Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Chuck wrote: Are you whining now? Or am I just misinterpreting you?
You started in on Mike for his opinion, even though I told you he plays a very small part, in setting our policy.
Then you started in on me, ignoring page after page of me telling the whole world we are standing firm on principle.

Either you can read and comprehend my posts and are building straw men that you can kick over, or you can’t read and comprehension is difficult for you.

Which is it?

I'll continue to respond to your accusations, as long as you want to hurl them.

I comprehend that you want to "stand firm on principle" this time. I also comprehend that you aren't being offered anything from the other side, that in the past you take the deal behind curtain 2 if you think you have the better end of the deal, principle being a distant consideration. (That's the way you've presented the history of CHL in Ohio.) Accept the bad, cuz you get some good. In this instance, you're not being offered anything good, so you declare principle! While building goodwill with the antis was good enough earlier in the month for Mike/Schmeig, he's changed his tune today, as they've demanded more than he can agree to. The antis have exceeded the value calculation based on sacrificing bump stocks. Either way, neither stand on principle.

Bless you sir. Clarity is convicting.

I think almost all of our group go with,...'' not give one <profanity deleted--m380g> inch on anything the antis wants''.

bignflnut wrote:
I comprehend that you want to "stand firm on principle" this time. I also comprehend that you aren't being offered anything from the other side, that in the past you take the deal behind curtain 2 if you think you have the better end of the deal, principle being a distant consideration.

That sir, is a damn lie. Where would you like to meet so you can lie about me to my face?

Again, I challenge you to show me any situation where I accepted any reduction in our rights.
We can make this as personal as your lying imagination takes you, but I can tell you right now, you are turning one of your allies into an enemy.

Batter up

Page 3 of THIS thread, 4th post:

Chuck wrote:We do what we think is best for our membership and the gun community at large. Sub HB 142 is no improvement at all since cities will be able to raise the MM to an M1 anyway. They actually said to me "At least now there won't be licenses being suspended". This trickle is well offset by the undermining of ORC 9.68 by allowing localities to make their own penalties. Someday, a city will point to this as a reason for allowing "home rule" with gun rights.
It sets a VERY bad precedent.

IMO, we could still be working on the perfect bill. It was far better to take what we could and work on more in the future, than to only accept a perfect bill, no exceptions.

Is that "standing on principle"? Yes, in a sense. The principle being that you get something greater than you give.

You've correctly diagnosed that giving in on bump stocks will undermine further efforts, in this present case. For that, you are to be commended.

I'm sorry that I've spun you up on this. I'm certainly not interested in your blood pressure rising. I've never had a personal beef with you, and don't desire one.

Please forgive me for giving offense. This personal back and forth is not profitable.

bignflnut wrote:Page 3 of THIS thread, 4th post:

Chuck wrote:We do what we think is best for our membership and the gun community at large. Sub HB 142 is no improvement at all since cities will be able to raise the MM to an M1 anyway. They actually said to me "At least now there won't be licenses being suspended". This trickle is well offset by the undermining of ORC 9.68 by allowing localities to make their own penalties. Someday, a city will point to this as a reason for allowing "home rule" with gun rights.
It sets a VERY bad precedent.

IMO, we could still be working on the perfect bill. It was far better to take what we could and work on more in the future, than to only accept a perfect bill, no exceptions.

Is that "standing on principle"? Yes, in a sense. The principle being that you get something greater than you give.

You've correctly diagnosed that giving in on bump stocks will undermine further efforts, in this present case. For that, you are to be commended.

I'm sorry that I've spun you up on this. I'm certainly not interested in your blood pressure rising. I've never had a personal beef with you, and don't desire one.

Please forgive me for giving offense. This personal back and forth is not profitable.

Now for context
That was talking about the original concealed carry law back in 2004
I didn't join OFCC until 2009

My challenge still stands and my blood pressure is fine.
I take a lot of BS in this life, but allowing someone to tell lies about me in public isn't part of it.

Now, you got something else or is your entire besmirchment of my character based on the one instance of non comprehension?

Fair enough, Chuck.
I stand corrected.

You're not on board with the past deal making with the Swamp.
I apologize for besmirching your character based on one instance of non comprehension.
Happy to do so and be wrong on this.
Thank you for setting me straight and I sincerely ask your forgiveness.
Bless you and your efforts.

I forgive you

And now here’s a lecture
There is not much worse, IMO, than a person who doesn’t work while complaining about the work of others, and demanding the perfect from an imperfect mankind.
Especially if you are only too willing to take the benefits of the work for yourself.

If you were truly bound to your principles as much as you expect us to be you wouldn’t have a CHL until the CCW laws were compromise free.
Either step up and join the fight or step back and let those of us who are willing to fight carry on the battle.
Sniping from the rear and fragging your comrades is very bad form

Chuck wrote: You started in on Mike for his opinion, even though I told you he plays a very small part, in setting our policy.
Then you started in on me, ignoring page after page of me telling the whole world we are standing firm on principle.

Either you can read and comprehend my posts and are building straw men that you can kick over, or you can’t read and comprehension is difficult for you.

Which is it?

Actually, at this point, I play no role in setting policy as I effectively retired as a coordinator two years ago because I planned to be out of Ohio as much as I was in it. That hasn't quite worked out because of my back, but I am out of the state enough that I think my decision was the correct one.

Your either/or response to him is 100% on IMHO. Further, he seems to be one of those who believes anyone who is neutral is the enemy, at least in his characterization of my positions. That is counter-productive as well as misleading.

bignflnut wrote:
I comprehend that you want to "stand firm on principle" this time. I also comprehend that you aren't being offered anything from the other side, that in the past you take the deal behind curtain 2 if you think you have the better end of the deal, principle being a distant consideration. (That's the way you've presented the history of CHL in Ohio.) Accept the bad, cuz you get some good. In this instance, you're not being offered anything good, so you declare principle! While building goodwill with the antis was good enough earlier in the month for Mike/Schmeig, he's changed his tune today, as they've demanded more than he can agree to. The antis have exceeded the value calculation based on sacrificing bump stocks. Either way, neither stand on principle.

Bless you sir. Clarity is convicting.

There is no clarity in your message as you have misconstrued the ten pages of posting in this thread. At no time did I talk about building good will with the anti's as that is impossible. I did talk about attempting to build good will with those who waiver from side to side and who may easily be swayed by emotion. At no time did I suggest we just give in, but I did suggest that we be ready to lose on the bump stock issue and be prepared for the overreach that is almost sure to go along with it. Chuck and I aren't really in disagreement; I was just suggesting that we might not want to go down fighting on the bump stock issue as that is only an opening gambit in what the anti's want to accomplish and to preserve our political capital for the more important things that will follow or accompany the bump stock issue.

So I sit here this fine Saturday morning reflecting on the past week and I realize while I was defending my honor and OFCC's tactics on the forum, I did not make a very important phone call to an important legislator regarding our plan for getting real notification repeal passed. I got totally distracted, took my eye off the ball, and will never get that meeting together before Wednesday now. I am mentally kicking my own rear end and there is nobody who will even answer the phone before 9:00 am Monday. I screwed up

I understand why so many in the leadership don't post here so much. It's exhausting defending yourself all the time, especially from the people who are supposedly on the same side as you. Easy to get all wrapped up in the sideshow and forget the job at hand.
I'm really angry at myself and vow to not get sucked in like this again.

Chuck wrote:So I sit here this fine Saturday morning reflecting on the past week and I realize while I was defending my honor and OFCC's tactics on the forum, I did not make a very important phone call to an important legislator regarding our plan for getting real notification repeal passed. I got totally distracted, took my eye off the ball, and will never get that meeting together before Wednesday now. I am mentally kicking my own rear end and there is nobody who will even answer the phone before 9:00 am Monday. I screwed up

I understand why so many in the leadership don't post here so much. It's exhausting defending yourself all the time, especially from the people who are supposedly on the same side as you. Easy to get all wrapped up in the sideshow and forget the job at hand.
I'm really angry at myself and vow to not get sucked in like this again.

I for one am heartened to here something is cooking on the notification front. I thought it was dead. Anything we can do to help move things along, boots on the ground in the statehouse, whatever, please let us know.

A hearty thank you to you and the rest of the leadership team for keeping notification repeal alive!

We're not giving up. Notification is a bad law that needs repealed, not modified.

Chuck wrote:Once we admit that “no one needs one, so it’s ok to ban them” we admit that there is a problem with that rate of fire.
Once we admit that we have a problem with law abiding citizens being able to use that rate of fire, we lose all credibility when they point out other you tubes that show the same rate of fire as a reason to ban the entire AR platform.

How are you (we) going to argue against an Ar ban when you (we) are already on record as saying no one should be permitted that rate of fire?

How do you guys who want this banned think the next move is going to play out?

To bolster this excellent point, here is a video made by HBO's VICE (so, all language warnings apply), discussing the ATF ruling regarding these stocks with, Rick Vasquez, a senior analyst at BATFE when the ruling was made.

Vasquez acknowledges that the operating principle would need to be banned. (4:12)

In a free society, people will find a work around to such bans...which is how we arrived at the bump stock in the first place, such onerous restrictions being placed on full auto weapons.

Chuck wrote:
I understand why so many in the leadership don't post here so much. It's exhausting defending yourself all the time, especially from the people who are supposedly on the same side as you. Easy to get all wrapped up in the sideshow and forget the job at hand.
I'm really angry at myself and vow to not get sucked in like this again.

You need to realize that being on the 'same side' of things is more broad than you're seeing it as.... Life ain't that black and white, which makes it really hard but, great leaders that are good at uniting people can realize how to live in the grey area's and understand that life just isn't black and white. Just because I am not against banning full auto or bumfire stocks or other 'toys' doesn't mean we can't be united on correcting the issue of notification in Ohio.... You have to let people be different, disagree with them on certain issues and let those go by the wayside and focus on what you want to accomplish in common.

Chuck wrote:Once we admit that “no one needs one, so it’s ok to ban them” we admit that there is a problem with that rate of fire.
Once we admit that we have a problem with law abiding citizens being able to use that rate of fire, we lose all credibility when they point out other you tubes that show the same rate of fire as a reason to ban the entire AR platform.

How are you (we) going to argue against an Ar ban when you (we) are already on record as saying no one should be permitted that rate of fire?

How do you guys who want this banned think the next move is going to play out?

Once you admit they're dangerous and reckless they should be off the streets for that reason, no one is saying it's because we don't need them... I don't need my concealed carry license or pistols that I carry, odd's are I will never need to defend myself.

The uncontrollable nature of the rate of fire is dangerous, the correlation between restricting full auto / bump stocks and a ban of semi auto firearms, is like saying speed limits on our roads will lead to outlawing cars with v8 motors. I think it will play out just like the full auto restrictions we already have in place and it will have zero effect on ownership of legitimate defensive tools like semi auto AR-15's etc... It's like saying that because you need a CDL to drive an 18 wheeler we're all going to need CDL's to drive 1/2 ton pickups...