Posted: 7/12/2008 9:27:01 PM EDT
| Moving forward |
|
Ok, I am considering it. Here is my reservation- I am very pressed for time as it is. I own a small business with several employees that takes up the bulk of my normal business hours. I am a husband and a foster parent, which can take up the bulk of my time outside of business hours. With what time I do have, I work towards the RKBA and other human rights, as best as I can- I founded and webmaster the site for Louisiana Carry, I designed American Revival, and I was just voted in as a member of the ArkLaTex Gun Collectors' Association (which puts on gun shows and works towards the RKBA locally), and I am beginning to design our web site, as well. I would be more than happy to be a part of this effort, but I cannot neglect my previous commitments, so I may not have as much time available as some others. Also, while there are many people on here who greatly appreciate my contributions to AR15.com, there are a few vocal members who have labeled me as some redneck attention whore, and I would not want to be a dark spot on the group, if those people start trolling me here. What do you think about that? My only other thought would be to wonder why you would cut off the introduction of new volunteers after a certain point. In my own efforts with LA Carry, I have discovered that any help is greatly appreciated, even if those people arrive to the party late. |
|
I'll volunteer to help. Is there any way we can find out the position of existing board members and nominees from the NRA nomination committee regarding EBR's? Frankly, I'm surprised as big as this board is that someone hasn't piped up already and said "I'm ON the Bof D" There's got to be some people already involved that support us. |
Perfect. I spend to much time on this already. It isn't a full time job. Just use your current connections to spread the word. Your at a gun show, have a flyer at your table explaining our efforts and see if voting NRA members are willing to help. We all have people on here who black label us. Its juvenile. They wouldn't act or speak to you, me, or anyone else in that way in person, but with a keyboard and monitor in front of they, they think they are god. I'm limiting the introduction because people don't research or read. Just as now. Time and again we keep posting up the same answers. There is a FAQ thread. Apparently nobody reads it. If we let the volunteer continue to join up, we will keep stopping the momentum to fill them in and then have to justify the route we have chosen. ETA: The rest is just ranting below and not directed at you or your post. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can tell you right now, I am not excited about this at all. I do not want to do this. I'm only doing this to save what little momentum we had. People are standing around wondering what to do next and it won't happen on its own. This latest attempt has people mad, and real feelings hurt. Its easy to say, just grow up and brush yourself off, but until you have put real emotion into something that is heling others, possibly thousands of others only to be attacked for a suggestion or whatever, you won't get it. Volunteer here, and you will soon learn what I mean. Its nasty, makes you bitter, and resentful for helping a bunch of freeloaders who expect the world, and get pissed over the smallest issues. Wobblin is pissed and hurt. I'm pissed about this whole thing. Wobblin took the lead and started this. Was it all done perfect. No. But he got things going, and the ball rolling. He has multiple threads started with information, replys to posts with information, as we learn more, he asked those of us doing all the work what we thought. I want 76 Ted Nugents on the board. I like others here have said why limit it to just 2? If it doesn't take any more effort to add another 3, or 10 what is the problem? Why is our goal limited to an insignificant number? I think we are all aware of our intent, yet it keeps getting called into question. I love how people who aren't doing anything or contributing feel your opinions are valid. You will watch, but at the first sight of blood, you dive bomb like a vulture. Its disgusting. Yes your entitled to your opinion, but you need to see if it helps the cause. Just because you don't like one thing, is it worth offending someone doing the work for you, and have it grind to a halt? Don't air dirty laundy. Keep that crap to IMs. If you can't get resolution, then you need to contact others involved and seek a middle ground. Would you act like this to a co-worker if he is doing all your work while you watch porn at the office every day? One day you see your co-worker using Windows Vista, but your an XP fan, so you throw a hissy fit and bitch slap him. Guess what, you just lost the guy doing the work your getting paid to do. Kinda stupid isn't it? Well thats about what happened here. Some of us are doing the work, while others are benefiting from it, and feel that they will choose what to do, without doing anything. We are our own worst enemy. I'm beginning to respect the difficulties the NRA has made to effect change on the BoD. Its because of petty juvenile actions we have seen already. Thank you Wobblin-Gobblin for what you have contributed thus far. My hope is to push this ball again, and Wobblin take the lead again. You all owe him your gratitude, and thanks, and anyone who criticized him owes him an apology whether you think you do or not. Its tough to show appreciation on the internet, but easy to offend and hurt people more than you realize. |
|
Texas_Infidel, at the very start of this thing, you begged us to slow down and figure out what we were doing before "conducting business." Due to my enthusiasm, I did not listen. We are here today as a direct result of moving too quickly and not having a game plan in place. Lesson learned. |
Maybe that could be my job- Volunteer Coordinator. Tell me what new helpers need to know, and I can plug them in. Your experience may be different, but mine (as a business owner/RKBA activist) tells me that the number ONE thing you do not want to do is discourage help if it becomes available, as long as that help is willing/able to work properly within the system. |
|
So is this new/replacement committee more like a "Steering Committee"? ETA: LouisianaCarry, I see both your and T_I's points on this. Where I work (state job, academia) we have a lot of committee work, and both issues rear their ugly heads. How we handle it are to have "committee members" and "committee resources." I love being a resource, as the committee only taps me when my unique/particular skill-set is needed, and I get to help the committee, but don't get bogged down in/with committee work. |
|
Texas_infidel, thanks for stepping in and picking up the reins from Wobblin_Goblin. I am extremely dismayed that the two we selected to represent us have recused themselves from the process. Hopefully after tempers cool they will step back in and still be our two representatives. One thing that astounds me is how juvenile a lot of people are being. We all need to remember, our goal is to get AS MANY BLACK RIFLE SUPPORTERS as possible on the NRA board of directors. despite the fact that I am the Ralph Nader of the election, with like, three votes, two of which were probably my mom, I was and am still ready to support you all in your drive to seed the Board. Did I want to get on the board? Not really, It's going to be a huge time, vacation and money committment. Something that will be hard for me to do. but I'll still do it if necessary. I was very happy with our two selected representatives and when I heard we might even be able to put up more, that was cool to. I don't have a problem with us putting 25 well qualified candidates up for the board. Everyone needs to understand we're trying to learn the ropes here. it will be someone disorganized due to us being on a learning curve and also due to the nature of us trying to coordinate a massive effort via a gun chat board. it's not meatspace and that makes it harder. I would hope that everyone involved will see this for what it is: a very minor speedbump in what is an AWESOME cause and when the jets have cooled, jump back in and lets get it done. Consider Arfcom a big extended family, with some laughs, some tears, some bloody noses and some damn fine times and get back on the bus and help us get the Joaquin Jacksons off the board and the Old Painless'es and 'Bama Shooters and Texas Infidels on there. next time an NRA president steps up to a podium at an NRA meeting and holds a gun up and says " From my cold dead hands", I want it to be a totally loaded M4 with an EOTech sight and a rail up front. Then I want us to spend the next week bitching about the fact that while it was definitely and AR, it didn't have park under the front sight base. Thanks to the volunteers who are doing the work on this, and to those who are bailing out, please consider that this could potentially be one of the best things this board ever does. I waste a significant amount of my life on this board, and so you do. Let's get some real, tangible results out of it. let's stop the pointless bickering and the other petty stuff and do something that really matters. we, as keyboard commandos, have a chance to really do something of value. Don't let small details derail that. matt CrashBurnRepeat |
|
Great .... now if all the members who bowed out would put themselves back into this process it would be where it should. Also ...... delete all the negative threads whether it was intentional or not and start over. everyone shakes hands and act like an adult. we are all here for the same cause. |
I would like to address this point which I have seen brought up several times. (Not directed at Crash,  )Sure, we would all like to see 5, 10, or 25 AR15.com members on the NRA BOD. But fellows this is an unrealistic goal for one election. Just getting one or two members voted on the Board is an almost impossible task. Getting 25 is absolutely impossible. It just won't happen. And before someone explains how we all have 25 votes each, I understand how the voting works. But diluting the effort among 25 candidates will sink the effort for sure. When they had the Cincinnati Reforms, Neal Knox and his group had an enormous and expensive campaign and had a very difficult time getting a group of members on the board. Since then, the rules make it very difficult to replace large numbers of Board Members. If this effort is to have any success, you had better concentrate on a small number of candidates, one or two, and get them elected. The lessons learned will make additional members more likely. This can't all be done overnight. It will take several elections. Slow and steady wins the race. (A turtle told me that. ) |
I agree that 1-3 should be the max that we try for this time, and that we should not get our hopes up, but rather do the best we can, and mentally prepare to have to do this more than once to acheive our goal. |
Don't take this the wrong way, but a lot of people are quick to offer their opinions and slow to do any work. My advice to you is this: If you want input, contact Texas_Infidel and volunteer your time. 
|
There is no "dilution" of votes. So please explain your understanding this issue. My POV is: No one outside our community will "know" who any of our candidates are. If we can muster enough votes, we can literally elect our entire slate. If we can't, it won't matter if the headcount is 25 or 1. Non one will be elected. |
I think he is saying that on paper, that all looks great. In real life, trying to muster ten thousand people to go the same way is no walk in the park. Have you seen any chili with/out beans threads? Me and you and the people in this room right now may all be willing to cast 25 votes for the "select" group of people, but there is a huge gap between that and the votes needed. Our campaigning resources are not unlimited. The more we focus those efforts, the better chance we stand. Am I assessing your position correctly, O_P? |
| What I ultimately see, is an "ARCOM" approved list of candidates for the NRA BOD. If someone here doesn't want to vote for Old_Painless, it will matter not one iota if he is the sole ARFCOM candidate or 1 of 25. He'll get "all" the ARFCOM votes and probably not a single one outside this community. |
|
I would imagine that if this is going to work, it is going to take people campaigning outside arfcom and making those votes happen. Non-arfcommers will be judging candidates on their merits, and not their forum membership. What we are saying is that if we have 100 people campaigning for one or two people, we are going to garner more of those outside votes for those people than if we were going for 25 people. Non-arfcommers will pick those they like from among those we present. The more focused our efforts, the less dilution of those outside votes will likely occur. |
That is correct. There is no diluting of votes. I am more concerned with the diluting of "effort". Getting organized to get a couple of names on the ballot by petition will be very hard. Doing it for 25 will be impossible. |
This is the inevitable. Even now, we has less than 100 voting members checking in on the other thread. Working with other forums will most likely be a must if we are to get anyone on the ballot with half a chance. |
I see your point Old_Painless, and getting people going one way is going to be hard, but the way it feels to me is that it will be the same amount of work to get 2 or 10 of us nominated. you have to realized that once nominated, our site's voting block will only be a drop in the bucket. We will have to win based on our credentials and views from amongst the general NRA populace. If we put up 2 of us, the odds that any 1 of them gets elected than if we get 10 of us nominated. the odds of getting a "hit" raise with every AR15.com member we have in the pool. it's like bonus points in a big game draw. We will never get one guy in based on our site, or even any other site's membership. We are only going to get us nominated. matt crashburnrepeat |
Much as I like the idea of having more people elected, this is not a gamble where multiple rolls of the dice increase your odds of winning. Quality of effort matters more than quantity unless the NRA members just blindly pick who they vote for. If I read the rules correctly, no petition can have more than one name on it. When we decide who we are supporting and get this rolling I plan on taking the petitions to my friends that are in the NRA here and asking them to sign. I am sure I can get them to sign 2 petitions. I can probably get them to sign 5. I doubt they are going to sign 25. I think we would be ahead to pick out a few candidates and focus on getting them nominated. At the same time,we should perpare for the election by researching the existing board members and nominees and discover their position on EBR's and their interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. As Iggyort said the NRA is not the enemy and I'm guessing there are already EBR fans on the board that we just don't know about. It would also help us identify those who are NOT our supporters.This is something else we can pass on to our friends. The voting members of the NRA I have talked to have ALL said they wish they knew more about who they were voting for. Many have thrown their ballots away for that very reason. |
Understood, W-G. I put up two of those names in the original thread, but the water was moving so swiftly, they got lost in the current. It just looked as if we might be at an impasse regarding our slate, so I thought it might be a good time to offer it up again as an option. Those are all good, solid names that can stand on their own, without the arf vote, in addition to any candidates we're able to put up once we get our act together. [and thanks for the vote of confidence, LC; it's all good in the neighborhood] |
That, I think, is ultimately the point of this endeavor. If we have enough votes from arf, we can ram through whomever we want with no outside help. Hell, we could put someone like justinwb or clean_cut on the freaking board if we felt like it. But if we don't have the votes "by brute force," then we'll have to count on at least *some* outside help (which is where the vote dilution that LC is talking about comes in...... external vote dilution, if you will). [incidentally, that's why i suggested the alternates i did; these are people who could get elected regardless of whether we can carry the vote by brute force] |
|
we still need to look at putting more of us up than just the two that we voted on. I'd MUCH rather be able to tick the ballot for 5 of us than 3 of us. I'm out cause I'm sick of the crap but as a group, we need to put more than just 2 people up. It's all the same amount of work and as long as I have 25 votes to burn, I'd rather burn 5 of them on ARFCOMMERs than just 2. |