In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

A Discussion , C.A.s ;

Canary ass no. 1Canary ass no. 1 Member Posts: 104 ✭✭
Gentlemen, the time has arrived for a discussion about the direction and viability of the C.A.s.
We have lost yet another prospective member, and another has expressed a desire to join the group.
What do I tell them except ;
Post several thousands posts, and hope for the best...???

There are few posters on this site that can fulfill the requests for many, many posts supporting the Constitution ..and most are already C.A.s.

I suggest we have a vote ;
Close the roles, and freeze the numbers right where they are. The fact is... a half-dozen members bothered to even reply to the last request to join ..interest appears to have waned, hereabouts.

Another fact ..I have been notified that some members are poised to resign....over the difficulties we discuss here.
This was not designed to be a `Royal Order'.
It was supposed to be open to Constitutional/Second Amendment supporters.

I WELCOME a man that supports those documents...be he black, white, yellow, gray or a dozen posts.
Once again...he is NOT in the foxhole next to me ..where I will pick EVER so much more carefully. He has joined the group to accomplish a mission ..carry the SOFT fight Nationwide.
He CANNOT discuss the group without mentioning the positions we espouse.
By standing shoulder to shoulder to us, a man that is a bit soft on the issues WILL toughen up..or he will quit or be thrown out.

If he is an agent..you have the choice to reply to private e-mails or meeting in person..as always, personal judgement applies here.

I ask you to think about it.
I am getting a bit frustrated, personally.

What SAY you ?

Comments

  • Options
    wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I take a man at his word until such time as he proves unworthy of that trust.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

    My 2 cents
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    So what is it exactly that your after?

    To have a group of CA's of many? Or a group of quality?
    You get frustrated because members don't vote, or abstain from a vote. I get frustrated at people jumping to join that only have a few posts of patriotic nature. Be it face to face, or here, I demand that to be called MY brother/sister, they be of QUAILTY. The tr's, duces, ice's ect. all say they are constitutional supporters TOO. We know different.

    Being mere mortals, we are bound to make a mistake or three. I am not going to run around with my * on fire to collect a membership of many. Any that want to join without a proven track record. I don't NEED to see thousands of post, but a series of posts in a general setting, about general issues. I want to see if a man agrees with those whom hate the constitution about constitutional issues.

    Sure, we can "harden" up the prospects. Do they HAVE to be a member to harden them? I desire only QUALITY brothers, not brothers of many.

    If you decide that the roles should be locked down, so be it. I will remove myself from those rolls.
  • Options
    zinkzink Member Posts: 6,456 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I did not respond until after his request to remove his request! I have been pre-occupied as of late, so I appologize for the delay!

    I too would have a roll call of quality over quantity. There are those who say they are supporters of the Constitution, but renig when it comes to stand for it.

    If it comes to letting all who "profess" their allegance into the CA's, or lock it down to present members, Then I too request my name be removed from the "Rooster Roster".[;)] In own opinion there has to be a standard for admission.

    Lance
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    . The tr's, duces, ice's ect. all say they are constitutional supporters TOO. We know different.



    We know different because virtually every time they put finger to keyboard, they prove it. It is not difficult to cull. Pre-emptive culling only serves to make the CA's look elitist. I didn't sign on for that, I signed on against it.

    I'm with Shane, take them at their word until they give me a reason NOT to. Innocent until guilty.

    I agree with James that quality is utmost in importance. Should a member prove unworthy, simply removing them would not be difficult.

    Besides, when an individual seeks to be identified as a CA, they can expect only ridicule from the masses. Apparently even to ask , could easily result in this. Merely requesting membership separates them from the masses, IMO. So what's in it for them. It could be Thomas Paine, but if he doesn't have enough posts, try later. I wouldn't bother with the rejection if it was me. I do just fine on my own.

    So what is the point? Think about it.
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Frankly, this whole exercise is getting cumbersome, in my opinion.

    This was a tongue-in-cheek group originally, started over a specific post/series of posts and involving a specific group of posters.

    We progressed to a membership 'test' and 'statement of commitment', which I never felt comfortable with, since it calls for a canned answer and other than the statement made at that time, does not carry any depth.

    So be it, the group wanted it and we subsequently gained some phenomenal and stalwart members, who are indeed my Brothers.

    Personally, I would have been more inclined toward a quiet, behind the scenes review of postings by members who displayed the traits, beliefs and understandings that we hold to, then an assessment and discussion amongst the membership and if agreed, an offer, or a 'reaching out' to that poster with an invitation to join the Brethren.

    I was basically open to expanding the membership, but like James and a couple others, I do not plan on belonging to a mass, ever-growing group without being given the opportunity to assess potential members, not simply in their stark postings about glaring and clear constitutional issues, but rather, through time and through the accumulated discussions and postings of a more general nature, which flesh out the depth of one's understanding and commitment to the 'principles' that the Constitution is rooted upon.

    We all can have our individual views, but I am less than pleased to have mine characterized as 'ridiculous', when I simple abstained due to a factual lack of sufficient track-record to make an informed decision.

    I am not referring to anyone in the following sentences, but, rather, to the concept and point I am about to make........

    For me, I do not want any 'associates' in this endeavor of 'education and espousing' of founding and constitutional principles, who come off as ignorant and/or as off-base, with this view to be what my points, arguments and pondering's are measured against. It merely reduces the potential effectiveness of the message being given, at least to a large degree.

    Elitist to some, I am sure, yet I am deadly serious about what we are about here and do not want this Brethren to become naught but a source of factual derision, due to members who have 'Duce1-esque' abilities and understandings, regardless of their pronouncements of adherence to the Constitution and the founding principles.

    Those are my concerns and my open, honest thoughts and opinions on why membership should be difficult to achieve and why it should only be offered for those who meet some standard.

    If that puts me outside the 'norm' here, so be it. Simply let me know and we can remain brothers in our beliefs and in our methods, but not Brothers in the Order.

    No threats, no pressure, no ultimatums from me, simply my open honest stance and an expression of my desire to have that same courtesy returned to me, from my Brethren
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    lt, I respect you immeasurably, and your position on this is well founded. I do not happen to fall completely in line with your evaluation technique. It is good, but too high for initial membership? I think it is too easy to remove someone if they show us we need to.
    Nobody like a "duce" would be admitted to begin with. If someone was admitted and began to sound like "duce"..."brother, discussion on member "duce" regarding removal from the brotherhood."


    P.S. "Ridiculous" comments about you, by me, would be directed toward you. Please don't become dramatic and make assumptions like everyone else on the internet does, especially with a brother. If I have a problem with something you specifically say, I will address you specifically. My "ridiculous" comment was made regarding the whole of the thread, not your post.


    edit: quote:We progressed to a membership 'test' and 'statement of commitment', which I never felt comfortable with, since it calls for a canned answer and other than the statement made at that time, does not carry any depth.

    So be it, the group wanted it and we subsequently gained some phenomenal and stalwart members, who are indeed my Brothers.

    Personally, I would have been more inclined toward a quiet, behind the scenes review of postings by members who displayed the traits, beliefs and understandings that we hold to, then an assessment and discussion amongst the membership and if agreed, an offer, or a 'reaching out' to that poster with an invitation to join the Brethren.


    Wouldn't some combination be the best. Allowing someone to request to join, or seeking out an individual?
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    lt, I respect you immeasurably, and your position on this is well founded. I do not happen to fall completely in line with your evaluation technique. It is good, but too high for initial membership? I think it is too easy to remove someone if they show us we need to.
    Nobody like a "duce" would be admitted to begin with. If someone was admitted and began to sound like "duce"..."brother, discussion on member "duce" regarding removal from the brotherhood."


    P.S. "Ridiculous" comments about you, by me, would be directed toward you. Please don't become dramatic and make assumptions like everyone else on the internet does, especially with a brother. If I have a problem with something you specifically say, I will address you specifically. My "ridiculous" comment was made regarding the whole of the thread, not your post.
    I appreciate you kind words jp and they are returned in spades.

    That said, my comments on 'Duce' were not that I feared someone with his belief-system being admitted. It would take a slobbering idiot to be fooled by his blathering.

    Rather, I refer to his nonsensical style, his failure to be able to make a cogent point and his seeming stupidity. I see that as a real danger to unfettered membership, with a simple provision to dismiss someone.

    Such a member would demean the message of those who are attempting to make serious points. Harsh, you bet, but that is how I see it. This does not meant we need only scholars and English Professors, because that 'is' ridiculous, but it is used to illustrate the point, I think.

    My objection to the 'ridiculous' comment was not merely that I personalized it to some extent. It was that the characterization was obviously directed at the failure to simply vote mike in, which certainly encompassed my abstention from voting.

    I took objection to that, since my views are also valid to the discussion at hand. I understand that you were merely 'verbalizing' your frustrations and I respect that, yet, here we are.

    It may well be that I am taking too lofty and 'elitist' a stance here, and if so, I have no heartburn in stepping aside to allow for a more 'open' and 'unfettered' membership process. In retrospect, I probably am causing harm to the group with my stance, but my stance is what it is and will not change in this respect.

    I really am more comfortable as a lone-wolf. I have pretty much operated as one my whole life and I am certainly fine with affiliating in spirit, if not in name, with you, my Brethren, who I respect so much.

    Direct honest comment and thought, on not only my position, but my membership is desired.
  • Options
    IdahoRedneckIdahoRedneck Member Posts: 2,699
    edited November -1
    While I am not a C.A. this thread hits me in a different way, and I feel I must say something. I have much respect for all the C.As. I came here (to the forums) just thinking cool a way to kill time..... But the longer I stay and shoot the breeze it really is amazing the things ya dont know. I as most of the CA's have debated me know support the NRA . It goes clear back to my wifes great grand father and we still have his Life NRA card issued Aug 14 1935, It has been in the family, Yet because of the CA's I have come to learn what they have done since then. Its not the NRA that was founded, and they do compromise on our gun rights, Without the CA's I would have never known. How many more Are like I was (uninformed). It would appear that you have come to a cross roads, from the outside lookin in I see Lt's side and I see Highballs side. I will say this hopefully ya'all come to a conclusion and rightly so. What started out so simple I believe does make a difference, Your voices are strong not only on this forum but elsewhere in my life as I take my discussions to work to family to anyone I know who believes in the Constitution and bill of rights as I do and educate them just a liitle bit more if there willing. 9 times out of 10 they listen because they are as I was "uninformed".

    Keep up the good work fellas and keep on keepin on![:)]
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Wouldn't some combination be the best. Allowing someone to request to join, or seeking out an individual?
    I believe that it would be a better arrangement than what we currently operate under.

    Those who opt, like me, to have a more lengthy look at a person, could still abstain if they did not feel comfortable and a majority, or other threshold vote could still allow admittance.

    Currently, with the 'test and mission statement' anyone can request admittance and you see where that can lead, since if they mouth the words and repeat the expected mantra, they have met our established threshold.

    I'd opt for the invitation, personally, because a 'request to join', coupled with the 'test and mission', leads directly to where we are.

    Likely we would not gain a lot of members, but, well, you already know my opinion on that.
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496


    Direct honest comment and thought, on not only my position, but my membership is desired.




    Hmmm Idahordnk is correct. We are at a crossroads. Quite a conundrum, yes?

    Jeff, I understand what you are saying, but also as you said, not everybody is a linguistic master, as are you. Should they be deprived of recognition, if that is the case? I think not. There are many, many good solid people out there, that share our beleifs, but not our mastery of the English language. There are many members, in fact, who might not measure up to this standard, yet you acknowledge that the membership is outstanding. I agree. Disregarding a good soul, based on this litmous test, is a failure on our part. Everybody has place, that has self-educated enough to know and believe these principles we espouse. If not, then we are "elitist' and I will not be associated with that which I find to be the most abhorrant trait from our so-called "leaders".
    This is what I am "getting". If I am wrong, I dearly hope I am, please correct me.
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    I think, should we solve this mini-crisis, that somebody should be appointed to notify members via email, if there is a vote pending. Hopefully to eliminate said individual from hanging. I would volunteer, but I am without internet for 4-6 months out of the year, so this disqualifies me. Maybe this would move things along, when they are needed. I know a couple members were posting in GD, and never knew this vote was going on, or they would have voted. Even now, maybe they should be informed that this discussion is going on??
  • Options
    HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    There is not a 'Lt vs, Highball side' here.

    I have entirely too much respect for the Captain, my brother, for that.

    I am merely attempting to get some resolution to a problem.

    In the beginning, `invitation only' was the method used. This allowed for individual members that had information about people to present them to the group.

    Personally, I never expected 20 members...it WAS a `joke', After all. Yet the cream of the Boards have joined. The guys with the most on the ball...

    There IS a good point made about any that request membership ; They DO open themselves to ridicule from the ignorant.

    There have been powerful arguments advanced to `limit' memberships.

    Please, gentlemen, a few more chime in with opinions. Let it never happen that we are afraid of `changing' something that needs changing.
  • Options
    IdahoRedneckIdahoRedneck Member Posts: 2,699
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    There is not a 'Lt vs, Highball side' here.

    I have entirely too much respect for the Captain, my brother, for that.

    I am merely attempting to get some resolution to a problem.

    In the beginning, `invitation only' was the method used. This allowed for individual members that had information about people to present them to the group.

    Personally, I never expected 20 members...it WAS a `joke', After all. Yet the cream of the Boards have joined. The guys with the most on the ball...

    There IS a good point made about any that request membership ; They DO open themselves to ridicule from the ignorant.

    There have been powerful arguments advanced to `limit' memberships.

    Please, gentlemen, a few more chime in with opinions. Let it never happen that we are afraid of `changing' something that needs changing.




    Im sorry I never ment to construe it as a HB vrs LT debate, The point of my statement was that you guys do make a difference. When you take one guy persay, such as myself and we debate any number of things, as has happened, and you make me think just a little bit more, and then I start doing research of my own online on any given topic and learn that the way I felt was wrong or not what I was thinking you guys have done your job. I know it started as a joke but believe me all of your voices make a difference. How many more are like I, that is a question to ponder. [?]

    THe CA's voices are strong and do make a difference thats all I was sayin.[:I]



    Even though I should have just kept my damn mouth shut again cause this thread has nothing to do with me[B)]
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    We do need to lighten up just a little.

    Canary * #3 posted a response to a silly statement by 'joe@show' (tallcharlie) almost (more than?) a year ago, regarding his alligator mouth vs. canary * statement.

    Over this past year, it is good to note that the soul of the group remains rooted in a very simple and, to all thinking people, obvious understanding that we have one Law of the Land that is being dismantled by the many laws that are being passed in this land. I have disagreed with most of my Brethren on issues over this past year, but to the best of my knowledge, could not, and cannot disagree with how that issue was individually formulated and decided.

    We will disagree. It would be pretty stagnant and dull if we didn't. I have revised my thinking over the past few months, and tend, now, to agree with #1 and #2 that an onerous vetting process is not 100% necessary.

    IMO, such a process places a seriousness upon the order that tends to stifle the fun we had with it for the first few months.

    FWIW, I respect each and every one of you, and, if I may be so bold, count you as friends. I'd hate to lose that by taking the whole process too seriously. Regardless, I have added CA #3 to my sig line, as I am proud to be identified with your/our ilk.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Not at all dnk, you may have the most valuable post in this thread.
  • Options
    wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    We do need to lighten up just a little.

    Canary * #3 posted a response to a silly statement by 'joe@show' (tallcharlie) almost (more than?) a year ago, regarding his alligator mouth vs. canary * statement.

    Over this past year, it is good to note that the soul of the group remains rooted in a very simple and, to all thinking people, obvious understanding that we have one Law of the Land that is being dismantled by the many laws that are being passed in this land. I have disagreed with most of my Brethren on issues over this past year, but to the best of my knowledge, could not, and cannot disagree with how that issue was individually formulated and decided.

    We will disagree. It would be pretty stagnant and dull if we didn't. I have revised my thinking over the past few months, and tend, now, to agree with #1 and #2 that an onerous vetting process is not 100% necessary.

    IMO, such a process places a seriousness upon the order that tends to stifle the fun we had with it for the first few months.

    FWIW, I respect each and every one of you, and, if I may be so bold, count you as friends. I'd hate to lose that by taking the whole process to seriously. Regardless, I have added CA #3 to my sig line, as I am proud to be identified with your/our ilk.






    Good man.
    [;)][:D]
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude


    Good man.
    [;)][:D]


    The very best.
  • Options
    HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    idahordnk ;
    No problem, your input, at least for me. A friendly eye often sees what other miss, after all.

    Here is something to ponder ;
    I HATE 'organizations', the rules, the 'orders' the bullsnit that gathers as the wheel rolls down the road. Verily, we must NOT become what we despise ..berurats that attempt to control EVERYBODY.

    Sorta throttles the spirit of the whole idea, ehhh ??

    Now one other angle ; Had you guys formed the Brotherhood, and NEVER allowed me to enter...it would have changed nothing concerning the methods, the ferocity of my attacks, nor my steadfast belief in the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

    I wonder how many out there have that steel core..or stupid enough...to continue to attack the Beast-Lovers without the support of such as the C.A.s.

    Don ;
    Friend ?
    We are brothers, with bonds forged by the sacrifices of the Founders, and the willingness to fully understand and STAND by the sacred honor of those men..
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Now we're getting somewhere.[;)]

    Where'd everybody go?
  • Options
    wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Still here.[;)]
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    idahordnk, you would be welcomed by me when you decide to join.
  • Options
    IdahoRedneckIdahoRedneck Member Posts: 2,699
    edited November -1
    me too for a minute[;)] deleted my last post cause again this thread has nothing to do with me.[:I]



    Thank ya JP..... appreciate that[:)]
  • Options
    wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    idahordnk, you would be welcomed by me when you decide to join.



    +1[;)][:D]
Sign In or Register to comment.