Yogurt vs. Safe act debate!

[hunter49]

   N.Y. State takes longer to debate what it's state snack should be than it does to debate the NYsafe act. & screw with our 2nd. amend. rights!!  WTF!   What a mockery of our U.S. Constitution & political system!  VOTE all of them OUT!   They should all be ashamed of themselves!

Edited May 10, 2014 by hunter49

[Doc]

I share your disgust, but keep your eye on the prize. This is the year to send the message that if you voted for the Safe Act we're voting against you. If you voted against it we are rewarding you with our vote. The Safe Act has to become our litmus test this year while we still have many of the gun owners irate enough to act in unison. It is a "now or never" election. If could turn out that you have to hold your nose and vote for an idiot just because he did not support the Safe Act. But for this year only, the message has to be sent that a vote for these kinds of gun laws is dangerous to your political career. If we pull it off in any significant fashion at all, the message will stay in place for quite a few years. If we don't ....... well I think you can guess the consequences.

 

By the way, access the "Lest We Forget" thread pinned at the top of this sub-forum to see exactly who voted for or against the Safe Act.

[bubba]

and also look at their record regarding the unsafe act after the vote.  That is only part of it. For instance did they stand against the message of necessity? I can say that no senator or assembly person did even if they voted against it.  Also check their records on the budget votes since.  Did they vote for the budget that added 28 million to find it ?  if so how much are they really on the side of the gun owners.  My own senator Patty Ritchie did just this voted against it, but voiced no concern over the message of necessity as well as voted for both budgets since that funded it.  I have called her out on it and if I have my way she will go also.  

[Doc]

My intent for this election is to keep the message simple. Not complicated or anything that they can spin in their mind, or anything that needs any long explanation for them to understand. Just a simple litmus test that cannot be confused. Yes or no. Did you vote for the safe act or not. Your career path hangs on that answer. It is the message that's important and it has to be delivered in as basic a way as possible, so that it will be remembered by these candidates and the ones that come after them. It also is a very simple way for gun owners to be united and focused without a whole lot of polarizing fine points that can fracture the voting result. Here is a good time to apply the K.I.S.S. principle to achieve success.

[hunter49]

I share your disgust, but keep your eye on the prize. This is the year to send the message that if you voted for the Safe Act we're voting against you. If you voted against it we are rewarding you with our vote. The Safe Act has to become our litmus test this year while we still have many of the gun owners irate enough to act in unison. It is a "now or never" election. If could turn out that you have to hold your nose and vote for an idiot just because he did not support the Safe Act. But for this year only, the message has to be sent that a vote for these kinds of gun laws is dangerous to your political career. If we pull it off in any significant fashion at all, the message will stay in place for quite a few years. If we don't ....... well I think you can guess the consequences.

 

By the way, access the "Lest We Forget" thread pinned at the top of this sub-forum to see exactly who voted for or against the Safe Act.

    I agree 100%, if gun owners can vote them out it will be in their minds for years to come & maybe some of them will smarten up for years to come!   I would think the smart ones would be on the side of gun owners if they want to be around for a while & keep their political career!

[ants]

One can only hope that the arrogance and blatant "F-You" attitude of these self serving little worms, is realized by enough people  and that this  realization is reflected in the polls. Fingers crossed.

 

[bubba]

My intent for this election is to keep the message simple. Not complicated or anything that they can spin in their mind, or anything that needs any long explanation for them to understand. Just a simple litmus test that cannot be confused. Yes or no. Did you vote for the safe act or not. Your career path hangs on that answer. It is the message that's important and it has to be delivered in as basic a way as possible, so that it will be remembered by these candidates and the ones that come after them. It also is a very simple way for gun owners to be united and focused without a whole lot of polarizing fine points that can fracture the voting result. Here is a good time to apply the K.I.S.S. principle to achieve success.

 

 

Then it will fall short.  Rinos who voted for the safe act and then support it after are no more our friends than the libs who pushed it. But to each his own.  

[Doc]

Then it will fall short.  Rinos who voted for the safe act and then support it after are no more our friends than the libs who pushed it. But to each his own.  

You are not understanding the intent. I know it is impossible to only elect pro gun rights people. Hell, we all know that. But I do know how to send a message that we are a mighty political force to be reckoned with. A message that will last for decades to those that would consider voting for gun control legislation. And it is not by each gun owner picking and choosing what issues to base their vote on. Read what I said about the K.I.S.S. principle above. We have to stay united around a single issue, and the Safe Act has caused the gun owning community to rally and unite on that one single issue. Not follow up issues, not even previous or guessed at future voting records and positions. If a good percentage of those who voted for the safe act come up missing at the next term, one god-awful powerful message will have been sent that even those who dodged the bullet won't be able to ignore in the future.

 

The safe act is the one (and only) rallying point that can keep the gun owning voters focused through election day. The anti-gun forces have handed us a powerful election issue if only we can use it in a smart way. Start complicating things and our unity will be lost. That safe act voting record serves as a very simple guideline for an election result that will send the message that it is not a good political move to vote for gun control. We will never have this opportunity again because gun owners have never been so concentrated in their reaction to any piece of legislation before. It truly is now or never.

[bubba]

It has no thing to do with any concern than gun rights. You are missing my point which I think is intentional but I will try again. Just because a law maker voted against the safe act does not make them pro gun. See how they have acted since voting no. If they vote to find it or did not stand against the message of necessity is they should not get a pass with one vote. Do 10 minutes of research and become informed.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[landtracdeerhunter]

N.Y. State takes longer to debate what it's state snack should be than it does to debate the NYsafe act. & screw with our 2nd. amend. rights!!  WTF!   What a mockery of our U.S. Constitution & political system!  VOTE all of them OUT!   They should all be ashamed of themselves!

But their not ashamed at all. They get to cozy in office and loose site of why they were voted in office, public representation. This is why to abolish career politicians. Two terms in office, and " Bye Bye!"

[Doc]

It has no thing to do with any concern than gun rights. You are missing my point which I think is intentional but I will try again. Just because a law maker voted against the safe act does not make them pro gun. See how they have acted since voting no. If they vote to find it or did not stand against the message of necessity is they should not get a pass with one vote. Do 10 minutes of research and become informed.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

I think the easiest way to think about it all is to think of which way is the most likely to succeed ..... have gun owners go down a single "yea or nay" voting list of one piece of legislation and vote accordingly or .... ask them to spend hours studying the voting records and post-Safe Act comments and activities of each candidate. Which do you think has the best chance of actually happening and coming out with a unified result? One direction sends a message that an anti-gun vote will be punished. The other guarantees that a large percentage of the gun owners will simply opt-out, or reach different conclusions based on their attempted research, both resulting in a diffused vote. Don't over-think the possibilities and don't over estimate the amount of time that gun owners are willing to put into this. Again, the K.I.S.S. principle is the most appropriate way to go. Go for a clear message being sent, and there will be no need to worry about where they stand on the gun issue. With politicians, votes trump principle. Threaten their re-election, and their views on guns go right out the window. Conversely, dissolve our unity with "over-thinking", and the whole election is lost and the message that gets sent for the future is that the gun lobby is dead.

 

 

[bubba]

ok then you are leaving just as many there that will stab us in the back as they continue to do as there will be gone. These are not my suggestions alone.  They come form the people who are heading up the grass roots and other campaigns to get rid of the useless weight in Albany.  Basing your vote on one vote they did is simply at best narrow minded.  But hey to each his own.  If taking ten minutes to do some simple research is too much to ask, we are defeated anyway.

 

"With politicians, votes trump principle".

 

Your words which are simply true, but they vote more than once.  And if you are going to praise those who voted against this in a political posture move and not look further into their record, you have fallen for their simple play.  Just way too narrow minded.

 

 But to keep pointing out the obvious and seeing your lack of initiative to take 10 minutes and see what they did on the budget votes in the last two years makes me wonder how committed you are.   I will even answer the message of necessity one for you.  Absolutely none of the assembly or senators stood against the message of necessity.  If just one had, the message of necessity stops.  JUST ONE.. You would think one of those who are so pro gun would have so they could have time to read the bill tear it apart and debate it and get three days of constituents raising hell over it. If that had happened, I am willing to say it never would have passed.  I personally called out my umm pro gun senator on this.  She has yet to answer and I know her personally.  She has also voted yes for the budget the past two years which included the 28 million to fund this and this year an extra 20 million to do the ammo background check this year.  In your world because she voted no to it, she would get a pass.  Well not in my world.  One little action does not make her or any of the others pro gun.  Just saying there is more to this than one little vote.  To keep the rinos there is no better than to keep the ones who voted for it there.  

Edited May 12, 2014 by bubba

[GreeneHunter]

But their not ashamed at all. They get to cozy in office and loose site of why they were voted in office, public representation. This is why to abolish career politicians. Two terms in office, and " Bye Bye!"

TERM LIMITS !!!

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Definitely yogurt!

[Culvercreek hunt club]

ok then you are leaving just as many there that will stab us in the back as they continue to do as there will be gone. These are not my suggestions alone.  They come form the people who are heading up the grass roots and other campaigns to get rid of the useless weight in Albany.  Basing your vote on one vote they did is simply at best narrow minded.  But hey to each his own.  If taking ten minutes to do some simple research is too much to ask, we are defeated anyway.

 

"With politicians, votes trump principle".

 

Your words which are simply true, but they vote more than once.  And if you are going to praise those who voted against this in a political posture move and not look further into their record, you have fallen for their simple play.  Just way too narrow minded.

 

 But to keep pointing out the obvious and seeing your lack of initiative to take 10 minutes and see what they did on the budget votes in the last two years makes me wonder how committed you are.   I will even answer the message of necessity one for you.  Absolutely none of the assembly or senators stood against the message of necessity.  If just one had, the message of necessity stops.  JUST ONE.. You would think one of those who are so pro gun would have so they could have time to read the bill tear it apart and debate it and get three days of constituents raising hell over it. If that had happened, I am willing to say it never would have passed.  I personally called out my umm pro gun senator on this.  She has yet to answer and I know her personally.  She has also voted yes for the budget the past two years which included the 28 million to fund this and this year an extra 20 million to do the ammo background check this year.  In your world because she voted no to it, she would get a pass.  Well not in my world.  One little action does not make her or any of the others pro gun.  Just saying there is more to this than one little vote.  To keep the rinos there is no better than to keep the ones who voted for it there.  

Bubba, Then "those people" should compile a complete list. I understand Doc's concern. Most are not going to do the research and if it ends up as a difficult task then it wont get done. They will fold and not vote. Let's face it, Humans are a pretty lazy bunch in general.

[bubba]

So if ten minutes of research will stop them then they were not going to bother anyway

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

So if ten minutes of research will stop them then they were not going to bother anyway

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I am just suggesting if thee is a listing of statewide elections and a tally of any of the candidates voting on these issues, that is the info that should be going out there. SCOPE, NYSRPA and the rest must have this. That is where the focus should be along with registering and an effort to get people to the polls. I wish there was a push for absentee balloting and finding people to take people to the polls. Heck I would drive that day if anyone in my district needed a ride to flip that lever against them. I see a lot of fan fare out of thes groups but I can't see an meaningful efforts to influence this election.

[bubba]

I agree but if people will not look up their own candidate, why would anyone think they will look it up on a page in front of them.  You can only spoon feed just so much,  I am giving a speech at a rally in Massena Ny on 5/31.  Part of my message will be personal responsibility and how I think social media will be a hindrance to us winning this election.  Too easy to sit home and do very little and still think you are informed. 

[Doc]

I have laid out a plan that has the best chance of working in terms of putting legislators back in their proper place relative to gun issues. The message being sent to them when they see a significant percentage of those that voted for the safe act missing from their ranks would restore the respect for gun owners into their daily thoughts. It can work. 

 

Do I have faith that a significant percentage of gun owners are going to study voting records, and policy statements? .... Not on your life. But I do know that I can hand people a list of those who voted for that safe act and persuade them to vote for the opponent of any one of those names that they see on the ballot. I have been doing that ever since I obtained the list. Voters are an apathetic bunch (gun owners are no exception), and anyone planning on leading an activity to unite them had better keep things simple.

 

[philoshop]

We can and will all agree on one thing, at least. We need to get people to the voting booths.

If people don't show up to vote it's pretty inconsequential what they think of the issues or the candidates, beyond skewing the media polls (which has certainly become huge in its own way).

 

The goal is to stop Cuomo in his tracks. That in itself will be a huge statement. Not just for NY, but for the whole country. We've got a lot of support across the nation, and a lot of eyeballs on us this coming November, waiting to see if people even show up for the fight.

 

Beyond that, if people have the inclination to carry the fight further and deeper in this election cycle, so much the better.

But we can't lose sight of goal number one, which is removing the head of the beast. Let's keep working together on that.

 

[Doc]

We can and will all agree on one thing, at least. We need to get people to the voting booths.

If people don't show up to vote it's pretty inconsequential what they think of the issues or the candidates, beyond skewing the media polls (which has certainly become huge in its own way).

 

The goal is to stop Cuomo in his tracks. That in itself will be a huge statement. Not just for NY, but for the whole country. We've got a lot of support across the nation, and a lot of eyeballs on us this coming November, waiting to see if people even show up for the fight.

 

Beyond that, if people have the inclination to carry the fight further and deeper in this election cycle, so much the better.

But we can't lose sight of goal number one, which is removing the head of the beast. Let's keep working together on that.

No question .... Cuomo is target number one. But unfortunately as long as the rest of them feel they can freely thumb their noses at gun owners, they will always be able to find another leader. But you are right, as long as we are into sending messages, the most powerful message will come from the removal of Cuomo.