I'm Dissappointed in the NRA

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!