I'm Dissappointed in the NRA

[ssf467]

I was hoping for a re-education camp.

[Sucka]

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]

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.

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]

snip

[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.

[Aloha_Shooter]

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]

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]

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.

[Sucka]

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]

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.

.