From what I understand that is exactly what happened, except for the " pay me first" statement. 5 guys in Tucson decided that enough was enough. One of the founding members, still in the state is Charles Heller, the media director now. You can contact him on the AZCDL website. I believe part of the membership funds is used to attract new members, pamphlets, papers, stickers ect.QuietM4 said:
WHY
- Thread starter YNOTAZ
- Start date
Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!
Join today!
QuietM4 said:
There is nobody at AZCDL that is an employee, no "pay me first". They are all volunteers, have other jobs or are retired from other jobs, working to protect our firearms rights in Arizona. Several folks here are AZCDL members and volunteer their time and money to support this effort, not a one getting paid first or last.
The guys running AZCDL have gotten beneficial firearms laws passed and have stood against the 24 anti-gun laws introduced just this session. They are not the NRA, nobody is flying on private jets and all the efforts are local where you can see them, like the lawsuit against Pima county where you can see the efforts.
Your choice but I will be the first to, as impolitely as possible, rub collective noses in it, if the California influence succeeds here.
QuangTri
Member
I joined AZCDL on faith, them being the only Arizona organization keeping watch on the state government in a time of liberal subversion.
Do not trust the NRA to do much of anything these days, though I am a life member.
Do not trust the NRA to do much of anything these days, though I am a life member.
What makes you think there is a "large majority" of gun owners who don't vote? Because this isn't my experience at all. Every gun owner I know is very politically aware and votes. And I know a LOT of gun owners. In fact, some of the gun owners I know became politically aware because they bought a gun. They went from being ignorant of the 2A to supporters of the 2A.YNOTAZ said:
I don't intend to be argumentative but what do you base your premise on? I realize that less than 5% of gun owners are members of pro-gun organizations like the NRA but that doesn't necessarily mean that a majority of the rest don't vote - it simply means they're cheapskates.
The last 2nd Amendment Foundation letter that I received said over 159.8 million Americans voted in 2020. And over 106 million Americans own guns. So why can't we get them to vote more often to protect our rights?
I am a member of three gun rights organizations. I've been a regular, uninterrupted annual NRA member for close to forty eight years and, more recently, I joined Gun Owners of America and AZCDL.
To answer your second question, I've been a shooter and reloader for the same forty eight years and for the past 25 years or so I've been casting my own bullets - depending on the application of course.
No ill intent taken.
thanks Hrob appreciate the memberships and standing the post, curiosity allows me to determine if folks are sincere in their comments or just attempting to create havoc or mayhem, lol. well it is the interwebs, thanks again,
Rj
Rj
hrob said:
Simple, because of Kamel's recent flip flops on guns, two studies were done on that specific topic. While nobody can give an exact number one study said over 70% of gun owners do not vote, and the other said only 16% of gun owners do vote.
So say both of them are full of crap, but kind of close. Double their percentages, and gun owners still suck at protecting our rights, does the word FUDD come to mind?
Take your own statement:
hrob said:
Out of all the gun owners you know what percentage is that of 120 million gun owners. Why does NRA only have 5% support by gun owners, and if you or they don't like NRA how about GOA, SAF, JPFO, or locally AZCDL.
You see I will be argumentative on this, gun owners are slugs. They won't write they won't call, they won't speak, they won't even join an organization to hire someone else to speak for them.
Why didn't you and all your gun totting buddies step up to help us fight the BLM closing thousands of acres to shooting and planning for thousands more. Several thousand members amongst three local shooting forums, 17 people stepped up to help.
So yeah I believe most gun owners are lazy, and frankly I laugh my arsse off when they cry "from my cold dead hands" and "let them try to take it". A real joke.
kenpoprofessor
Member
YNOTAZ said:
:mrgreen: Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day
Clyde
hrob said:
One study, that 65% gun owners don't vote was from CNN, the 16% study was a Trump statement during his Gutfeld interview, you can question them about their sources, OR, better yet, post something to the contrary. I’m always willing to learn, post some contrary or supporting figures.
You’ve only given anecdotal evidence "Every gun owner you know....." how many is that I'm certain it's not in the thousands, how are they active if they aren’t willing to stand up for shooting rights through individual efforts and do something, exactly how are they active and how do you know?
Here is my anecdotal evidence, three local gun forums over 10k cumulative membership total, yet 17 members actually were active helping protect gun rights, not slugs, like the rest. Let’s do the math, to see what is closest to reality not conjecture. Let's say out of all three sites there are only a cumulative 100 members posting and actively participating in the gun forums. 17 folks doing something, would be 17%.
lets go even further, let's halve the number and say cumulative from all three sites, only 50 members are actually active on the sites. 17 out of 50, that's still only 34%. Both fall within the ranges I quoted in my post.
"Because it was futile. It wouldn't have mattered if 17 million people showed up."
So you suggest nobody even try. We just roll over and let BLM close thousands of additional acres to shooting land, charge a fee to use their crappy ranges, allow the city of Phoenix to continue to break firearms laws with total impunity and allow Pima country to maintain the illegal laws they implemented against firearms owners.
Fighting "this is futile." I wonder who said that in 1776 against the world’s largest and strongest navy/military?
Don't worry you've made your point you won't get any more arguments from me. Just one more question, what part of California are you from and how’s your Gal, Kamel doing?
Creeker
Member
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26612417
https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2020/10/08/gap-between-gun-owners-and-non-owners-explains-disparities-political-attitudes-voting
Trump didn’t respond to requests for his sources for his claims, so it’s likely something he just made up because it sounded good in the moment. Speaking of, you originally claimed the number was 70% and now say it’s 65%. Which made up “fact” is it?
https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2020/10/08/gap-between-gun-owners-and-non-owners-explains-disparities-political-attitudes-voting
Trump didn’t respond to requests for his sources for his claims, so it’s likely something he just made up because it sounded good in the moment. Speaking of, you originally claimed the number was 70% and now say it’s 65%. Which made up “fact” is it?
Creeker
Member
https://www.foxnews.com/media/surprising-gun-ownership-rise-among-liberals-according-new-report.amp
And then there’s this. I assume you want all of them turning out too?
And then there’s this. I assume you want all of them turning out too?
"Don't worry you've made your point you won't get any more arguments from me. Just one more question, what part of California are you from and how’s your Gal, Kamel doing?"
You can have your jab if it offers you some satisfaction. I will admit it raised my ire for a while and I deleted a lot of potential responses. In the end, I decided to just let it go. There is enough division in our ranks. I hope you can calm down and have a pleasant evening. I'm going to shoot my ten meter air pistol now and see if I can improve my personal best score.
Maybe we can speak more civilly in the future.
You can have your jab if it offers you some satisfaction. I will admit it raised my ire for a while and I deleted a lot of potential responses. In the end, I decided to just let it go. There is enough division in our ranks. I hope you can calm down and have a pleasant evening. I'm going to shoot my ten meter air pistol now and see if I can improve my personal best score.
Maybe we can speak more civilly in the future.
hrob said:
For other topics I'm happy to speak very civilly but for the idiotic inaction of gun owners, I will shout FUDD, I will poke fun, I will be accusatory.
You haven't been around long enough to know very much but a group of us have tried to get gun owners off their collective a$$e$ for a lot of years.
So, when discussing this topic, I am perfectly willing to wear the crown of head A$$hole. If you want to join a small group for a day out shooting, I think we can have a good conversation on this and other firearms related topics. On the Internet however, with people I don't know, there are way too many keyboard warriors, with the "let them try", and "cold dead hand" comments, for me to waste my time trying to tone down.
Yeah I could be nicer on the net but, paraphrasing the line from Roadhouse, be nice, be nice, be nice, right up until the time not to be nice. We are about to lose our state firearm rights. We've already lost our consistent number 1 position of firearms friendly states. I'd rather not lose, but if we do, I'm not willing to sit around and wonder what happened.
It's time not to be nice.
Creeker said:
Do you even read the crap you post?
Article one significant points:
“Since 1970s possessing a firearm increases likelihood of voting republican increased by 50%”
A 50% increase from 2 voters = 3 voters. They give no number or even estimates, of percentage of gun owners who vote at all much less how many are "likely" to swing republican. Meaningless
Article Two significant points:
“There’s a much larger probability between a person who owns one gun and another who owns 10 of voting for a Republican”
In English real gun folks will likely vote republican. FUDDS, who knows how they will vote? But once again, no numbers no percentages. Meaningless
“is that owners are more likely to vote in general than non-owners.”
“Currently, nearly 40% of households contain some type of firearm, “
“With all these factors in play, the author is surprised this hasn’t become a bigger issue during the election.” Meaningful
He is no more surprised than me. He should get an account on this site, perhaps read your posts. It might answer his questions.
Creeker said:
Article Three: A Fox New article with a headline:
“Surprising': Gun ownership on the rise among liberals according to a new report”
Referring back to your Article two, this refutes whatever point you tried to make with this.
“Obviously, if someone is a Democrat who bought a gun in March, they’re not going to run out and immediately vote for Trump or any other Republican. But my book does suggest future elections might be affected by this national increase in gun owners,”
He just defined liberal FUDDS and says they won’t change their vote.
Finally:
Who would expect Trump to respond to correspondence likely printed in crayon, based on your other posts on this topic.
NO SOUP FOR YOU
As far as my number 65% v 70% it was from my recollection, giving the benefit of the doubt let’s say it is only 65% of gun owners that don’t vote, do you feel less offended now Bunky?
kenpoprofessor
Member
YNOTAZ said:
You realize, rational, logical discussion is not available for the user mentioned. There's really no point trying to educate them.
Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day
Clyde
kenpoprofessor said:
If one of the people with the 674 views, gets up off their A$$, joins AZCDL, starts writing letters, starts using Arizona RTS, votes for pro-gun politicians, basically comes out of the "it will never happen here" coma, it's worth it.
Similar threads
