Ripping RMGO now

[BPTactical]

Did they finally quit airing those Gunsmoke commercials on that station as well?

Seems like 5280 took that timeslot.

[def90]

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]

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 ...

[sroz]

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.

[Gman]

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.

[MED]

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]

http://www.colorado2a.org/give-them-...em-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.

[MED]

http://www.colorado2a.org/give-them-...em-everything/

Lot of wisdom in this post.

[Ronin13]

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]

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