In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
One Reason Why the NRA is so Vigorously Defended
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
In an earlier post about America being better off or not without the NRA, a question was posed reference why the organization has so many members in comparison to other gun-rights groups.
Fair question. One interpretation of mine follows:
One must remember that the NRA has been a large part of the "American Culture" and has had the status of an "American Institution" since the late 1800's. As such, it is ingrained into the fabric of American Society.
Case in point, look at the "red haze of hate" that comes over many who feel strongly about the positive force they believe the NRA to be, simply because some want to show what the NRA has become and what actions they ACTUALLY take, not what they say they do.
I see this phenomenon as similar to finding out that ones wife has been steadily cheating on you since before you even got married.
As an organization with historical roots and the status of an "American Institution", the NRA has access to the trust and the "institutional support" that goes along with that status. The NRA has people purchasing memberships for their children, their friend, their family, as gifts etc.. All this is based on the FAITH and TRUST, coupled with the historical perspective that the NRA enjoys with the American people.
In my opinion, therein lays the problem. Since the NRA is so well entrenched with Americans and since most of our fathers, mothers, grandfathers etc have been proud NRA Members, we follow along in the same belief, trust and faith that America has always had in the NRA.
Sadly, the NRA has proven to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, whether intentional as I believe, or unwittingly by originally starting down the compromise road with good intentions.
Doesn't really matter which historical road they took. It is what it is.
Most of the other "newer" gun-rights organizations sprang up DUE TO the truth about the NRA, as many see it. Many saw that the NRA was talking a good game, but that they were actually facilitating and assisting in the slow erosion of Amendment II. These new "upstart groups" have NONE of the institutional entrenchment and generational historical support that the NRA enjoys.
Many Americans see that the NRA is a danger to true Amendment II Rights, through their insidious deals and their acceptance of government regulation of all things firearm.
My personal opinion is that the NRA is and has been in cahoots with a predatory government for many years and that their role is to "sell" slow infringements of the RTKBA to the American People. What better organization than an American Institution, that has the trust and respect of America's gun owners, to facilitate and assist in gaining the acceptance of the American people in total government regulation of firearms?
It is a testament to the TRUTH about the NRA that the membership in some of these groups is over 500,000. Not sure of the exact membership figures, but it is illustrative of a growing awakening and an acknowledgment of the truth about NRA complicity in gun-control and in the NRA NOT supporting the Second Amendment as enumerated in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
None of this detracts from the good work that the NRA does in the areas of firearm safety, range development, youth education, firearms training and other areas. Their weakness and the danger they pose lays in their actions related to constitutional issues, primarily Amendment II.
I calls them like I sees them. This is how I see it.
Fair question. One interpretation of mine follows:
One must remember that the NRA has been a large part of the "American Culture" and has had the status of an "American Institution" since the late 1800's. As such, it is ingrained into the fabric of American Society.
Case in point, look at the "red haze of hate" that comes over many who feel strongly about the positive force they believe the NRA to be, simply because some want to show what the NRA has become and what actions they ACTUALLY take, not what they say they do.
I see this phenomenon as similar to finding out that ones wife has been steadily cheating on you since before you even got married.
As an organization with historical roots and the status of an "American Institution", the NRA has access to the trust and the "institutional support" that goes along with that status. The NRA has people purchasing memberships for their children, their friend, their family, as gifts etc.. All this is based on the FAITH and TRUST, coupled with the historical perspective that the NRA enjoys with the American people.
In my opinion, therein lays the problem. Since the NRA is so well entrenched with Americans and since most of our fathers, mothers, grandfathers etc have been proud NRA Members, we follow along in the same belief, trust and faith that America has always had in the NRA.
Sadly, the NRA has proven to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, whether intentional as I believe, or unwittingly by originally starting down the compromise road with good intentions.
Doesn't really matter which historical road they took. It is what it is.
Most of the other "newer" gun-rights organizations sprang up DUE TO the truth about the NRA, as many see it. Many saw that the NRA was talking a good game, but that they were actually facilitating and assisting in the slow erosion of Amendment II. These new "upstart groups" have NONE of the institutional entrenchment and generational historical support that the NRA enjoys.
Many Americans see that the NRA is a danger to true Amendment II Rights, through their insidious deals and their acceptance of government regulation of all things firearm.
My personal opinion is that the NRA is and has been in cahoots with a predatory government for many years and that their role is to "sell" slow infringements of the RTKBA to the American People. What better organization than an American Institution, that has the trust and respect of America's gun owners, to facilitate and assist in gaining the acceptance of the American people in total government regulation of firearms?
It is a testament to the TRUTH about the NRA that the membership in some of these groups is over 500,000. Not sure of the exact membership figures, but it is illustrative of a growing awakening and an acknowledgment of the truth about NRA complicity in gun-control and in the NRA NOT supporting the Second Amendment as enumerated in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
None of this detracts from the good work that the NRA does in the areas of firearm safety, range development, youth education, firearms training and other areas. Their weakness and the danger they pose lays in their actions related to constitutional issues, primarily Amendment II.
I calls them like I sees them. This is how I see it.
Comments
While you are looking for that find some of the "red haze of hate" you mention. I seem to have missed that also. I hear the anti NRA crowd constantly spouting out regurgitated statements that have no substance.
mvp............been a long time........one could line up the origial documents and i wonder if you would believe them
I seriously would like to see them.
It496,
Fair enough. Well presented.
I would only disagree with one part; the part about intentional vs unintentional. My argument would be that perhaps the NRA has grown too big, and in so doing has become much like the government that it lobbies. Perhaps they are losing touch with the common man, and this is not a good thing.
Do I see them as faultless? No. Do I see them as valuable? Yes. Do I think change needs to be brought about? Yes.
I think your observation about why these new groups are starting to show up is indeed correct. They offer a voice to the NRA that without them would be unheard. This is a good thing.
All along, my point has been, we all need to work together to preserve our 2nd rights. Torpedoing one organization for the sake of membership in another is only going to hurt us all in the long run.
Am I an NRA member? Yes. Am I a GOA member? No, but may well be tomorrow. In any case, I just don't think it's a good idea to completely turn our backs on the NRA just yet, that's all.
Fair points also FCD.
FYI only, I am a lifer with NRA and GOA. NRA needs to be fixed, or abandoned related to Amendment II issues if they can't be fixed.
Given the track record going back to at least 1934, I don't see that they will be fixed, at least not to a "purist" like me. This long and consistent track record is exactly why I believe that their actions have been intentional. Once or twice, a bad decision, ok I can understand that. 70+ years of such actions cause me to see it as more insidious in nature.
The NRA can do much good in the other important areas listed however.
I am sure it seems like "torpedoing", but I look at it more as attempting an "awakening".
Appreciate the thoughtful debate sir.
lt496, spot on!
quote: You still havn't pointed to what it is the NRA compromised?
quote:pickenup
Moderator
USA
15320 Posts
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 12:58:46 PM
Might as well get this info out again, since this thread cries for it.
Thanks for the opportunity tr fox.
First,
I am an NRA member, 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???
Second,
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.
Third,
Am I advocating withdrawing your membership from the NRA......NO.
Work within the system to CHANGE it, if you don't agree with what they are doing. I DO. LET THEM KNOW if you don't agree with their actions. They CAN'T FIX IT, IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S BROKEN. (which by the way, neither can the members) VOTE the bad guys OUT. VOTE the good guys IN.
Only problem is "as with politicians" if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting "MANY" of them passed.
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 away 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? How many states have they turned a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT (to bear arms) into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE (CCW) with the government deciding on who is ALLOWED to bear arms. (once the - fee - is paid, of course)
I for one, will NOT put them 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?
*****
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 ultimately 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.
"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.
*****
The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them 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.
*****
"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.
*****
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 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? 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" Admittedly, as always, there are some "supposedly" pro-gun people that are in favor of this. For me, to see the first red flags thrown up, are to look at who is sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Carolyn McCarthy along with Barbara Boxer. Nevermind the far reaching implications, with the potential of opening a Pandora's box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has seen some kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc). 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.
*****
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.
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?
You still havn't pointed to what it is the NRA compromised?
While you are looking for that find some of the "red haze of hate" you mention. I seem to have missed that also. I hear the anti NRA crowd constantly spouting out regurgitated statements that have no substance.
MVP
How about you do some research and/or at least do a search here on the forums. I, among others, have repeatedly posted details of NRA past actions, going back to at least the early 1930's. I may, or may not, post them again at some point.
You probably missed the "haze of hate" just like you missed the details of the overall topic.
The NRA issue is worthy of discussion at least, rather than a blanket denial, don't you agree?
Hope MVP and others at least read it. Who knows, it may generate some good discussion of the issue.
Pro-gun organization's need to get on the same page. When I see other gun owners making fun of other state's Such as CA. PA. NY. etc
that tells me gun owners really don't give a crap about others and their gun rights till it happens to them.
seen half a million post on the bashing what are we doing about it?
OH WELL IT"S NOT ME THAT LIVES IN THAT STATE![;)]
But yet I stay in CA. an Continue to fight for My 2 amendment rights-
"My work and support may comfort your 2nd amendment rights today, but tomorrow you may have pissed it away FrancF
Educating Elmer Fudd
In case you're not up-to-date on the latest slang in use on the Internet gun forums, an Elmer Fudd, sometimes called a Fuddite, is a term used to describe a hunter with a narrow and somewhat selfish perspective on gun rights. His basic philosophy is that as long as the anti-gunners are not currently seeking to ban his traditional hunting arms, he is little concerned with their activities.
He will not put up a fight if they want to ban so-called assault weapons, fifty caliber rifles or any number of other firearms he has no personal interest in owning. In some cases he will even aid the gun grabbers in a futile effort to show the non-shooting public what reasonable and responsible people we hunters are.
I don't know who first made the connection between this type of hunter and the Warner Brothers cartoon character. But there is an obvious similarity. Elmer Fudd was enthusiastic in his pursuit of his hobby but was easily fooled by trickery like makeshift signs declaring that it was duck season, not rabbit season and he swooned over rabbits disguised as women. Likewise, the Elmer Fudd types today are deceived by terms coined by gun grabbers such as assault rifles, and they have even been known to support liberal politicians disguised as hunters.
The Elmer Fudds of the world are not bad people. On the contrary, the average Elmer is honest with high standards of sportsmanship and usually a card-carrying member of the NRA. Elmer Fudds are good people. About the worst you can say of them is that they are out of touch with the realities of our current fight to maintain our gun rights, and they tend to be a bit snobbish in their attitude toward firearms.
When the so-called assault weapon ban was passed in 1994 many hunters did not oppose it. Some even supported it. This attitude is shortsighted at best and displays a complete lack of understanding, not only of the nature of the anti-gun activist but also of the firearms involved. Now with rumblings in the new Congress about renewing the ban we need to educate their Fuddites among us and bring them into the fight.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
One thing every gun owner should understand about virtually all of the gun-control organizations is that they do not want reasonable gun control, no matter how much they claim they do. They want gun bans and gun confiscation. They're smart enough to know that they cannot accomplish this in one fell swoop, however, so like wolves circling the herd they look for weaknesses they can exploit. At one time the focus was on handguns, and it still is to a degree, but the concealed carry laws sweeping the nation's have beaten them up so badly on this front that they are now focusing more on an easier target. The anti-gunners and their allies in the media have demonized the semiauto military clones so effectively that even many gun owners believe them, or are at least willing to throw the owners of these rifles to the wolves in the hope that they will be appeased. But if another ban is successful it will not appease them. It will only inspire and strengthen them. We must draw a clear line in the sand and make every effort to educate the public on the facts. But how can we hope to convince the general public when many of our own remain ignorant on the subject.
LOOKS DON'T KILL.
An AR-15 or AR-10 may not look like a Remington or Benelli semiauto, but the function is the same. ARs just look meaner due to an association with our current military rifles, and higher capacity magazines are more readily available. But should rifles be demonized because they look different and provide more firepower? I wonder if after the Civil War hunters shunned a new high-capacity quick-repeating lever guns in the same manner.
Some hunters today feel that the semi-autos with higher magazine capacities promote a spray and pray mentality if the rifles are used for hunting. But responsible hunters--and I believe most hunters are responsible--know that game is taken with one well-placed shot at a time. Having additional shots available at the reset of the trigger just means quicker follow-up in case an animal is wounded or as in varmint hunting, multiple targets are offered. It seems illogical to me that some people who feel that a tubular fed 22 rimfire semiauto that holds 15 rounds is perfectly acceptable for shooting both game and varmints also believe that a semiauto centerfire that holds 20 rounds is somehow going to cause the hunter to lose all self control and riddle the countryside with bullets
It should be noted that many states limit the magazine capacity allowed for use on big game and five shot magazines are available for ARs. So how much real difference is there between an AR-10 with a five shot magazine and a Benelli R1 with a four shot magazine.
It is not the magazine capacity or rate of fire that most sets the rifle apart from traditional hunting rifles. It's the way they look. They scare some people and as a result many hunters feel we should appease the public perception and hide these rifles.
The argument is often made that if the public sees them in the game fields it puts hunters in a bad light. My first reaction to this argument is to ask how many members of the general public actually see what we are hunting with? Unless you're hunting takes place next to picnic areas and bike paths, I would say very few. In most of the country, hunters seldom co-mingle with the general public, and unless you ride back into town with a deer strapped across the hood of a pickup while you ride in back waving your rifle, most members of the public could not care less what you are hunting with.
Certainly some people are frightened by these rifles, but it is mostly because the anti-gunners and mainstream media have taught them to be frightened. Should we bow to the gun grabber's propaganda or stand proud and make a serious effort to set the record straight? We need to educate the public not pacify it
I'm not suggesting that we should all trade in our bolt guns for autoloaders. But if someone wants to hunt with an AR or any other type of legal arm, defend their right to do so as fervently as you would defend the right to own any firearm. Fight as if the gun grabbers are coming after your favorite bolt gun because if they get their way, someday they will.
Reprinted from Peterson's Rifle Shooter Magazine, July/August 2007