I'm Dissappointed in the NRA

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Wolverine-

=
"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banks74

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banks74

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banks74

+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.;)

In the end I do believe we will all hang together or we will all surely hang separately.

[Metal][Hang]

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssf467

I was hoping for a re-education camp.

---

Don't worry, Hillary Clinton will be in charge of Political Reeducation.

You're papers please...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

Lets face it folks, the grave has been dug so to speak...

---

And that is why we will all hang one way or another....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

I would love to take a hard line stance when it comes to gun control, believe me i would."

---

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.

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]
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

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.

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColoradoShooter

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.

One more thought, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but reflecting on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sucka

...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]

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pickenup

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

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.

"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.

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/showth...9179#post89179

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColoradoShooter

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

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/m...2/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!