Codrea bails from JPFO over Vanderboegh blackout.
Over the weekend, I submitted my resignation as a content contributor to and adviser for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Here’s why:
Last week, I submitted my article on Mike Vanderboegh’s BamaCarry speech to KeepAndBearArms.com Newslinks, another website SAF bought. It never appeared.
It’s no secret there is hostility between Mike and Alan Gottlieb. And Mike was apparently told by some readers that Alan has forbidden articles by or about him to appear on any properties he controls.
Alan confirmed that was the reason for the piece being banned.
Though strongly disagreeing with some things he has done, I had no very strong opinion about Alan Gottlieb prior to the JPFO takeover. Since then I have been forced to educate myself. It’s the sort of matter I really hate, because factions and feuds are the very worst thing that could happen to the gun rights movement. Mike Vanderboegh very much does not share my reluctance, which is his right, but I haven’t been on board with all his antics either. I’ve spent years steering clear of the Threeper thing.
When Claire declared war over the JPFO takeover, I was forced to get off the pot. So was Codrea, who chose a different path – one of which he now seems to have repented. Codrea has apparently been in a difficult position for months, being closely associated with both Vanderboegh and JPFO. Came the need to make a choice, and he stood up and made one. That takes a lot of character.
Glad to see this, myself. But do you think that any group of people, much less a very large and diverse group of people such as gun owners, can ever actually act or speak as one? That’s never going to happen among human beings, on any subject. So no, the factions and feuds are not the worst thing that could happen. I’d say the worst would be if one faction or another managed to take control of the narrative and imposed their version on everyone else.
The real problem is aggression, lack of integrity by those who want to grab control – on any side of the issues – and the false belief that anyone has any legitimate authority over others.
I abandoned SAF and CCRKBA many, many years ago when it became obvious to me that Gottlieb was just in it for the money.
ML, there’s a difference between ‘acting and speaking as one,’ a clear impossibility, and resisting the urge to go for one another’s throats over internal heresies. Which, alas, is probably also impossible given that some people – not mentioning any names, because I wouldn’t want to offend Alan Gottlieb – seem determined to do exactly what you said. Which really shouldn’t be collaborated with.
Short of that, though, I’m all about tolerance of diversity. Or even subversity, like those Texas Open Carry morons. Splitters!
Of course there’s a difference, Joel, and I know you don’t expect everyone to be the same. I guess it depends a lot on what you call “going for another’s throat” or even “heresies.” Seems to me that the control issue is exactly the core of much of the argument and anger. Control tends to be exclusionary, only room for one at the top, and so they fight endlessly over that prize. My objection to Gottleib is the fact that he collaborates with the controllers, and is obviously a controller himself.
Why would anyone consider the Texas Open Carry folks to be “morons” except that they fear an adverse influence on those who are in control, or might come to be in control? Why would how someone else carries make any difference to anyone otherwise?
What if people simply got tired of being controlled, got over the belief in “authority,” and told the Obamas and Gottleibs of the world to go pound sand? 🙂 That’s where it’s got to go.
I’m just bummed. Not that this is a surprise–it felt like this was inevitable–but somehow I’ve got no desire to participate in any sort of chorus, either. (And I do hope MBV has enough sense to let it speak for itself.)
That said, I’ll allow myself one truly snarky comment, and then leave it.
When do we find out that Igor is DC’s replacement?
[Why would anyone consider the Texas Open Carry folks to be “morons” except that they fear an adverse influence on those who are in control, or might come to be in control?]
If the “people in control” (everyone from the Legislature to restaurant owners) are already pro-gun, and OCT persists in “confronting” them, forces them to make decisions Moms can exploit, and then OCT denounces them as “traitors,” that’s stupid. Refusing to learn from the experience is even worse.
OCT doesn’t know how to effectively work for gun rights in Texas, and they aren’t willing to learn.
I sort of regard the whole open carry thing the way I did when a certain female relative of mine would wax nostalgic for the 60s, get fucked up and go jogging down our street naked.
Amusing, in a “that’s make ’em shit their pants” kinda way, but ultimately I was the one who had to go bail her out.
It was costly and unfortunately the whole family got falsely judged by the one loon.
There’s making a point by direct action, and there’s being subtle. As I get older, I see subtlety has many advantages.