View Full Version : I'm Dissappointed in the NRA
I joined the NRA about a month and a half ago hoping they could use my money to help keep our gun rights. Now I'm wondering how much of that money is actually being used for anything useful. I got a multi-tool thing just for signing up, something I didn't really want and will probably sit in the junk drawer until I move. I receive an email about every 2 days about something, I'm not sure because I just delete them. Maybe I can get taken off the email list but I haven't looked yet. 3 weeks after i joined, I got a letter to renew my membership. I wouldn't expect something like that for 10-11 months. I'd rather not be bothered at all - email, phone, snail-mail, etc. I was going to sign up my lady but as of right now, I don't think I will and I don't think I'll renew in a year either. It seems like they're just wasting my money on worthless trinkets and postage.
Any thoughts?
I'm a life member of the NRA. While I don't totally agree with them, they are the largest organization.
I keep thinking about joining the Gun Owners of America, they fit my thoughts far better.
PhL0aTeR
05-29-2008, 12:54
perhaps theres another way you could support the big picture without joining the commercial/consumer side of the NRA.... I'm sure if you contacted them for a cash donation you would be transferred to the appropriate area.
That's a swell idea that I never would've thought of.
I'll also look into Gun Owners of America while I'm at it.
John Moses Browning
05-29-2008, 16:23
I signed up with the NRA once upon a time. . Well, I received stacks upon stacks of junk mail from them, along with the worthless trinkets. The real kicker though? After I received the trinkets, they'd send a following letter asking me to return it if I didn't want it! A big Whiskey Tango Foxtrot right there!
pickenup
05-29-2008, 17:44
Sure, give the NRA MORE money, so they can help WRITE MORE ANTI-GUN laws, like they have done for YEARS.
No thanks. I go with PRO-GUN groups, like GOA, JPFO, SAF, RMGO, etc.
You will join RMGO You will join RMGO You will joim RMGO You will join RMGO RMGO You will join RMGO You will join RMGO You will join RMGO You will join RMGO You will join RMGO You will join RMGO You will join You will join RMGO RMYou will join RMGOYou wYou will join RMGO ill join RMGO GO NOW
Is RMGO still going strong? I noticed parts of their site aren't updated very frequently. I have a nifty RMGO sticker, and i would have no problem sending them $25 bucks if i knew they were still very active and won't use to it to print more stickers.
I've donated to the NRA in the past, never joined though.
Dudley stays on top of it
Dudley stays on top of it
I just like to know my money is actually being used to protect my rights. I'll throw them some money since i just got paid :D
I have to be a member, the local indoor range requires it, because that is where they get their insurance. and the nra makes everyone who is a member belong to them, or I would put my money to a group more in line with my thinking.
Dudley stays on top of it
+1 Dudley is on the ball!
RMGO, GOA, JPFO is the way to go. The NRA is ridiculous.
Take the postage paid envelope from their junk mail and glue or tape it to a box, fill the box with assorted goods (bricks work) and drop it in the mail.
A credit card company got their very own piece of the rocky mountains from me after they kept sending me credit card apps that were pre approved and then they'd deny me. Hope they like the 15lb granite rock.
It's not that difficult to get the NRA to quit sending all that crap. I told them last time I reupped that I didn't want the magazine, the free gift, or the endless junk mail. I still get renewal notices every month or so, but nothing else from them.
Gotta be a member for the club
Just donated $25 to RMGO. I know it isn't much, bit if it helps spread the word than that's all that matters.
I'll try and remember to donate every few months for the cause.
SigsRule
05-30-2008, 17:52
Join all of them. It's all about numbers when it comes to influence. I'm a NRA life member and a CSSA life member (on the payment plan). I also contribute to the Golden Eagles, the ILA, and a number of other organizations.
Membership dues barely pay for the magazine and overhead. If you want to be sure your money goes to helping protect guns then contribute separately to groups that are primarily doing that.
However, bottom line, even if only a quarter of your dues goes to political activism that's more than nothing if you don't join.
So don't join if you don't like the numbers, but put your money somewhere else it will do some good.
-Wolverine-
05-30-2008, 23:34
You know, every right is restricted to some extent.
I don't see why people are like "OMG, the NRA wants background checks!!!1111 thats an infrgingmentz!!1111".
The NRA spends way to much energy trying to be PC, instead of standing strong and not caving to compromise. Background checks are totally stupid and worthless. If somebody wants a gun, they can get one alot of other places besides a gun shop. If someone really wants a firearm and they get rejected by background check, do they stop there? No they go buy stolen gun from "joe" on the corner. So no access is restricted there. Even if they pass a background check there is no assurance. The VT shooter passed a background check if I recall, so what good did it do??? Absolutely none.
The NRA has done more than any other group to get 'shall issue' concealed carry in most states. They also are strong advocates for 'castle doctrine' in the states so people wouldn't have some stupid requirement to flee when confronted in their own homes. They're also working toward national CCW and have been strong advocates of CCW in national parks.
If you want to find something the NRA didn't do to your satisfaction, you can. They're still doing a lot more positive than the negatives you may find. It's counter-productive to be fighting the NRA who is doing more for us than those in government that are actively working to disarm us and force us into submission, IMHO.
If you're surprised by all of the mail you get from the NRA looking for more contributions, I'm guessing you've never contributed to political campaign funds in an effort to get someone that represents your ideas into elected office. It's amazing how much mail you can get for a $10 donation you made 4 years ago.;)
If you believe the NRA was complicit in disarming veterans, or actively working with the Brady Bunch, you've been drinking the GOA Kool-Aid and have never actually read the bill. Over at NRAwol, I even read one headline that stated that Ted Nugent was contradicting the NRA on HR 2640. If HR 2640 actually was such a problem for him, he should have resigned from the NRA board. If you click on their link to read his full comments, they take you over to nationalgunrights.org and have another emotional commentary with a link to the full statement at tednugent.com. Over at the Nudge's website you can't find a single thing about 2640 there. I did a Google search and "nationalgunrights.org" seems to be the only source of that accusation.
I see Horasio Miller in Pennsylvania being raised up as a poster child for what can happen to you with HR 2640. When you look into that further, he was adjudicated under his states current laws, without 2640 having even been passed at the time. When I look into many of these organizations that are railing against the NRA, they seem to be a lot more suspect than the NRA. It makes one wonder what their motivations are.
Please avoid regurgitating someone else's emotional "analysis". Use the resources available to you to form your own opinion instead of borrowing one.
Your medical records cannot be used and there has to have been an adjudication of mental illness. These same provisions apply today and make you ineligible to buy a firearm in your state (the Feds aren't expanding the reasons you can be denied firearm ownership). They are expanding notification of that status to the NICS so you can't buy a firearm in another state. If you are no longer on active treatment or have been rehabilitated, your right to own firearms is reinstated. There is also relief where you can appeal the NICS data and if the state can't back it up, it is deemed to have been a denial without cause and the data is removed from NICS.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:5:./temp/~c110cP4bqs::
(c) Standard for Adjudications and Commitments Related to Mental Health-
(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--
(A) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;
(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or
(C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
(2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATIONS AND COMMITMENTS-
(A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES-
(i) IN GENERAL- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, shall establish, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections.
(ii) PROCESS- Each application for relief submitted under the program required by this subparagraph shall be processed not later than 365 days after the receipt of the application. If a Federal department or agency fails to resolve an application for relief within 365 days for any reason, including a lack of appropriated funds, the department or agency shall be deemed for all purposes to have denied such request for relief without cause. Judicial review of any petitions brought under this clause shall be de novo.
(iii) JUDICIAL REVIEW- Relief and judicial review with respect to the program required by this subparagraph shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code. If the denial of a petition for relief has been reversed after such judicial review, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee for any and all proceedings in relation to attaining such relief, and the United States shall be liable for such fee. Such fee shall be based upon the prevailing rates awarded to public interest legal aid organizations in the relevant community.
(B) RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- In the case of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or a commitment of a person to a mental institution, a record of which may not be provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1), including because of the absence of a finding described in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, or from which a person has been granted relief under a program established under subparagraph (A) or (B), or because of a removal of a record under section 103(e)(1)(D) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the adjudication or commitment, respectively, shall be deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code. Any Federal agency that grants a person relief from disabilities under this subparagraph shall notify such person that the person is no longer prohibited under 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, on account of the relieved disability for which relief was granted pursuant to a proceeding conducted under this subparagraph, with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms.
(3) NOTICE REQUIREMENT- Effective 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, any Federal department or agency that conducts proceedings to adjudicate a person as a mental defective under 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, shall provide both oral and written notice to the individual at the commencement of the adjudication process including--
(A) notice that should the agency adjudicate the person as a mental defective, or should the person be committed to a mental institution, such adjudication, when final, or such commitment, will prohibit the individual from purchasing, possessing, receiving, shipping or transporting a firearm or ammunition under section 922(d)(4) or section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code;
(B) information about the penalties imposed for unlawful possession, receipt, shipment or transportation of a firearm under section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code; and
(C) information about the availability of relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- Except for paragraph (3), this subsection shall apply to names and other information provided before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act. Any name or information provided in violation of this subsection (other than in violation of paragraph (3)) before, on, or after such date shall be removed from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
I guess some is better than none? That's what has gotten us the likes of the Clinton's and the Bush family.
I will not continue to support lesser than two evils. I will attempt to sell my vote on Ebay to make a statement. Any bids?
You're going to have to move to ssf467ville to avoid having to make choices that are less than perfect in your eyes.
You sell your vote on e-Bay to make a statement. I'm a member of the NRA to make a statement. I wonder which one gets more attention.
You're going to have to move to ssf467ville to avoid having to make choices that are less than perfect in your eyes.
[ROFL2]
That's the truth of it right there. Ain't no such thing as a perfect world, a perfect candidate, a perfect anything.
If we had an extremely conservative Republican on the ticket, imagine how many people think that's imperfect...
It's a slow bleed, Hey if Compromising all the time is okay with you, drive on. Please any "Veterans" read on.
As a Veteran who has fought in the Armed Forces this represents a slap in the face.
Can you really say the founders of this Country wanted such a huge centralized power?
Veteran’s group’s oppose H.R. 2640
The American Legion and the Military Order of the Purple Heart have joined National Association for Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America and dozens and dozens of state and local gun rights groups in opposition to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s massive expansion of the Brady Registration Act, H.R. 2640.
Opposition to H.R. 2640 continues to grow, thanks exclusively to the grassroots activism of gun owners -- like you and me-- across the country. All of the establishment, and notably the institutional gun lobby – that’s the NRA and their Gucci-loafered lobbyists – are supporting H.R. 2640, the McCarthy/Leahy Gun Control Bill.
The NRA continues to make excuses; using legislative and legal doublespeak to mislead their members about this bill.
Make no mistake; H.R. 2640 is a massive expansion of the unconstitutional Brady Registration Act. This gun control legislation gives unprecedented new powers to the federal government’s NICS system to open up supposedly private mental health records to government scrutiny. This bill aims to criminalize our nation’s combat veterans and anyone who’s sought help for depression or other mental concerns normally associated with combat. They are working hard to give the Federal Government – and their uncontrollable beast, the BATFE-- the tools they need to persecute and prosecute gun owners.
Welcome to the future, keep compromising and we'll all be talking about the good old days of firearm ownership.
Look at the DV law. Retroactive law? Who would have thunk it. Misdemeanor conviction and no gun.
Enjoy the slippery slope.
AP: Montrose Colorado
Prarie Dog's in local area have thrown their support to the NRA and Sen. B. Obama.
A Spokesdog for one of the larger colonies stated, We (prairie dogs) see a peaceful nonviolent future of hope and change; firearms will soon be a thing of the past. Our children and women will be able to bask in the sun without fear!"
The Spokesdog also went on to elaborate of the colonies plan of global domination without the threat of "crazy armed rednecks keeping their population in check"
Prarie Dogs all over the Western United States are convinced that the genocide of their species will be a thing of the past . This reporter did see the gleam of hope in their beady little eyes.
Local resident Redneck, Buford Lee Williams was upset at the thought of Prarie Dog Over Lords and vowed to fight to the end with a pitch fork if he had to.
Make no mistake; H.R. 2640 is a massive expansion of the unconstitutional Brady Registration Act. This gun control legislation gives unprecedented new powers to the federal government’s NICS system to open up supposedly private mental health records to government scrutiny. This bill aims to criminalize our nation’s combat veterans and anyone who’s sought help for depression or other mental concerns normally associated with combat. They are working hard to give the Federal Government – and their uncontrollable beast, the BATFE-- the tools they need to persecute and prosecute gun owners.This is absolutely false. The only way I can see someone promoting such BS is that they still refuse to read for themselves what is in H.R. 2640. Stop cutting and pasting and start reading. The link is on page 2.
It's a slippery slope when people let others form their opinions.
So the NRA supports a GUN CONTROL messure and that's okay
Nope. On both counts.
http://www.nraila.org/heller/
I've read Dudley's allegations. They've been involved in gun control legislation. Yep, trying to limit the damage. The Brady Bill was going to make people wait, and if there was no approval, not be granted the ability to purchase. The NRA's involvement gives you the ability to get an instant check, and if you happen to live somewhere where that isn't good enough, a non-response will still grant approval due to inactivity by the government. The burden is on them.
As to Wayne LaPerriere being paid $900K? Prove it. The most I could find is that he made $726,245. That puts him below AARP, The Shriners, The American Red Cross, American Cancer Society, Boy Scouts of America, United Way of America, American Heart Association, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, American Diabetes Association, The National Park Foundation, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, The Wildlife Conversation Society, and others. Seems like sour grapes from the folks bitching about it. http://www.charitywatch.org/Top25.html
If you think that the historical involvement by the NRA has made things worse rather than better, you're kidding yourself. If you think that putting your efforts into tearing down the NRA will help gun owners, you're deluded. If you think they aren't successfully defeating the efforts of the anti-gunners, just read some of what the antis are bitching about when it comes to the NRA. Are those that are unhappy with the NRA even familiar with the The Joyce Foundation and the millions that they're using to do battle against our RKBA?
The Brady Bunch must be creaming in their shorts seeing the pro-gun community tearing each other apart. They can just sit back and reap the benefits.
pickenup
05-31-2008, 15:59
Please avoid regurgitating someone else's emotional "analysis". Use the resources available to you to form your own opinion instead of borrowing one.
I COMPLETELY agree with Gman on this statement.
I have heard it said, many times in the past, so I did.
I didn’t believe what I was hearing, maybe I just didn’t WANT to believe.
So I used the resources available to me, and the following is what I came up with.
(Due to the 15,000 character limitations of this forum, the following thread has been broken into two separate posts)
pickenup
05-31-2008, 16:00
First
Do not confuse the NRA-ILA…..the subject of this post……
((National Rifle Association, Institute of Legislative Action))
With the “Friends of the NRA” which does a TON of good.
“All net proceeds (from the Friends of the NRA) benefit The NRA Foundation, with half allocated to fund projects within the state where the money was raised. The NRA Foundation uses the other half to fund similar projects with a national scope.”
The following is posted for informational purposes only.
So often, you hear someone say, “Do a little research, then make up your own mind”
Well, I am ALL FOR letting people make up their own mind.
But to be fair, one does need to see BOTH sides.
Second,
I am an NRA member (so far) and a gun owner. I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment,
AS IT WAS WRITTEN.
What part of….
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
The right to keep and BEAR arms….
is hard to understand???
Third,
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Or are some so “afraid” of the “WHOLE” truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?
It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative about the NRA. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the “other side” than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional, and NEEDS to have members WORKING TO CHANGE which laws they support. Ya, lets KILL the messenger.
Fourth,
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win “some” if they didn’t, that 3-4 million membership number would fade rather quickly. We have had almost 2 terms of a republican president. How many gun laws has the NRA even TRIED to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a “Vermont/Alaska style” CCW law in? You can not say it is impossible, Alaska just passed such a law, a few years ago.
The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT (to bear arms) into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE (CCW) with the government making the decision on who is, and who is not, PERMITTED to bear arms.
(once the - fee - is paid, of course)
Many pro-gun people commend the NRA for this.
Others see it for what it REALLY is.
The second amendment states. “The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms” It doesn’t say “to keep and display arms” or “to keep and hide arms” or “to keep and lock up your arms” or “to keep and use arms” it says “to keep and BEAR arms” Look it up in the dictionary. To “bear something” means to CARRY it. Any attempt at “interpreting” the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.
I for one, will NO LONGER put the NRA on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It’s YOUR rights as well, shouldn’t you be watching TOO?
*****
Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the “compromise” in this?
*****
This next part is for that lame argument heard ALL THE TIME;
“If you don’t like it, change it, or start your own organization.”
The “idea” of changing from within, or starting your own group, is nothing new. The following BOARD MEMBERS spent YEARS trying for change from within, and for various reasons, they COULD NOT! They left the NRA to start their own PRO-gun organizations. But then, sadly, they will be labeled as fanatics as well…..by some.
Now, a few lowly PEON members are expected to be able to walk in off the street, and in no time, effect change? Do we even have the time left, to re-invent the wheel?
Lets start with H. L. Richardson. He was a board member of the NRA for 10 years. Did he see a problem with their policies? When he found he could NOT change it from within, he left and started the Gun Owners Of America. (GOA) What is now (arguably) the largest REAL PRO-gun rights activist organization in the country. Which is also known by MOST as the “NO COMPROMISE” gun lobby. What have they done? Looks it up yourself, it might surprise you.
Then we can turn out attention to Neal Knox, a career gun rights activist. A board member, as well as serving four years for the NRA, as the Executive Director of the Institute For Legislative Action. Which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. He too must have had a problem with the policies of the NRA, found it impossible to change from within, as he went on to found the Firearms Coalition. Another well known “NO COMPROMISE” PRO-GUN organization.
When Neal Knox was on the board, there was a vote to see if Executive Vice President (LaPierre) should be suspended or removed from office. It was supported by a solid 39-30 majority, but short of the two-thirds which was required for passage. At that time, what the Board majority didn't know, was that the previous week LaPierre and his supporters had secretly ordered the placement of a full page ad in the ballot issue of the NRA magazines-six weeks after the published deadline for election ads. Political subterfuge at it’s best. Give the members ONLY the information you WANT them to have. The ad worked. five of the nine were defeated, tipping the balance of power on the Board back into LaPierre‘s favor.
Nancyann Rutledge, who was the President of the Santa Barbara NRA Members Council, later to become the Citizens Gun Rights Alliance. What happened to her? After refusing to support the NRA’s gun control positions, and anti-gun candidates, she was decertified by the NRA.
Dave Edmondson, a 2-term NRA Director. Another in a long line of past Directors, board members, etc. which are vocal critics of the NRA's leadership and direction. Dave went on to be founder of the “State Association Coordinating Committee.”
Neil Smith, a life member of the NRA, is an outspoken gun rights activist who is NOT happy with the NRA. He is founder of International Coordinator of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus.
A few other facts.
Lets talk about Clarence Lovell, an ex-member of the NRA Board of Directors for 14 years. He left because, “he could no longer stomach the falsity of those heading the NRA.”
Albert Ross, former NRA Directors, and second Vice President. Who is now Texas State Rifle Association Director, strongly CONDEMNS the NRA’s very own program, Project Exile. Sighting Project Exile as laws that are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment.
Other Board Directors, board members, life members, endowment members, etc that condemned the NRA for Project Exile. Former Chairman, NRA High-power Committee, David Gross, Larry R. Rankin, Arthur Nichols, H.S. "Gunnie" Reagan, Chris BeHanna, Robert T Fanning, Jr., Don Loucks, Jim Ramm, Anthony Brian, Jack H. Stuart, Arnold Gaunt, Clarence Lovell, Richard L. Carone, and more.
Some of the comments C. Russell Howard made when he resigned from the NRA board.
“The unholy alliance of NRA leaders, vendors, and Republican elements is the reason why NRA is declining in stature.
(Addressing LaPierre)
Compared to Mr. Knox's influence, you run the Board like a concentration camp commandant
The struggle for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is at the core of a fundamental struggle for freedom……..In any conflict, if those on the front lines cannot trust and rely on the honor of their comrades, the cause is doomed. While there are many good and honorable people on the Board with various stands on the current power struggle, there are some who cannot be trusted and are without honor.”
*****
Lets take just a moment to talk about the financial side of things. NO ONE is arguing that any origination NEEDS funding.
The NRA saw this, and long ago entrenched themselves into gun ranges. The range needs insurance, the NRA provides it, the range REQUIRES membership in the NRA to be a member of the range. MANY can relate to this. A number of ranges have done some research, in the last few years, and there ARE other insurance programs available. LESS COSTLY than the NRA. Imagine that.
The next financial topic…certification to be an NRA instructor.
Why do certified instructors have to be RE-certified EVERY YEAR?
Did the three rules of gun safety change?
Exactly what DID change to require a re-certification YEARLY??
Oh wait, you have to PAY the NRA……again, and again, AND AGAIN.
And for every discipline. Pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc.
The more disciplines, the more you pay.
Now lets look again at the CCW laws, supported by the NRA.
Oh surprise, many states require a NRA CERTIFIED firearms instructor, to give the REQUIRED classes, to get your government sponsored PERMIT.
With a yearly salary of $895,897 in 2004 we won’t even mention that LaPierre probably has gone over a one MILLION $$$$ salary today. The president of the United States only gets $400,000.
(OK, LaPierre’s salary (for today) is speculation, why are there no financial records available since 2004?)
Has anyone received a renewal form from the NRA 8-10 MONTHS before it is due?
That just irks me, that’s all.
Some say, concerning the NRA, it’s ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
*****
Now lets talk about what HARM can they do / have they done?
Let us first consider the “Uniform Machinegun Act of 1932” which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds adopted the “National Firearms Act” in 1934.
The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the “National Firearms Act of 1934 was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby “starting” an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements. Not so, the NRA was first in 1932.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The NRA supported legislation to amend the “Federal Firearms Act” in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
*****
“Project EXILE” IS the NRA’s very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws.
Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL???
OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
*****
Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.”
All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Making schools a “gun free zone” where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???
*****
LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
*****
First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT’S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out PRO-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.
pickenup
05-31-2008, 16:00
It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.
Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. The NRA started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.
Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.
Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.
From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT‘S OUR BILL in five years.
*****
Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. The “Parker v. District of Columbia” case. First by trying to have the case consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, which would have drug this case out for YEARS. When that failed, the NRA got behind, and was pushing for the “DC Personal Protection Act” bill, which would, in effect, remove the law that the “Parker v. District of Columbia” case was based upon. Thereby preventing the “Parker v. District of Columbia” case from going before the supreme court.
Why would they try to derail a case that ultimately DID overturned a gun ban, and potentially will settle the long disputed “individual right v. the right of the militia” to keep and bear arms? Because they said it was “too good” and might actually make it before the supreme court? Which it HAS. A supreme court (considering the make up of it at present) where we have the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?
And when was the NRA fighting for our rights in this way? Oh ya…..2007.
*****
Lets look at ANOTHER bill backed by the NRA. H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act” Later to be designated “The Veterans Disarmament Act” To see the first red flags thrown up, one need only look at who is sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Carolyn McCarthy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and the Brady bunch.
There were MANY veterans organizations, along with NRA members that were against this bill. When they questioned the NRA as to why they were supporting it, the answer was………..well, they didn’t get an answer. Silence was all they received.
Nevermind the far reaching implications (which may take YEARS, for them all to surface) the potential of opening a Pandora’s box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has “potentially” ANY kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc).
Right or Wrong, the UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.
Oh, and this again IS happening in …..2007.
*****
Lets not forget the NRA BOARD MEMBER (Joaquin Jackson) who “indicated” that “assault rifles” should only be in the hands of the military and/or law enforcement. But since they ARE legal for civilians to own, then civilians should be limited to 5 round magazines.
(quote)I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you… if you… it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five…(/quote)
*****
While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, “In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment.”
In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an “A” rating from the NRA. Why an “A” rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.
CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an “F”. Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills
TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.
Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA’s Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?
In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.
In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.
In Virginia in 1996, extreme “F” rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced “A” rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS…..NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???
In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ·
In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.
In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a “B” because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.
*******
John Dingell?
The NRA’s Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 “Assault” weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA’s Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term "jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?
NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, “Our Lady of Peace Act” Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don’t know what it is/was? Look it up.
Can’t forget the “help” we got from the NRA. In the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.” Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer.
The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its “Defender of Freedom” Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of “freedom” apparently thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA’s “Defender of Freedom” in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time
Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!
In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?
From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun “accomplishments” of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and “milita-esque” organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.
The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.
*****
Admittedly, some of this information is “historical” in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. (as in 2007) Does this information show a distinct pattern? An agenda? If so, it’s one that I’m not happy with at all.
Is this the kind of “representation” that YOU want/expect? There are more anti 2nd amendment bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn’t open your eyes, nothing will.
Why is it, that some NRA supporters will not accept the truth (even when presented with facts) about how the NRA has been selling our gun rights down the river for a VERY long time. This post is not for the ardent followers of the NRA. The ones that will NEVER change. It is for those looking for an education.
I believe that everyone would agree, that the NRA is recognized as the 800 lb. Gorilla, in the fight for our gun rights. This is the very same organization that the NRA supporters have been paying money to for YEARS. Paying big bucks to be a “Life Member” Signing up their children/grand-children, almost as soon as they are born. Everyone KNOWS who the NRA is.
They are relying on the NRA to be supportive in the fight for our gun rights. They consider the NRA to be the last bastion of hope. If they find that the NRA is NOT actually on our side, then is there really…any hope? No wonder some refuse to see.
-Wolverine-
06-01-2008, 15:15
The NRA spends way to much energy trying to be PC, instead of standing strong and not caving to compromise. Background checks are totally stupid and worthless. If somebody wants a gun, they can get one alot of other places besides a gun shop. If someone really wants a firearm and they get rejected by background check, do they stop there? No they go buy stolen gun from "joe" on the corner. So no access is restricted there. Even if they pass a background check there is no assurance. The VT shooter passed a background check if I recall, so what good did it do??? Absolutely none.
They get them from illegal sources. Background checks are the one and only effective means of preventing the wrong people from purchasing guns legally.
The VT Tech shooter passed the NICS check because prior to the VT Tech shooting the NICS checks did not include voluntary admittances into the loony bin as a valid reason for the denial of the firearm transfer. Now it does. The NRA supported that, which is a good thing.
I doubt you will find any group who as done as much for gun owners as the NRA. They compromise because they need to, they can atleast water down legislation that will pass.
Thats something the no compromise groups won;t do. They would much rather have a bill that restricts the 2nd Amendment to a greater degree than a watered down version that was a compromise.
I also doubt anyone will find any other right in the Bill of Rights that has not been restricted. I don't see why the 2nd should be free from some restrictions.
Must I remind some of you.. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND IN LESSER COURTS OR SYSTEMS.I agree with that belief, but it's already happened.
The government that we've ended up with isn't what the Founders envisioned. Now what are you going to do? Blame the NRA for the way things have gone? That's productive. We can't get politicians and the courts to agree what "marriage" is. They expand "Interstate Commerce" to cover just about everything. Why haven't these other organizations that are taking contributions for membership solved the problems? Does GOA want to grow the size of their organization?
By your reasoning, The American Heart Association doesn't want to solve problems with Heart Disease. The American Diabetes Foundation doesn't want to solve problems with Diabetes. The American Cancer Society wants more cancer so that they have a reason to increase their membership and continue to exist.
Are you under the impression that just anyone can bring a case to SCOTUS and have it heard? Do you think that the press would work with the NRA to advance our cause?
Why do I care? Yeah, screw the NRA! Those rat bastards! They're worse than Chuck Schumer, Mayor Bloomberg, and Ted Kennedy!
Damn. Being emotional didn't make me feel better or solve anything.
The Brady Bill was signed into law in 1993 and required a 5 day waiting period. The NICS was brought about in 1998 and made the states using it exempt from the 5 day wait. I fail to see where the NRA was working against us. If you feel they should have taken an 'all or nothing' approach, then you would have gotten nothing. You can cry "foul" from the sidelines or you can get in the game and try to influence the ultimate outcome.
You blame them for not changing the law or getting it overturned in court. Maybe they don't have full control of the processes at work here?
A citizen that feels he's been wronged can bring a case to court. The NRA can then try to help that individual with a "Friend of the Court" brief that tries to help support the individuals argument detailing prior case law (like this - http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=114). An individual must exhaust all appeals to eventually end up before SCOTUS. SCOTUS then decides whether or not they want to hear it. The NRA can't simply petition SCOTUS to rule on a definition of the 2nd Amendment. Even with Heller, SCOTUS asserts that some "reasonable" restrictions are OK, as is the case with the 1st Amendment. The current makeup of the court isn't throwing out everything that can be determined to be an 'infringement'.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=294&issue=010
U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who was granted 15 minutes to give the federal government’s view of the case, explored this point. He began by declaring that the Justice Department’s position is that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. He further argued that the case should be sent back to the lower courts with a new standard of review, one of “intermediate scrutiny.” This is an important legal point, because the standard of review will essentially determine how high a bar the government has to clear in order to justify a regulation restricting the right. “Strict scrutiny” is the most protective and is accorded to rights the court deems “fundamental.” The First Amendment, for example, has this protection. This is why the NRA’s friend-of-the-court brief argued for strict scrutiny.
Justice Ginsburg asked if a strict scrutiny standard would make many of the firearm regulations already on the books unconstitutional. Clement answered that strict scrutiny could imperil some laws, but “intermediate scrutiny” would not. Chief Justice Roberts then said, “I’m not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply to the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as a sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up.”
As to the NRA blocking the move of Parker to SCOTUS, you need to get your timeline correct;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-17-103053392_x.htm
In fact, the National Rifle Association tried to block the case, fearing that the makeup of the Supreme Court at the time could lead to more restrictions on guns, not fewer, if the court ruled on the case, Levy said. But the high court has since shifted to the right with appointments by President Bush, and Levy said he and the NRA have made peace.
The NRA doesn't write legislation. Congress does. They can try to influence the legislators elected to office, but they don't control the game. Sometimes they have an audience that is more willing to cooperate than others. They don't get to choose. The NRA is a group of individuals. That's why we are kept informed of what's going on in Congress and asked to contact our representatives. GOA does the same thing. They don't just apply leverage on their own without our participation.
Congress was advancing 2 bills to strike down the DC handgun ban. There was no guarantee at the time that SCOTUS would hear the case. Would you have preferred that the NRA tried to work against the legislation?
You can direct your anger at the NRA if it makes you feel better. There are a lot more targets more worthy, IMHO. It would be nice if the 2nd Amendment advocacy groups worked together instead of fighting one another.
I also see the NRA as being billed something they are not. If you think their primary goal is supposed to be defense of the 2nd Amendment, perhaps you should re-read why the NRA was formed;
http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx
Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.
One of the arguments made in the Heller v. DC case in SCOTUS directly reflects that goal;
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=294&issue=010
When Gura summed up his position by saying that the District of Columbia “simply doesn’t trust the people to defend themselves in their homes,” Justice Stephen Breyer asked Gura, “In light of [the number of people killed by firearms every year] why isn’t a ban on handguns, while allowing the use of rifles and muskets [sic], a reasonable or a proportionate response on behalf of the District of Columbia?”
Gura responded that “the handgun ban serves to weaken America’s military preparedness.” Keeping an armed populace that is proficient with firearms is certainly in keeping with what the founding fathers intended and, in fact, is the reason the NRA was formed after the U.S. Civil War.
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”
They get them from illegal sources. Background checks are the one and only effective means of preventing the wrong people from purchasing guns legally.
Exactly they get them from ILLEGAL sources. Not from the mom and pop gunstore down the road. Background checks are a waste of time.(See example below) Legal guns are expensive. I know a few guys back in the day who thought they were getting a steel on a $100 Beretta, or Glock. I wonder why it's that cheap? Its probably hotter than shit!! So the criminal gets it from the cheapest place without any paperwork. Meanwhile the law abiding folks have wait for the background check etc. Have you ever had to wait for a check on gunshow days?? Its ridiculous. I talked to the owners of a high traffic gun shop, they only remembered one time a person tried to buy a gun and the police came and picked them up. Other than that the only people that got denied for were for identity mixups. I personally witnessed in the past 3 months 1 current LEO get denied for mistaken idenity, and 2 active duty military personnel with the same problem.
As for background checks, who really need's a background check is our politicians, and probably a mental health examination while were at it. All the stupid and crazy shit they try and do enact into laws. For example the discrimenation bill that Ritter just signed. WTF!!! This lets either sex have legal right to go into either sex's restroom in a public area. Great now some f***ing pedophile can peek in on your daughter and wife while they use the facility, and its legal for them to be in there! http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9419103 (http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9419103)
The NRA's non political involvment and programs seem to be great. If only they would keep out of politics. Why do so many of there A rated politicians find themselves across the wall from us on firearms legislation?? Also one of my final straws with them was I emailed them multiple times asking whether or not they supported a certain piece of legislation or not. Well it is something like 16 months later and still no response. I find that unacceptable.
-Wolverine-
06-03-2008, 23:13
So because criminals find the guns on the street, illegally, we should simply forgo background checks and allow them to purchase firearms legally?
Thats just asinine.
"Well, we can't stop child porn. Might as well make it legal."
"Well, we can't stop murder, might as well make it legal."
Criminals are going to have firearms no matter what we do. Background checks for law abiding citizens are stupid. If a person is so dangerous that you think that they might go buy a gun and kill someone, what the hell is that person doing walking our streets in the first place? It has been shown time and time again that criminals get guns illegally for most of there crimes. So a background check is not an obstacle to them. So how does a background check keep weapons out of there hands??? So to go along with what you are saying, since how people use vehicles in far more deadly encounters than firearms (i.e. drunk driving, wreckless driving) should each person going to buy a vehicle be subjected to a background check, along with a medical records examination?? Guilty before the trial. NICE!
=
"Well, we can't stop child porn. Might as well make it legal."
"Well, we can't stop murder, might as well make it legal."
What you are suggesting is that since how a very small percentage of people buy computers and camera's for the making and viewing of child porn, that the government should regulate it with background checks?
Guns = murder? I think not. Dirt Balls/low-lifes = murder. A gun is only a tool. Instead of spending all that money with very little if any real return. (Background checks), why not spend a whole lot more on education, prevention, rehabilitation and keeping those real dirtbags behind bars?
Firearms are heavily regulated, including background checks. You can wish they weren't, but they are.
I would suggest that there is an illegal market for criminals because they can't get them from a dealer due to the background check requirement. Would you prefer that criminals have unrestricted access to firearms?
-Wolverine-
06-04-2008, 23:55
What you are suggesting is that since how a very small percentage of people buy computers and camera's for the making and viewing of child porn, that the government should regulate it with background checks?
Guns = murder? I think not. Dirt Balls/low-lifes = murder. A gun is only a tool. Instead of spending all that money with very little if any real return. (Background checks), why not spend a whole lot more on education, prevention, rehabilitation and keeping those real dirtbags behind bars?
Question, how many NICS checks have stopped someone who was barred from purchasing a firearm from purchasing it?
Why not do both, spent many on education and preventing murderers from legally purchasing a gun?
What other rights has zero restrictions on who can exercise them?
Firearms are heavily regulated, including background checks. You can wish they weren't, but they are.
I would suggest that there is an illegal market for criminals because they can't get them from a dealer due to the background check requirement. Would you prefer that criminals have unrestricted access to firearms?
Yes I realize firearms are heavily regulated. The folks up on the hill think mass gunfights on the streets would ensue if they were not. Isn't that what they also said about CCW's? It's not a matter of wishing, it is my opinion on the matter.
Criminals through the illegal market do have unlimited access to firearms already. I am not saying dangerous criminal's should have firearms, I am saying background checks do little to circumvent this. Like I said earlier if a person is a known violent criminal, someone we should be wary of if they were to have possession of a firearm, why are they not in prison somewhere?
"Question, how many NICS checks have stopped someone who was barred from purchasing a firearm from purchasing it?"
I have no idea, other than one store owner I have talked to about it. I would be very interested to see the official statistic from a non biased agency.
"Why not do both, spent many on education and preventing murderers from legally purchasing a gun?"
I respect your opinion that you think background checks help stop crime. I just completely disagree with you. It is my opinion that is doesn't. Criminals even if guns are outlawed will still be able to get their hands on guns. (Just like that old bumper sticker says) I think background checks are just a starting point for enacting more restrictive legislation that "protects" the community. I mean now they are after 50 bmg's because, "you could take down an airplane with one of those things etc." So whats to stop them from saying we want to keep these out of the criminal hands so we are going to confiscate all of the 50's out there? I just don't see an end in sight to these, "it's for the greater good of the community" legislation. Also if we really are trying to keep them out of criminals hands how come, it isn't done like class III stuff. Fingerprints, photo id pics, cleo signoff etc. (If you go the personal CLEO route). I mean I have to do all that for a piece of tubing that protects my hearing.
"What other rights has zero restrictions on who can exercise them?"
How about freedom of speech? It has 0 limitations on who can exercise them. Everybody has that right. It is only when words (a tool) are used incorrectly that you lose that right. (Threatening someone, the whole fire in a theater example etc.)
Criminals through the illegal market do have unlimited access to firearms already.Really? They can just order whatever they want from the factory whenever they want it?
They are limited to whatever is in the underground illegal market. That market is limited.
You can vent about what you want the situation to be, but what are you going to do about it? The more you argue that criminals have unfettered access to firearms, the more some poitician is going to want to restrict private person-to-person transactions. Laws only apply to those that abide by them. We know that won't do anything to solve the problem, but you can't expect logic and reason from politicians.
If illegal drugs were no longer illegal, do you think that access to them would not change?
Lot of talk about background checks.
The way i look at it is this:
It's an inconvenience for the law abiding, and probably doesn't do a whole lot to prevent criminal activity. However, the benefit i do see in them is statistics. When the gun grabbers go to take away our guns (which they undoubtedly will try) we can show them statistics showing that of X number of guns obtained legally, .00001% (or whatever low %) was actually used in a crime by the legal purchaser. Same goes for CCW's. The application process is a PITA, it costs money, but again it shows the anti's numbers they can't ignore. When X number of people have permits, and an insanely small amount of them use, or have a permit revoked, it makes our cause look better.
It's a fine line however. I'm 110% against gun registration as i believe it's the first step towards confiscation. However, you flood the market with legally obtained firearms by ANYONE, it gives the anti's irrefutable evidence of crimes committed as it compares to the number of legally purchased firearms. It's a slippery slope, you appease the law abiding, or you appease the criminals just to take away ultimately what is an inconvenience. Lot of tin foil hat wearing folks out there, no one wants the .gov to know they own guns, and i respect that position, i don't either. But if a background check appeases a gun grabber to the point where i can keep my guns, i'll take it. We have to pick our battles, and i don't think removing background checks is one we can even dream to remove here in 2008.
And those that say criminals can get guns through the illegal market, you are correct. Now imagine if they antis could write into their legislation that all guns can be obtained legally. Imagine the emotions that would stir up with the liberals in this country. It would only be a step forward en route to two steps back.
I should add. I would gladly remove background checks, and welcome it, ONLY IF it would not cause a negative effect on us. I just don't see that happening which is why i don't view them as the devil like some.
ColoradoShooter
06-05-2008, 19:56
+1 Dudley is on the ball!
RMGO, GOA, JPFO is the way to go...
another +1, and don't forget the Second Amendment Foundation too!
Sometimes I wish I had joined RMGO as a life member instead of NRA...sigh...at least I eventually learned.
I both regret and yet do not "regret" joining the NRA as a Life Member. I even asked if I could resign and have them send me a refund because I was so po'd by their support of some legislation...So, have I taken issue with NRA - hill yeah, and I let them know it too. But on balance, they still do a lot (NRA ILA, Friends of the NRA, Eddie Eagle, etc).
Let me also say this: There is a constructive purpose in having a more "moderate" gun rights lobby group. It can be a gateway for those who would be "scared" off with harder, no compromise groups. And, the others by comparison make the NRA look moderate, which can also be useful for our rights; for NRA has proven they are willing to say, "hey, you want to keep pushing this hardline, then you will have take us all on" and perhaps then we would not get compromise, maybe one day only a total illegal loss of all our rights...
Do I like that. Hill no! But the world ain't perfect. If you got issue with the NRA then do us all a favor and join GOA, RMGO, SAF, JPFO! Then pick up your pen and start writing you representatives too. I hope you're not just sitting there bitching or feeling smug 'cause your a member of this or that XYZ "guns right group. I am a force of one because I write letters to my reps. I am also part of a team working hard to preserve our rights. Are you?
It's sad to admit that I went for years (actually decade or more) with out renewing my NRA membership because I though they were too extreme. Now, I don't think they're extreme enough...go figure....
My point is that by rejoining the NRA, but that time as a LIFE member (in part for repentance), it turned out to be a gateway to me eventually working through my own philosophy and taking my own personal stand - which now is a very hard line!
If there wasn't the NRA alternative, then I doubt I would have gone straight to GOA, RMGO, etc....and to be honest, the first time I contacted Dudely at RMGO I was a bit turned off by their reaction when I told them I was also a Life NRA member....so I hesitated joining them at first...but now the rest is history.
Now my sig line says it all. And knowing this inside scope, you too know it is also a testament to my own journey in working through and owning this issue for myself.
You have to love this country. Here I also have the right to change my mind as well as make my mind up for myself (by doing my own research, etc.). So I exercised that right too.
Oh, and Pickenup made some excellent points as well, one page back.
'nuff said?
So....the NRA is a gateway 2nd Amendment org. That's a different perspective.;)
ColoradoShooter
06-05-2008, 22:40
In the end I do believe we will all hang together or we will all surely hang separately.
[Metal][Hang]
theGinsue
06-05-2008, 22:44
I agree.
And the congregation all said: AMEN!
Lets face it folks, the grave has been dug so to speak. We're not in a position to have a "no compromise" gun movement anymore. While i appreciate them, agree with them, and donate to them, i'm also realistic.
We can't overnight take back our rights as gun owners, and erase years of legislation. There are so many gun owners out there who will not compromise; and i respect that, appreciate that and love that. But lets be honest with ourselves for a moment. Is it realistic the .gov is going to remove current restrictions, background checks, concealed carry laws, and so forth? Is that honestly a goal we should be striving for?? Of course i believe it is, however i also realize it is not realistic. We all know liberals have no common sense, they don't rationalize things, they don't see things right in front of their eyes. This is the reality we live in.
I would love to take a hard line stance when it comes to gun control, believe me i would. But realistically, does anyone honestly believe the .gov is going to remove all firearms restrictions, background checks, ect from the current laws??? I mean honestly, a hard line stance is a great idea, but is it rational? Would you be willing to go toe to toe with the US voting population with all their emotions and say "we want unrestricted gun sales, to anyone, without background checks, without reglulations"? Imagine how that sounds to the liberals of this country, which might i add put a dem house and senate in office?
Of course i want FA weapons, suppressed weapons, ect ect. But is it realistic to think the liberals would pass such a measure? The money we donate, is best spent on protecting the rights we currently have. We can slowly try and open up other laws to benefit us, but we have to remain vigilant, and above all reasonable. What seems like a mole hill to us, is a mountain to a democrat. You have to understand the reasoning behind our argument, sounds like a foreign language to a liberal.
I must say, i am 100% against gun legislation, registration, restrictions, ect ect. But i also recognize the times we live in, and the government "we have" elected. Disagree with me all you want, but i'm just trying to be reasonable. Personally i would rather fight for current laws than imagine a perfect future, it's just more realistic that way...
I was hoping for a re-education camp.
I was hoping for a re-education camp.
Don't worry, Hillary Clinton will be in charge of Political Reeducation.
You're papers please...
ColoradoShooter
06-05-2008, 23:16
Lets face it folks, the grave has been dug so to speak...
And that is why we will all hang one way or another....
We can't overnight take back our rights as gun owners, and erase years of legislation.
We damn sure won't if we don't draw a line and start pushing back, that's for sure.
There are so many gun owners out there who will not compromise; and i respect that, appreciate that and love that. But lets be honest with ourselves for a moment. Is it realistic the .gov is going to remove current restrictions, background checks, concealed carry laws, and so forth? Is that honestly a goal we should be striving for?? Of course i believe it is, however i also realize it is not realistic. We all know liberals have no common sense, they don't rationalize things, they don't see things right in front of their eyes. This is the reality we live in.
So that means we should just cave, and compromise until there is nothing left? I respectfully disagree. We keep compromising and falling back, until what? Until we're forced to decide whether we stand and literally fight with a cartridge box or surrender, that's what.
I would love to take a hard line stance when it comes to gun control, believe me i would.
So do it. What do you think will be harder, compromising until there is nothing left or drawing a hard line now: that is, defending the hard line with words, money, and votes now or being forced into either litterally shooting back or surrendering?
What is that famous quote? Oh yeah, "Give me liberty or give me death."
But realistically, does anyone honestly believe the .gov is going to remove all firearms restrictions, background checks, ect from the current laws??? I mean honestly, a hard line stance is a great idea, but is it rational? Would you be willing to go toe to toe with the US voting population with all their emotions and say "we want unrestricted gun sales, to anyone, without background checks, without reglulations"? Imagine how that sounds to the liberals of this country, which might i add put a dem house and senate in office?
You're damn right I'm willing to go toe to toe. I fought for that right and so did my oldest brother, my father, and my fathers before them.
I think the same argument was used about CCW carry and look what we've gained in the last few years by drawing a line and pushing back - what 30-some states that are now "shall issue"?
Of course i want FA weapons, suppressed weapons, ect ect. But is it realistic to think the liberals would pass such a measure? The money we donate, is best spent on protecting the rights we currently have. We can slowly try and open up other laws to benefit us, but we have to remain vigilant, and above all reasonable. What seems like a mole hill to us, is a mountain to a democrat. You have to understand the reasoning behind our argument, sounds like a foreign language to a liberal.
No. I am tired of playing defense. It is time to go on the offense. Nothing was ever won, but everything is eventually lost, when playing only defense.
What seems like a mole hill to them is a mountain to me. I'm willing to fight to the death. I did it before for my country, why would I not do it again for the Constitution that I am still sworn to uphold? It is a promise to the future handed down from fathers before us. This line now is the easy fight. Real blood will be a very hard fight indeed and one I hope it never comes too. If it does, we have all - as a nation - already lost.
I must say, i am 100% against gun legislation, registration, restrictions, ect ect. But i also recognize the times we live in, and the government "we have" elected. Disagree with me all you want, but i'm just trying to be reasonable. Personally i would rather fight for current laws than imagine a perfect future, it's just more realistic that way...
I mean no disrespect. Hell, I've taken decades to work through this for myself. But now I own my philosophy and what I am and am not willing to "settle" for and do....
Only you can decide what you really believe and what you're willing to do for those beliefs.
But with enough compromise, we will indeed hang...if not by our own government, or in rising up against a criminal government, then by a thug because we allowed ourselves to be disarmed and thereby become a victim. [Hang]
Believe me, I did not come to my position lightly. And I am not willing to let it go easily either. I will have to be forced. And I am prepared to meet force with force, but desire a more reasonable outcome. Drawing a line now and defending it with words (esp letters to reps) and money and time seems a cheap price now by comparison doesn't it?
ColoradoShooter
06-05-2008, 23:26
snip
Well ColoradoShooter, we seem to meet on many stances....
Please, lay out your plan, one that is realistic. If you have an idea that would unite America, i would love to hear it. You are quick to shut down my thinking, but you fail to give a rational plan from yourself.
Elaborate on your plans, and how it would appease the masses, most notably the gun grabbers and liberals.
Aloha_Shooter
06-06-2008, 05:53
I'm an Endowment Life member myself and gave my brother a gift Life membership. I joined the NRA before I even owned a firearm precisely because they were the only major organization that was effectively undercutting the Clintonistas. Unfortunately, some people let the perfect become the enemy of the good and get mad at the NRA because the organization has chosen to direct Congress toward a path of least damage instead of waging a losing battle for no damage.
For all their anti-NRA bluster, I have yet to see GOA or RMGO have a fraction of the effect the NRA has had on both parties in Congress. They have effectively killed some very bad bills and cut the teeth out on others that they couldn't kill outright.
I really enjoy American Rifleman and look forward to the new issue every month. The NRA's customer service has been pretty obliging -- call them and tell them you don't want the solicitations. By the way, the NRA's firearms insurance is a pretty sweet deal.
ColoradoShooter
06-06-2008, 07:46
Well ColoradoShooter, we seem to meet on many stances....
Please, lay out your plan, one that is realistic. If you have an idea that would unite America, i would love to hear it. You are quick to shut down my thinking, but you fail to give a rational plan from yourself.
Elaborate on your plans, and how it would appease the masses, most notably the gun grabbers and liberals.
I don't believe I was quick to shut down your thinking, only attempting to explain mine - a philosophy I arrived at after many years of thinking, soul searching and finally realizing that always playing defense (reacting to the anti-gunners proposals) will always mean a loss of ground over the long term. The only way to gain ground is by being offensive - by holding a line and working to restore lost rights.
I find that to be completely rational.
That is how we got CCW in 30-some states now...but then again, A right you have to get "permission" to exercise - is that really a right? We know from experience what they "give", can be denied.....but still it is a start.
It will not appease the gun grabbers and the liberals. Only complete outlawing of our rights will do that. And I find that unacceptable, so my goal is not to appease them, but to keep and win back our rights.
We think they are not reasonable and they think we are not reasonable. We may never bridge that divide. Sad but true, because our ideologies are different. And that is OK so long as their "rights" do not start infringing on mine.
The only reality I can offer at this time is what I've said before. It takes all of us, in this together. Or we will, over time, all lose, either one by one or as a gun owning people as a whole.
There may well be a place for compromise to keep from passing a really bad bill that otherwise would have been worse; but I also think it takes those that form a hard line and say enough is enough and we are not willing to give up anymore to define the boundaries. The anti-gunners seem to have defined their boundary - their hard line - abolition of guns and gun ownership....
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
There is a place for all of us in this fight. But for me personally, I have worked through where I stand; and I am tired of playing defense and giving in. The Second Amendment seems pretty clear to me.
I wonder if we would be having this debate now if the founding fathers thought, "how do we appease the British?" The obvious conclusion would have been to surrender their rights and continue in servitude; fortunately for us, they chose a different approach, a firm line. And they were willing to back it up as necessary.
Who was it that said the price of freedom is constant vigilance?
Instead of arguing among ourselves, I would rather focus on defeating bad bills, and working to regain the rights we've already lost.
Debate is healthy. Compromising until nothing is left is a losing proposition over the long term IMO.
Last time I check we were on the same team. Only our approaches differ. We have more in common than that which separates us. I think only our approaches and we've arrived at this point in time is different.
As I said, I mean no disrespect.
A more specific plan?
For me it was joining NRA and then GOA as a Life member. Then also supporting RMGO and SAF as a member as well as supporting JPFO. staying informed and writing letters to my representatives, to the editor, taking newbies to the range and teaching them to shoot for the first time and changing the image of gun ownership where I can. Talking about it, trying to met people where they are and when possible explaining why I have the opinions and philosophy that I do....etc. It damn sure ain't easy. Will we ever regain the rights we've already lost? Probably not. But is it a fight worth fighting for, I think so. For one thing, if they (anti-gunners) are on the defensive, they won't be so likely to keep trying to take more of our rights.
How's that for a plan?
You already have your own answers...
I would love to take a hard line stance when it comes to gun control, believe me i would."
pickenup
06-06-2008, 10:13
I often hear this kind of statement,
"Realistically, in this day and age, what can WE do? What would YOU do? Do YOU have a plan"
Every plan has to have a starting point, where it goes from there, who knows. How about starting, by backing Bills that have ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED? Again, we don't have to reinvent the wheel here.
Admittedly, some will have to set aside their prejudices. Whether you think him a kook, or the last chance for this countries redemption, is irrelevant concerning this point. The bills that have ALREADY been introduced by him, is the topic of concern here.
Ron Paul has introduced HR 3835, "The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007"
In short, If passed, the bill would "restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses.
Consider H.R. 1096. Also introduce by Mr. Paul.
This bill would (1) repeal the Brady law and Instant check Gun Owner registration system; (2) repeal federal provisions discriminating against firearms which the government determines to have no "sporting purpose," and (3) repeal the requirement that trigger locks be purchased by anyone purchasing a handgun from a dealer.
How about H.R. 1897, "Repeal of the National Park Gun Ban"
This bill would prohibit any federal regulation banning the possession or carrying of a firearm based in whole or in part on the fact that the possession or carrying occurs within a national park.
He has also....
Introduced legislation to repeal the so-called "Gun Free Zone" victim disarmament law of 1990;
Introduced legislation to repeal the 1993 National "Instant Background Check" gun registration bill;
Authored legislation to stop taxpayer funds from going to the anti-gun United Nations;
He has introduced other legislation, but this is just a sample to answer the question of where to START. How about with some of this legislation?
*****
All of these have been introduce by ONE MAN. Mr. Paul is NOT the only representative that has introduced this kind of legislation. (Although he has been consistent, and references are easy to find) Other representatives have introduce "local" as well as "federal" legislation that we SHOULD have been supporting. Where were WE?
Even though this post is about member's disappointment with the NRA, I am NOT singling them out on this one. A question was asked, "is there a plan?" In my "opinion" some or ALL pro-gun groups should have been behind "AT LEAST SOME" of this proposed legislation. WHERE WERE THEY / WE?
Like I said, this is just a starting point. To expect complete de-regulation overnight IS unrealistic. But if we don't start SOMEWHERE, we will NEVER get ANYWHERE.
Fair enough.
I know we agree on many points. I wish it were just that easy.
Chipping away at the laws in place is, and has been our only realistic goal. The day we say "it's all or nothing" we might just find ourselves with nothing, and that is what i fear.
It's become quite apparent this country has become divided on the issue. I give you the AWB of 94' among other ridiculous laws passed over the years as proof. Now would it be in our best interest to say "it all stops today, we will have no compromise. It is all or nothing, we will not have our rights infringed upon. Lets put this to a popular vote..."? Sure that's the stance i believe we all take, but can that be obtained June 7, 2008? Would you feel comfortable drawing the line tomorrow, and trusting the rest of the country liberal or otherwise would follow you in that pursuit? I'm sorry, but i don't have that kind of faith anymore. This is the same country that nominated a junior senator who has accomplished nothing based on a catchy slogan with an empty promise.
I would say agree to disagree, but i don't even think that's true in this case. I agree with a no compromise stance, a right not exercised is a right lost, and so on. The problem i see with that stance is, we have a lot more to lose than we do to gain. It just might be in our best interest to protect what we have, and chip away than take an all of nothing approach at it. That has more or less been the approach to where we are at now, and i don't see that changing.
I think the best thing we can all do is remain vigilant, be proactive, and keep on guard for the legislation that will no doubt follow.
ColoradoShooter
06-06-2008, 13:27
I'm in.
I do believe that those of us who are *ACTIVE* in this effort are all working toward winning the same war. Only our tactics and place on the battlefield are different.
How about this analogy. I am fighting on the part of the front lines that is attempting to gain ground. But the only way I can do that is to rely on my brothers (and sisters) to perform a rear guard action by holding that line so I don't lose what's already been gained. And, as needed I also perform rear guard action.
The tactics best used depend on where one is (or see themselves) on the battle ground.
Here is another example and how it differs in real action.
There is no democrat that is worthy of my vote for president this year. (I would have supported Bill Richardson; however, because, excepting Ron Paul, he was the strongest pro-gun candidate IMO).
I am not totally comfortable with MCain either. He has not been consistent on the gun rights issue. And I don't trust the Republicans any more than I trust the Democrats to protect my freedoms (Patriot Act anyone?).
I like almost all of Ron Paul's platform, as well as the libertarian party in it's highest theoretical ideals.
The "problem" is (from my own, and I suspect Sucka's view based on my understanding of his arguments here) is that if I vote for Ron or the Libertarian candidate, it will be a "wasted" vote because it is not realistic that an outside candidate/3rd party will win. So it could be argued that a more "reasonable/realistic" view is to vote for Mcain - the better of two evils if you will...
However; I am at the point where for me personally, I believe it is time for me to make a statement. And I would argue that voting for Ron Paul or for the Libertarian Party will, over time, lead to a greater possibility that such a person or party could be elected in the future....so it is not wasted. Only by not voting would it be wasted. In the past I have not voted for alternative candidates/parties due to that argument, but something has shifted in/for me.
Maybe I am delusional, but damn it, something is going to have to change before we reach critical mass; and I don't like where I think we're headed.
I do believe I'll be writing Ron Paul in when I vote this fall. It's either that or the libertarian Party (which I'm also a member of)....I just need to do some more research on their candidate Mr. Barr.
As far as wishing it was "that easy". Me too. But, it isn't easy because that is the nature of life. It's complex and in the complexity are many things to consider and weigh out. And our perspectives and history is different.
Many things I have pondered deeply and over time worked out to arrive at where I stand (at this moment). Like I indicated in a previous post, I always reserve the right to change my mind based on new information and considerations. That is why a respectful debate is healthy; as long as we are also vigilant and working toward the same goals.
The worst is to do nothing and then wonder where all our rights went and/or just complain.
Guess I know what I'll be doing this evening - writing my reps to support carry in National Parks that I've been meaning to do! Thanks for the legislative reminders.
[Beer]
.
ColoradoShooter
06-06-2008, 13:48
Fair enough.
...Chipping away at the laws in place is, and has been our only realistic goal. The day we say "it's all or nothing" we might just find ourselves with nothing, and that is what i fear....
...Now would it be in our best interest to say "it all stops today, we will have no compromise. It is all or nothing, we will not have our rights infringed upon. Lets put this to a popular vote..."?
...I would say agree to disagree, but i don't even think that's true in this case. I agree with a no compromise stance, a right not exercised is a right lost, and so on. The problem i see with that stance is, we have a lot more to lose than we do to gain. It just might be in our best interest to protect what we have, and chip away than take an all of nothing approach at it. That has more or less been the approach to where we are at now, and i don't see that changing.
I think the best thing we can all do is remain vigilant, be proactive, and keep on guard for the legislation that will no doubt follow.
I think you and I are not very different at all and are talking about the same thing in many ways only our approaches are different.
Would you agree that it could be reasonably argued that by me taking a hard line makes your more realistic (today's) approach seem moderate by comparison? And if so, isn't there a value in that, all other arguments aside.
In the end Pickenup nailed it. Maybe the purpose of our "debate" was only to have him point out, what to me, was the obvious, although, somewhat forgotten. I am not saying it is all or nothing. What I am saying is that in the end, over the long term, I want it all. But first let's take this hill and that piece of ground back (offense)...Meanwhile, recognizing the value in those who are also working to make sure no new ground is lost (defense).
What irks me is when I have to challenge my own brotherhood in trying to defeat another compromise that actually costs us ground - and this may be where we truly differ. That is my beef with the NRA (that and their perpetual money making culture - certifications, etc.). But as others have said, I do enjoy their magazines and I do appreciate the good they have and continue to do.
Sucka - Thanks for the respectful challenge. I'm not done "chewing" on this...[Beer]
Good stuff ColoradoShooter.
I would like to think we all (pro 2A folks) have the same goals, it's just a matter of how we get there. I completely understand, and appreciate the "no compromise" stance.
There's a lot at stake here, and i just hope we can at the very least keep what rights we have, thus giving us the chance to chip away at other legislation.
Bottom line, we all have the same goals. We need a voice, and whether that's through the NRA, RMGO, ect we need to all do our part. If we don't have a tangible voice, we can all kiss our rights goodbye.
ColoradoShooter
06-06-2008, 14:22
pickenup - man did you nail it or what?
Say, would you mind if I quote you in other forums when/as it's relevant? This is great stuff, and exactly the kind of proactive (versus reactive) stuff I'm talking about.
It is indeed a LARGE part of a greater plan/framework for moving in the direction I am interested in.
Also, what if we started a new thread for this sort of thing and kicked it off with a couple of sentences of brief history and your post above as a launching point? A place where we can talk and discuss and share our thoughts on further developing and sharing info about a greater plan....RMGO does this somewhat....but I'm thinking it would be good to have a place to pull together a coherent framework from multiple places and discuss it....I'm liking this idea, but I don't want to hijack this thread. I already feel bad that it's sorta drifted away from original post....
Of course I need to stop "chewing" on this and get my comments on the carry in the Parks bill and a couple of other things first. But I like the idea of this organized, proactive approach, and a place where we can pull together different seemingly parts and put into a larger framework to see how the pieces might fit...[Weight]
pickenup
06-06-2008, 15:28
pickenup - man did you nail it or what?
Say, would you mind if I quote you in other forums when/as it's relevant?
Feel free.
The more people working for the cause, the better.
P.S.
Don't turn this into a presidential election, type of political issue.
The point is, that we can leave Mr. Paul right where he is, and support his proposed legislation.
ColoradoShooter
06-06-2008, 15:46
One more thought, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but reflecting on
...Imagine how that sounds to the liberals of this country...
reminded me of this quote:
"As a gun owner, you have to realize that you will be considered extreme by the majority of the American population."
It was said during a lecture by one of my Front Sight instructors this spring. The instructor is also a retired cop.
Ok. But I have to wonder if that isn't because too much of America is weak and has fallen into the entitlement mindset. So by comparison, folks like us who prefer to take responsibility for ourselves - and especially for our own and our family's safety, - are indeed extreme by comparison.
That is also the difference IMO between sheep and Sheep Dogs. The sheep always think anything with teeth is extreme. They are uncomfortable with us because we remind them that there are predators in this world that they need protection from...and they don't like to think about the predators, the wolves....it makes the "little darlings" uncomfortable.
Hell, I don't like thinking about it either. But not being prepared will not ensure that the predators will not strike. There are times that comfort can get you killed.
Anyway, just a side thought I felt worth mentioning, even if slightly off topic.
[Marine]
ColoradoShooter
06-06-2008, 18:42
They'll come for the handguns too...
It is not to pat myself on the back or feel good; I assure you. If it were that I'd be a sheep and stick my head in the sand. Life is easier without awareness and without taking responsibility.
I understand and your points are well made. And, I am not stupid. Just frustrated.
I am not here to argue politics in this particular forum; although I thank you for your post. My comments were to illustrate a point. Is there truth in what I wrote, of course. Do I believe it, yes. Will I actually vote that way...damn it...probably not. I'm still thinking hard on weighing it all out. This is the most I've ever struggled in a voting decision. Regardless of what I decide when I exercise my right and vote, my point stands in it's own truth.
All that aside, as my new friend wisely advised:
P.S.
Don't turn this into a presidential election, type of political issue.
The point is, that we can leave Mr. Paul right where he is, and support his proposed legislation.
So, might I suggest we get back to regularly scheduled programming, as I feel responsible for hijacking this thread, which was so not my intent!
snip...
This, among other things, was the point i was trying to make. We can't have our cake and eat it to so to speak. This is why i promote obtainable goals, with realistic views. No matter how you slice the cake, we're getting a pretty crappy POTUS this time around when it comes to guns. We can either hack our head off and take Obama, or cut our hand off and elect McCain, but at least we can survive. BHO never saw a gun he didn't want to ban, remember that when you pull the lever.
ColoradoShooter
06-06-2008, 19:56
"The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjust the sails." - William Arthur Ward
Ok, Ok, I get it...don't vote me off the island!
I can so put both feet in my mouth, just watch! Going politics was not the best example....duh! (Don't forget to scrutinze running mates, Mcain is old and the VP may be running things...could be...Rudy???
Anyway, Ummm..Yeah, but I'm still trying to build a better motor for the boat...'cause I have these higher ideals and all.
I suppose this could be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
But, I still prefer GOA over the NRA...so there! [Neene1]
...checking for rear guard action....analyzing the terrain and situation....thinking about strategy and tactics....
I agree I would go with the GOA, NAGR, RMGO over the NRA anyday, but the NRA does have it uses I suppose. The analogy earlier might very well be true. It seems many traditional "gun guys" are members of the NRA. As well as many new shooters. Maybe this is why I get so frustrated with them also. I've lost count of how many times I heard an NRA member I've gone shooting or hunting with talk about "black rifle's" and why would anyone ever want or need one, and why are they allowed to own a "military and police" gun. (I know this doesn't apply to the NRA members on this page, but it does with alot of the members I have come in contact with) I try to explain to them that these are not "assault weapons of mass destruction" but only a fun and superb piece of equipment to own, shoot, and hunt with. Alot of them after shooting the rifles etc come around, but many still don't. It just baffles me. They think that if they ban these types of firearms the anti crowd will be satisfied and will stop there. They won't be satisfied until every American is left powerless. That is another reason I agree with the no compromise crowd. It has to stop somewhere or it will never end (IMHO).
Some great points were brought up about how we need all the help we can get etc, because the next few years at least, are going to be a rough ride for all of us 2nd ammendmant supporters regardless of group affiliation. I still try to be proactive and hopefull for future change, so that is why I am a member of groups like RMGO, NAGR, GOA, and routinely write my legislators. The NRA has some good programs going, and if their goals are in line with yours, than more power to ya. Alot of there goals are in line with mine, but we have strayed paths several times which leaves me wondering if I will continue to be a member after my membership expires here shortly.
ColoradoShooter
06-10-2008, 19:06
Yeah, I think there is much truth in what was said here, and in what I wrote (of course). But it still irks me that we in the "gun rights" arena can't all come together. We waste valuable time and energy when we fight within, instead of tackling the greatest real threats - those constantly working to ban firearms. And don't think it couldn't happen here either. We're only one election away from having our rights taken (or attempted to be taken), at any given time. Look at England and Australia. Who would have thought?
Apparently I am not the only one struggling with such issues (raised earlier in this thread). Our friend Michael Bane is too. But instead of hijacking this thread, I started a new thread with a recent post form his blog at:
http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?p=89179#post89179
Yeah, I think there is much truth in what was said here, and in what I wrote (of course). But it still irks me that we in the "gun rights" arena can't all come together. We waste valuable time and energy when we fight within, instead of tackling the greatest real threats - those constantly working to ban firearms.+1,000,000
theGinsue
06-11-2008, 20:34
Whether it's through the NRA, the GOA or any combination of these alphabet soup organizations - or even by the actions of a lone individual, we have to stand strong to ensure no further incursion occurs on our Rights.
England is a great example of what happens when rights are removed for the "public good". First guns, now knives with the police given the "right" to stop and search any individual they "feel" poses a potential risk to public safety.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm ; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_13_22/ai_n24989605 ;
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7612 )
They still have enough folks who don't think their government is doing enough to protect the people. What next? When is enough ENOUGH?
Those in the U.S. who say it can't happen here are putting their heads in the sand. How long has it taken England to get to this point of lost personal liberties? 100 years? 50 years? How about less than 1 generation! Wouldn't it be sad if a child born today in the U.S. could never own a gun, could never own a long sharp kitchen knife, and could expect to be stopped on the street or in their home at any time by the police so they could perform a public safety search on their person - all before they were old enough to graduate from High School?
We have to come to realize that our government is not looking out for the best interests of the individual, only for it's OWN interests. The Rights of the American citizen pose a direct threat to the special interests within our government. If we fail to come together and act now, we may not have the ability to act later. KNOW who you are electing and what they want with YOUR Rights. Get involved and make a difference.
Just my two cents - probably about all they're worth!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.