agreeing to our rights being infringed. If there is one thing we can say history has taught us (and this can be recent history, for you short term non reading types), it is that once we give ground we never get it back. So meet them halfway on the hopes that it will lead to future trials and reversals....I'd prefer a more aggressive move and go for the check mate while there are still enough pieces on the board for a fair fight.

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

And here......a local WA writer http://www.examiner.com/article/gunf...mfort-to-enemy

[spqrzilla]

I happen to disagree with Gottlieb's comments about background check legislation. I believe that Gottlieb has a good faith argument but is wrong.

But unlike Dudley, I don't need to lie about what Gottlieb has said to disagree with him about it.

[Gman]

What I can agree with from the article, is that Dudley is a divisive asshole. I was a member of RMGO for the first and last time last year.