Ole_grizzly wrote:Thank you chuck for creating this topic, it's been a very interesting read.
Tweed Ring's passing I think has had a large affect on board participation in my opinion. I didn't care for what he said half the time, but boy did I follow his threads and appreciated all the news articles he posted. I also learned so much from him, and he's hard to replace.
I have been a patron member because the information I have learned from all the members has been so valuable, that I am thankful for all the current and past efforts and will continue to support that by remaining a member. I also belong to honor the contributions of this organization that I am now the beneficiary of.
That being said, my interest has dwindled. I work in the medical profession, traveling mainly to large cities and work at academic medical centers. In other words, I am around educated liberals almost exclusively, and have to keep my views on firearm ownership, healthcare, etc. mainly private. I do listen to what they say though, and I'm guessing these are views that many new to firearm ownership come in thinking after they graduate from college.
1. The all or nothing attitude of 2nd amendment supporters is so extreme, many younger people can't ramp up to the level of ferocity by those that are loudest.
2. The advocation against training requirements and background checks, to those that haven't taken the time to learn anything below surface level, seems crazy. (I think the gun rights community would do itself many favors by advocating for thorough, ongoing training, but people have their hearts so hardened on what they believe is the correct approach, I.e. Constitutional carry, that their immediate dismassal and insult of opposing or uneducated viewpoints immediately turns that type of person off forever. Just remember, you had to think it through the first time too.)
1. Are you talking about OFCC? If so, who?
2. Training requirements should be met in HIGH SCHOOL government class, same as all our other constitutional rights. We teach kids how to write newspaper articles, vote, how to not testify against themselves and to insist on a warrant before consenting to a search, why not spend a week or two on gun safety? Why should a citizen be forced to spend his own money on training in order to exercise a right that "shall not be infringed"?
I am all about training, as an instructor, I teach people how to safely handle a gun all the time.
The world would be a much better place if a high school diploma meant that one was trained with firearms along with the rest of a high school curriculum
Ole_grizzly wrote:As far as my own personal issues with ofcc that has me now having a dual membership with BFA, are as follows.
1. Legislative priorities, such as removing notification requirements, seem superfluous, when if you know the law, follow it, you won't have a problem. As I stated in a previous thread in the Ohio politics section, the wars you went through many years ago with police departments not following the laws are still raw wounds, that newer members like me don't share. Would I like notification removed? Sure, it's dumb and unnecessary. However, if you joined forces with BFA to sponsor teachers receiving training to possibly provide protection and response to a school shooting think about what we could do together. This is why I joined BFA, because having two kids less than 5, I worry greatly about their safety at school. Arming and training teachers could make a real world difference rather than spending time and money repealing a dumb law that is easily avoided.
2.Another legislative priority that I think would do our organization some good is to create an education campaign to show both legislators and the public that the way the criminal justice system plea bargains actual violent felons causes an enormous amount of the violence that all firearm owners are lumped into by the liberal media. In other words, instead of fighting for incremental rights like removing notification rights, what if we pushed for legislation that removed plea bargains for repeat violent offenders? Longer mandatory minimum sentences for those committing violent crimes? Legitimate punishments for straw purchasers? I'd go to the statehouse for that, and would actually be an issue people on many sides could unite around.
3. Lastly, I know someone in a high position at the Plain dealer/cleveland.com. I know a few years ago the immature, arrogant, go to hell response the PD got when he reached out for comment from ofcc at my recommendation caused them to never consider our viewpoint again, as they continued to further rail against any legislation, viewpoints, or anything a gun rights group supposedly stands for. Notice any gun article now always includes a quote from Jim Irvine. The past is the past, it's time to grow awareness, not hold onto old grudges. Chuck, it would probably be beneficial to try to reopen a line of communication with the editorial board so that the next time they write an article proclaiming blood in the streets, perhaps they'd put an opposing viewpoint in.
I do think ofcc is a great organization, I will continue to be a member as long as it's around, and I know that no organization will ever match up with any one person's political or personal views. I think the best thing ofcc could do is drop grudges, positions, and assumptions from 10 years ago and reinvent themselves focused on more relevant issues today.
1. Our legislative priorities come from our members. I won't get into trying to convince you all the reasons why notification is still a horrible law practiced by only twenty percent of the states. I will tell you that if you don't like the results of our poll, you should be trying to convince our fellow members to change THEIR priorities.
2. I have sat in those committee hearings waiting on our bills to come up when they were discussing prisons, and crowding, and releasing, paroling, and recidivism rates. It is some of the most messed up reasoning and procedures you have ever seen. On one side you have the people who make money of the prisons arguing for stronger sentences. All the lawmakers want stronger sentences because that is what the voters want. On the other side, you have all the bureaucrats who make money by supervising parolees (probation officers, halfway houses, counselors, etc) along with the trial lawyers, who make money every time someone is arrested. If a person who is on parole has a much greater chance of being arrested than a person who has never done time, then you need those people on the street getting arrested again and again.
Bottom line is,,,, That ain't my fight, and I don't like any of the people on either side of the issue.
3. Tell me more about this incident. PM me if you don't want to get specific on the open forum. Give me a contact at the PD and I'll see if they are interested in hearing from us.
Thank you for your support. It is very much appreciated