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.

NRA

2 tall2 tall Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
Standing Guard: Vote For The Second Amendment






In just a few days, on November 4, gun owners will be presented with a very clear choice of a pro-Second Amendment versus an anti-Second Amendment Presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama and Joe Biden represents a stark contrast for the future of our freedom.

In that choice, one fact is foremost:

The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of our Right To Keep and Bear Arms.

The landmark Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court--which struck down the D.C. gun ban and its attendant criminalizing of armed self-defense in the home--was decided by a one vote margin, in a 5-4 decision. The court's decision was aided by briefs filed by Congress and states--briefs signed by John McCain and by Palin's state of Alaska.

The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden refused to sign in support of the Second Amendment. But for President George W. Bush's two high court nominations, it could easily have gone the other way. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel Alito truly made the difference. Keep in mind that Barack Obama and the man who is now his running mate, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, voted against confirming both.

And Biden, one-time chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, was radically opposed and used every trick in the book including the threat of a filibuster to kill the confirmation process.

Gun owners have U.S. Sen. John McCain to thank for quashing Biden's filibuster moves and brokering the Senate agreement that allowed confirmation. If Biden had his way, the Senate could have stalled indefinitely, leaving two vacancies unfilled, and creating a seven-member court dominated by the very justices who opposed the Second Amendment as protection for a broad, individual right.

Biden told the NAACP during his own losing primary bid for the Democratic presidential nomination:

"The next president is likely to name at least one, if not three new Supreme Court justices. We should start this national debate by recognizing the truth--that Roberts and Alito have turned the court upside down . . I guarantee you that will change."

Turning "the court upside down ." As in upholding the Second Amendment.

Biden's pledge came in an important context. With funding from globalist gun-banner George Soros, the NAACP filed the most onerous litigation de-signed by our enemies to drive America's firearm industry into bankruptcy.

That suit, argued before Brooklyn, N.Y., U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, claimed that virtually all elements of the federally regulated and lawful firearm industry were collectively responsible for the totally unrelated illegal acts of armed, violent criminals. The suit ultimately was a loser, but cost consumers millions of dollars in legal fees. It was one of a string of serial, punitive lawsuits brought before lifetime-appointee Weinstein.

And on that score, the last such lawsuit before Weinstein was thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled the litigation violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the NRA-backed 2005 law--a law vehemently opposed by Obama and Biden.

If the Obama and Biden team has its way, the nation will again be flooded with hundreds of such suits creating what one gun-ban lawyer called "death by a thousand cuts." Under an Obama-Biden administration, the lower federal courts would resemble cloned versions of Weinstein's Brooklyn star chamber.

During the remarkable Saddleback forum, Obama attacked the nominations of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, author of the brilliant Heller decision. Counted with his "no" votes against Roberts and Alito, that's an Obama thumbs down for four of the five justices who rendered the Supreme Court's definitive decision upholding the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right and recognizing the right to armed self-defense in the home.

In this last column before we go to the polls I must make an additional point. While we have disagreed in the past with Sen. McCain on a few specific issues, these disagreements pale in comparison to what the future would be like for gun owners if an Obama-Biden regime were to control all organs of federal power and land a one-two punch against freedom.

John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an NRA Life member, life-long gun owner, hunter and staunch Second Amendment supporter. She is an electrifying force for preservation and expansion of all the gains we have made in the past decades.

I found it remarkable that in every story announcing her selection she was described as a "lifetime" member of the NRA. She is indeed proud of her Life membership. Suddenly the phony poses of Obama and Biden wrapping themselves around the Second Amendment are stripped to their essence--a semantic trick designed to fool gun owners. You can't let that happen.

Your vote is a remarkable power that you must wield to preserve the Second Amendment. With all of this, there is a simple message. Vote. Get your friends, family and co-workers to vote. And vote for the only ticket that will uphold our Freedom. Vote for the Second Amendment. Vote for the McCain-Palin ticket!
«1

Comments

  • 2 tall2 tall Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Im reading some posts and seeing that some are not happy with the NRA. Can someone summarize or show me a previous post that explains some of this.

    Thanks
  • 2 tall2 tall Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    i see on hear a lot of you down talking the nra. weather through ignorance or anything else i am unaware of why this would be so. what do they do that is so bad? and also i live connecticut. manye of the ranges here require a nra membership to join. so unless yuour a member you need to have or have a good buddy who has enough land for a 100yrd range to shoot that is outside city limits. which here in ct isnt the easiest thing to accomplish. there are indoor 25 yrd ranges that will let anyone in but what good is that for honing your skills with a rifle? if not jopining the nra what other groups are there that would be helpful in this?
  • 2 tall2 tall Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    National Rifle Association of America
    Attn: Wayne LaPierre - Exec. VP
    11250 Waples Mill Rd.
    Fairfax VA 22030

    I have been a member of the NRA since 1991, and a life member since 1998. I have supported the NRA both vocally and monetarily in their efforts, but no more. I have stood idly by for the last few years and watched as more and more restrictions have been signed into law. Meanwhile, the NRA has appeared to do little or nothing to fight these restrictions, and even went as far as supporting the most recent legislation, HR 2640.
    It was this support of HR 2640 that was the proverbial "nail in the coffin." I know that any legislation with support from the likes of Sen. Schumer and Rep. McCarthy cannot be good for firearms owners. It doesn't surprise me when they support restrictive legislation, but for the organization, that supposedly represents me and my RTKBA supports it, I find it appalling. HR 2640 was nothing more than the typical "knee-jerk" reaction to a terrible tragedy; ironically, an incident that may have been prevented had it not been for previous legislation declaring school property and college campuses as "gun-free" zones. Do not bother with replying to me singing the praises of this legislation, and touting it as being pro-gun. It's not. When I was a kid, my grandfather used to tell me, "Shane, you can take a hog. You can clean and wash him up. You can put a ribbon around his neck; but you know what? He's still a hog." The NRA fell for this garbage hook, line, and sinker. They bought-in to the argument that HR 2640 was "common-sense" regulation. The NRA believed the government of the United States, and what they were saying. A little study in history will show that is a very risky thing to do. The NRA should also cease its mantra of "enforce, enforce, enforce the existing laws." _ of the existing firearms laws now are unconstitutional. How about "repeal, repeal, repeal?"

    I also take issue with the NRA on its action, or lack thereof, in this election year. We have a candidate vying for the Presidency this year that has openly stated his support for the Constitution / RTKBA, and has backed it up with his action in the U.S. House of Representatives. His record leaves no question as to his passionate support of the 2nd Amendment. He has consistently voted for pro-gun legislation and has consistently voted against further restrictions on our RTKBA. I would think that an organization as influential as the NRA would be exhausting all efforts in encouraging support for Rep. Ron Paul. In your literature, you are always using the example of "Lexington Green" and the "shot heard round the world." Well, it is time you take some of you own medicine and follow the example of the famous patriot Paul Revere. You should be "hanging lanterns in the bell tower" and "riding through the night" to inform gun owners about Rep. Paul, and doing everything you can to garner support for him in his bid for the Presidency, but I have witnessed none of this. No email alerts. No mailers. No columns in the American Rifleman. No phone calls. Nothing but the chirping of crickets. Why? I surmise that you have taken the same position as the mainstream media, and believe Rep. Paul is a non-viable candidate, i.e. unelectable. You will choose your "golden-boy" candidate to endorse, even though that candidate will not be as strong a supporter of the Constitution as Rep. Paul. We have started choosing candidates on "electability" or "the lesser of two evils." I have always despised that logic because your conscience should determine whom you support, and voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still a vote for evil. Whatever happened to doing the right thing because it is right? It may not be popular, but it is right, nonetheless.

    Because of the two issues I have mentioned, with particular emphasis on the first one, you, the NRA, have alienated gun owners. Many of them are members of your organization. Many of them are former members of your organization. I have been a "hold-out" so far. I believe everyone is subject to making bad decisions, and I believe in giving them a chance to redeem themselves. Many of your former members will disagree, and believe you have established a pattern of the aforementioned behaviors. I am inclined to agree with them. I believe you may be able to save face if:

    1) You issue a formal apology to all firearms owners for supporting this most recent legislation (HR2640), as well as the other "common-sense" restrictions you've stood behind.

    2) Immediately begin a campaign to not only block further restrictive legislation, but to repeal most of the legislation in place. You should be familiar with it, because you gave your stamp of approval on much of it.

    3) Endorse Rep. Ron Paul as your candidate for President of the United States. You know of all the candidates, he is the strongest supporter of the RTKBA, and has the record to prove it.

    Do this, and it will show the gun owners in this country that you have some integrity left. However, continue on the path you have been on, and you will leave me with no choice. I will be mailing my membership card back to you, and withdrawing from your organization. I will not give my vocal support to you when I am among other gun owners, and will point them to organizations such as GOA and JFPO. I will give you no monetary support to put in the bag with your "thirty pieces of silver" either. And do not make the mistake of thinking, "He's just one member; it doesn't matter." There are many other of your members that feel just as betrayed as I do. Many have left, and unless there is a change of direction, many more will leave, including myself. Do what is right.
    Sincerely, Shane Draughn


    Scathing, but I had to send it to them. They brought it upon themselves.
  • Ba SardoBa Sardo Member Posts: 562 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Screw the NRA - I'm voting for Ron Paul.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 2 tall










    Standing Guard: Vote For The Second Amendment






    In just a few days, on November 4, gun owners will be presented with a very clear choice of a pro-Second Amendment versus an anti-Second Amendment Presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama and Joe Biden represents a stark contrast for the future of our freedom.

    In that choice, one fact is foremost:

    The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of our Right To Keep and Bear Arms.
    .....


    In this last column before we go to the polls I must make an additional point. While we have disagreed in the past with Sen. McCain on a few specific issues, these disagreements pale in comparison to what the future would be like for gun owners if an Obama-Biden regime were to control all organs of federal power and land a one-two punch against freedom.





    Bunch of dumb * clowns. Again, the NRA go with the "democrats will put gun grabbers on the courts" whine.
    Is the NRA so shortsighted that they do not remember going to the Supreme court, to challenge John McPains "campaign finance reform"? Dont they remember slamming McPain for sponsoring a bill that put a muzzle on the NRA-restricting their speech rights during elections? Did they fail to notice what judges opined in favor of McPaigns anti first amendment legislation, and which judges dissented? The "radical" judges, those judges that the NRA opposes, all voted in favor of McPains anti first amendment legislation. The so called "pro gun" judges, that the NRA approve of, voted in dissent. McPains crowning achievement(in his mind), is his campaign finance reform. Is he going to nominate judges, "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas", who will shoot down his unconstitutional law, or is he going to nominate judges in the mold of Breyer Ginsburg, etc, who will uphold his unconstitutional monstrosity? It dont take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
    The whole nomination issue is off the table-no matter who is president, you can count on radical judges. John has too much at stake to allow judges on the bench who would view his anti first amendment agenda as unconstitutional.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    Bunch of dumb * clowns. Again, the NRA go with the "democrats will put gun grabbers on the courts" whine.
    Is the NRA so shortsighted that they do not remember going to the Supreme court, to challenge John McPains "campaign finance reform"? Dont they remember slamming McPain for sponsoring a bill that put a muzzle on the NRA-restricting their speech rights during elections? Did they fail to notice what judges opined in favor of McPaigns anti first amendment legislation, and which judges dissented? The "radical" judges, those judges that the NRA opposes, all voted in favor of McPains anti first amendment legislation. The so called "pro gun" judges, that the NRA approve of, voted in dissent. McPains crowning achievement(in his mind), is his campaign finance reform. Is he going to nominate judges, "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas", who will shoot down his unconstitutional law, or is he going to nominate judges in the mold of Breyer Ginsburg, etc, who will uphold his unconstitutional monstrosity? It dont take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
    The whole nomination issue is off the table-no matter who is president, you can count on radical judges. John has too much at stake to allow judges on the bench who would view his anti first amendment agenda as unconstitutional.

    NRAMBLA, gotta love em. John 'close the Gun-show Loophole' McCain is a lover of 2nd Amendment Rights. I would think, salzo, that McCain will appoint justices in the mold of Kennedy. Kennedy is, after all, similar to McCain in that there are time you just don't know, and both need your weatherman to see which way they should lean.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don- I could see that. Kennedy doesnt really have a philosophy-he bases his opinions on a roll of the dice, which is the absolute best the NRA can hope for. Put a few Kennedys (whatever that is) on the court, and hopefully when they role the dice on a second amendment case, the dice will fall in the second amendments favor. CRAPS!!
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    NRA. Pathetic bureaucratic joke perpetuating gun control to perpetuate themselves. Their greed will come back to bite them in the keester.
  • jyjhnsnjyjhnsn Member Posts: 26 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    NRA. Pathetic bureaucratic joke perpetuating gun control to perpetuate themselves. Their greed will come back to bite them in the keester.


    If it were not for the NRA we would not have any gun rights.
  • bpostbpost Member Posts: 32,664 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I became a NRA life member at 14 then a Patron member in my 30's. The NRA has become the "REPUBLICAN GUN DIGEST", it makes me sick.

    I don't care what they say, I ain't voting for McCain. The republicans have screwed me silly on too many issues for too many years. GWB destroyed any remaining confidence I had in the republicans by leaving our borders wide open and telling me he was concerned about our safety.

    The only thing the NRA and the Republican party care about is money and power, right or wrong free or enslaved never enters the picture.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jyjhnsn
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    NRA. Pathetic bureaucratic joke perpetuating gun control to perpetuate themselves. Their greed will come back to bite them in the keester.


    If it were not for the NRA we would not have any gun rights.



    OMG! You are ......just OMG!
  • jyjhnsnjyjhnsn Member Posts: 26 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
    I became a NRA life member at 14 then a Patron member in my 30's. The NRA has become the "REPUBLICAN GUN DIGEST", it makes me sick.

    I don't care what they say, I ain't voting for McCain. The republicans have screwed me silly on too many issues for too many years. GWB destroyed any remaining confidence I had in the republicans by leaving our borders wide open and telling me he was concerned about our safety.

    The only thing the NRA and the Republican party care about is money and power, right or wrong free or enslaved never enters the picture.


    The NRA has one goal and that is preserving our gun rights. They promote candidates that have the best record in terms of our gun rights. So of course they promote mostly Republicans.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If it were not for the NRA we would not have any gun rights.

    Bullschit. There is but one reason, and one reason only, that we still have the right to keep and bear arms. You wanna know what it is?

    It's sitting in your safe, strapped to your side, in the nightstand drawer, or hanging in a rack in your vehicle. The mere fact that there are 80+ million gun owners is the only reason we have the RTKBA.

    The NRA, the 'last line of defense for the RTKBA' (cringe)[:(!], has done nothing but undermine the RTKBA. They have supported all or part of every major piece of legislation; NFA34, GCA68, HR2640, and the list goes on.

    Still think the NRA is the reason we have the RTKBA? Well, answer me this; Why has the NRA endorsed a candidate for POTUS in this election that does not believe in the RTKBA?
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The NRA has one goal and that is preserving our gun rightsmoney, money, and money. They promote candidates that have the best record in terms of a high probability and/or a past record of voting against our gun rights, just as they have done this year. So of course they promote mostly Republicans, but 'Republican' doesn't necessarily mean pro-RTKBA.


    Fixed it. Won't cost you a thing.[;)][:D]
  • Ba SardoBa Sardo Member Posts: 562 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jyjhnsn
    If it were not for the NRA we would not have any gun rights.
    Actually, that right is pretty clearly stated in the Bill of Rights. Americans today have forgotten where our rights come from and confuse your run-of-the-mill money grubbing PAC's for some sort last ditch defense.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Bingo, Sardo!


    quote:Originally posted by 2 tall










    Standing Guard(The NRA? Hahahahahahahahahaha! Please! Ludicrous!): Vote For The Second Amendment






    In just a few days, on November 4, gun owners will be presented with a very clear choice of a pro-Second Amendment versus an anti-Second Amendment Presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama and Joe Biden represents a stark contrast for the future of our freedom.

    In that choice, one fact is foremost:

    The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of our Right To Keep and Bear Arms.









    BS! I will determine the continued the continued existence of my right to keep and bear arms. I have yet to read in any text where the founders had the NRA there stabbing them in the back. They handled it themselves!

    If you think the NRA is standing guard for you, you have done ZERO research on them. The only thing they guard is Wayne LaPierre's big fat bank account.[:(!]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:If it were not for the NRA we would not have any gun rights.
    Spoken like a New American;


    You know...like those that voted in this last election for Marxism OR Socialism...obamacain.

    Spoken like the emasculated, feminized, cowardly eunuchs the `men' in this country have become.
    Not one sign of backbone...nor the concept of doing ones' duty as an American.

    Defend AMERICA against enemies, foreign and domestic.

    A gun controller IS THE ENEMY OF EVERYTHING AN AMERICAN OUGHT TO HOLD DEAR.
    Plain and simple.

    Those that advocate gun control are unfit to hold office;
    They are unfit for polite company;
    They are unfit to carry the title of `American';
    They ought to be `untouchables'...NOBODY ought to sell, give, interact, or converse with them.
    These actions need not be law...just the sensible actions taken by decent people sending a silent MESSAGE....BE AN AMERICAN..or be treated as the garbage you are.

    They ought to banned from walking down the same street as decent people ..forced to step into the gutter as decent people walk by.

    They deserve these measures because they are aiding and abetting in the death of this country.

    They are traitors to America.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    NO MORE $$$ TO THE NRA.
  • breakerdanbreakerdan Member Posts: 364 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The NRA no longer indentifies with the average gun owner.
    By using scare tactics and partly true information, they manipulate and spread lies. Their propaganda insults me.

    I think it hilarious how bad they say Obama is and then make McSame look like a savior for gun rights. Truth is, McSame is somewhat of a socialist himself thanks to his bailout and ties to Bush.
    I voted for McSame, just because I trust his experience, not how he will make America better and more free.

    I lost faith in the NRA over the 2007 scandal involving Texas Ranger
    Joaquin Jackson who was a NRA board member. He is a true American,
    and a fellow Texan with an exemplary record of law enforcement.
    He said that he enlisted armed citizens during his career and was very appreciative of them when he had no backup. Anyway, people left the NRA by the droves because he said HUNTERS really dont need more than 5 rounds and that assault rifles were for the military. He never said he wanted to ban hi caps or prohibit ownership, just that he didnt think you needed them. I agree, I dont need that many rounds, but I wouldnt ban them either. That told me what the NRA is made of. When a true American makes a statement of common sense and half the NRA goes nuts, I lose total respect for them. If he had said that 50 years ago people would have said he was exactly right.
    Now, he is a gun banner. In his service as a Ranger, he did carry fully auto weapons, but his main guns were the Winchester 94 30-30 and a 1911. Civilians would be excellently armed with that. Why now does everybody have to have and support the use of an AR15 to be a TRUE gun owner? If that is what the NRA has come to, then I will never join. My dad was a member- he left because of how they treated Jackson.

    Why have we come to the point where we think an organization can save our rights? Ladies and Gentleman, your rights are preserved by your right to vote. If you lose your rights, you had your chance.
    Vote and vote often as they say.


    book-md.jpg
    DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A GUN BANNER? - THE NRA THINKS SO -WHAT HAVE THEY COME TO?
  • chaoslodgechaoslodge Member Posts: 790 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by breakerdan
    Why now does everybody have to have and support the use of an AR15 to be a TRUE gun owner?


    Valid question. You do not.

    I believe that if you really love your country and you are able bodied, you should own and know how to use a firearm that puts you at least on par with the local law enforcement. Not so you can kill cops but so you have a check and balance against the use of those resources by a government gone awry. The 2nd amendment is not their so you can shoot clays, go hunting or play IPSC. It is there so we the people have recourse (albeit last resort) against the potential tyranny of our own government. Our founding fathers were quite brilliant when they divised a plan for governance based on the exchange of ideas and compromise through a ballot. They were smart enough to make sure that it was able to be backed up with force if need be. That is why I might take umbrage at the statement you attributed to this Ranger fellow.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I believe that if you really love your country and you are able bodied, you should own and know how to use a firearm that puts you at least on par with the local law enforcement. Not so you can kill cops but so you have a check and balance against the use of those resources by a government gone awry. The 2nd amendment is not their so you can shoot clays, go hunting or play IPSC. It is there so we the people have recourse (albeit last resort) against the potential tyranny of our own government. Our founding fathers were quite brilliant when they divised a plan for governance based on the exchange of ideas and compromise through a ballot. They were smart enough to make sure that it was able to be backed up with force if need be. That is why I might take umbrage at the statement you attributed to this Ranger fellow.


    Excellent point in the opening two sentences of the paragraph. As for the remainder, especially for those 'confused' about the Founder's intent, this post clearly explains what the second article to the Bill of Rights is about, and why it is in place.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by breakerdan
    The NRA no longer indentifies with the average gun owner.
    By using scare tactics and partly true information, they manipulate and spread lies. Their propaganda insults me.

    I think it hilarious how bad they say Obama is and then make McSame look like a savior for gun rights. Truth is, McSame is somewhat of a socialist himself thanks to his bailout and ties to Bush.
    I voted for McSame, just because I trust his experience, not how he will make America better and more free.

    I lost faith in the NRA over the 2007 scandal involving Texas Ranger
    Joaquin Jackson who was a NRA board member. He is a true American,
    and a fellow Texan with an exemplary record of law enforcement.
    He said that he enlisted armed citizens during his career and was very appreciative of them when he had no backup. Anyway, people left the NRA by the droves because he said HUNTERS really dont need more than 5 rounds and that assault rifles were for the military. He never said he wanted to ban hi caps or prohibit ownership, just that he didnt think you needed them. I agree, I dont need that many rounds, but I wouldnt ban them either. That told me what the NRA is made of. When a true American makes a statement of common sense and half the NRA goes nuts, I lose total respect for them. If he had said that 50 years ago people would have said he was exactly right.
    Now, he is a gun banner. In his service as a Ranger, he did carry fully auto weapons, but his main guns were the Winchester 94 30-30 and a 1911. Civilians would be excellently armed with that. Why now does everybody have to have and support the use of an AR15 to be a TRUE gun owner? If that is what the NRA has come to, then I will never join. My dad was a member- he left because of how they treated Jackson.

    Why have we come to the point where we think an organization can save our rights? Ladies and Gentleman, your rights are preserved by your right to vote. If you lose your rights, you had your chance.
    Vote and vote often as they say.


    book-md.jpg
    DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A GUN BANNER? - THE NRA THINKS SO -WHAT HAVE THEY COME TO?


    In red above. I believe the gun owning world has mostly gone crazy. Many gun owners, gun owners right here on GB.com, refuse to support to the NRA because, according to them, the NRA does not support the right of citizens to own AR-15'a. Yet you are tellling me that you and others do not support the NRA because too many NRA members DO support the right of citizens to own AR-15'ss..

    Man, if I ran the NRA I would just plain give it up. Too much crazy thinking when dealing with some gun owners.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    No confusion exists;
    Except in the muddled brains of the dumbed down populace of this once great country.

    Take the post from breakerdan above.

    He is obviously one of yours Tr..just one tiny step further left.

    The Second Amendment is PRECISLY about M-16s..and the need to own them by the general public, free of government interference.

    All the Kings Men cannot change that.

    All the weak-kneed, all the cowards, all the Quislings, all the compromisers CANNOT graft enough words on those few words that comprise the Second Amendment to change the meaning of it.

    You see..from my prospective, You, Tr, are merely breakerdan LIGHT ..and neither of you understand the REASON for the Second Amendment.
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I swear this post could be a C&P from 5 years ago.

    I predict in the next 18-months the NRA will broker a new Assault Weapons Ban with the Leftist Congress that we must now endure. The NRA will say it is the "best deal they could make" and will encourage all of their members to support it.

    Except this time there will be no sunset, the AWB will be permanent. And Wayne LaPierre will serve it to America like a steaming turd on a silver platter.

    -WoundedWolf
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
    I swear this post could be a C&P from 5 years ago.

    I predict in the next 18-months the NRA will broker a new Assault Weapons Ban with the Leftist Congress that we must now endure. The NRA will say it is the "best deal they could make" and will encourage all of their members to support it.

    Except this time there will be no sunset, the AWB will be permanent. And Wayne LaPierre will serve it to America like a steaming turd on a silver platter.

    -WoundedWolf


    WW -

    I agree with your post, only I think it will be sooner than 18 months
  • rkba4everrkba4ever Member Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I give it no later than June. He'll want to do it early so by the time re-election approaches, the sheeple will have forgotten (just like clinton did - that !@#$ won re-election after the first AWB).
  • breakerdanbreakerdan Member Posts: 364 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    No confusion exists;
    Except in the muddled brains of the dumbed down populace of this once great country.

    Take the post from breakerdan above.

    He is obviously one of yours Tr..just one tiny step further left.

    The Second Amendment is PRECISLY about M-16s..and the need to own them by the general public, free of government interference.

    All the Kings Men cannot change that.

    All the weak-kneed, all the cowards, all the Quislings, all the compromisers CANNOT graft enough words on those few words that comprise the Second Amendment to change the meaning of it.

    You see..from my prospective, You, Tr, are merely breakerdan LIGHT ..and neither of you understand the REASON for the Second Amendment.




    I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN OF ASSAULT WEAPONS NOR DOES THE RANGER I WAS DEFENDING!!!!!!! I DONT LIKE THEM OR NEED THEM- FOR WHAT I DO WITH A GUN THEY ARE USELESS, BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN. HE DOESNT THINK YOU NEED MORE THAN 5 ROUNDS, NEITHER DO I, BUT I WOULDNT BAN HI CAP CLIPS.

    I hear crap that I am not a true gun rights advocate because of the above. I carry and use guns on a daily basis, they are an integral part of who I am. I just have no use for assualt rifles.

    Just because I dont like these guns I am suddenly dumbed down too.
    I have argued many times on blogs supporting Jackson. The older crowd, at least were I am from (ranching area in TX) have no use for assualt rifles and would look at you like you were nuts for using one. They simply have no use for them. AND THEY ALL LOVE GUNS- ONE IN EVERY TRUCK maybe more.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    I really don't give a damn about your personal 'feelings' about hi-caps, assault weapons, or the color of your eyes.
    The problem remains, however...when a high-profile figure proclaims that those items are' useless, don't need, ect' ..they indicate that they are totally IGNORANT of the REASON for the Second Amendment !!

    I never owned a black high capacity battle rifle IN MY LIFE ..preferring single shot rifles...until the day the government said that they intended restricting them.

    On that day..I decided by GOD it was time to do my duty as a concerned American CITIZEN...and I fulfilled part of the mission as outlined by the Founders.
    I am sorry you and the Ranger are unable to look beyond you personal prejudice to do what is right.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by breakerdan
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    No confusion exists;
    Except in the muddled brains of the dumbed down populace of this once great country.

    Take the post from breakerdan above.

    He is obviously one of yours Tr..just one tiny step further left.

    The Second Amendment is PRECISLY about M-16s..and the need to own them by the general public, free of government interference.

    All the Kings Men cannot change that.

    All the weak-kneed, all the cowards, all the Quislings, all the compromisers CANNOT graft enough words on those few words that comprise the Second Amendment to change the meaning of it.

    You see..from my prospective, You, Tr, are merely breakerdan LIGHT ..and neither of you understand the REASON for the Second Amendment.




    I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN OF ASSAULT WEAPONS NOR DOES THE RANGER I WAS DEFENDING!!!!!!! I DONT LIKE THEM OR NEED THEM- FOR WHAT I DO WITH A GUN THEY ARE USELESS, BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN. HE DOESNT THINK YOU NEED MORE THAN 5 ROUNDS, NEITHER DO I, BUT I WOULDNT BAN HI CAP CLIPS.

    I hear crap that I am not a true gun rights advocate because of the above. I carry and use guns on a daily basis, they are an integral part of who I am. I just have no use for assualt rifles.

    Just because I dont like these guns I am suddenly dumbed down too.
    I have argued many times on blogs supporting Jackson. The older crowd, at least were I am from (ranching area in TX) have no use for assualt rifles and would look at you like you were nuts for using one. They simply have no use for them. AND THEY ALL LOVE GUNS- ONE IN EVERY TRUCK maybe more.





    Wonderful, but do you and they, support the unrestricted right of other to keep and bear those type arms, regardless of whether them/you "like" them, or have "use" for them, or not?
  • breakerdanbreakerdan Member Posts: 364 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    [/quote]

    Wonderful, but do you and they, support the unrestricted right of other to keep and bear those type arms, regardless of whether them/you "like" them, or have "use" for them, or not?


    [/quote]

    I do support the unrestricted right of lawful citizen to own Assault rifles. As I said, I dont like em and dont need em, but I would not ban or restrict them. Last I checked, the second amendment did not specify that an assault rifle was any different than a 2 shot derringer. As firearms, I believe in the ownership and use of them.
  • breakerdanbreakerdan Member Posts: 364 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I really don't give a damn about your personal 'feelings' about hi-caps, assault weapons, or the color of your eyes.
    The problem remains, however...when a high-profile figure proclaims that those items are' useless, don't need, ect' ..they indicate that they are totally IGNORANT of the REASON for the Second Amendment !!

    I never owned a black high capacity battle rifle IN MY LIFE ..preferring single shot rifles...until the day the government said that they intended restricting them.

    On that day..I decided by GOD it was time to do my duty as a concerned American CITIZEN...and I fulfilled part of the mission as outlined by the Founders.
    I am sorry you and the Ranger are unable to look beyond you personal prejudice to do what is right.


    Got the dont give a damn part, but how am I not doing what is right?
    "Feelings" aside, I have already stated that it is your right to own assault rifles and I would not ban or restrict them if in a political office. I understand the reason for the second amendment: PREVENT TYRANNY! I just dont understand how I am wrong when we agree on your right to own assault rifles. I obviously can look beyond my prejudice-read above very carefully.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    While bolt guns play a very important role were war to come to this land... assault weapons will be necessary to win such a war.

    Like it or not ..I believe that to be fact. So too does the government ..witness their unending attacks on them, and their ever more restrictions on silencers/full autos/semi autos.
    I do NOT believe in giving comfort to the enemy...and I regard gun controllers as domestic enemies.

    Therefore ..I own a black gun or two. I believe strongly in poking a stick in the eye of my enemy, if it is possible to do so without all-out war...and legally owning black weapons DOES so.
    The day all-out war begins...those evil black weapons will carry the day...IF enough decent citizens own them and are prepared to use them.

    I have no problem at all with your stand concerning black weapons; I share, believe it or not, much of your repugnance with the genre.
    That being said ..I would personally prefer that one that feels that way remain silent ..so as not to give the enemy a club with which to beat we gun owners with.

    As a gun owner ..your opinion in the matter is powerful to the unwashed masses that have been taught to despise weapons of ANY stripe ..and black weapons especially.

    Now;
    I apologize for the rabid dog attack.
    That is my job today...to rapidly separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to gun Rights. I no longer have the time or the patience to be polite in the matter.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by breakerdan


    I do support the unrestricted right of lawful citizen to own Assault rifles. As I said, I dont like em and dont need em, but I would not ban or restrict them. Last I checked, the second amendment did not specify that an assault rifle was any different than a 2 shot derringer. As firearms, I believe in the ownership and use of them.




    Define "lawful" for me, in your assessment, if you don't mind.

    "Ownership and use" are pretty broad. Do you support restrictions on what, when and where one can "carry" aka "bear" these firearms?

    Just trying to gauge your stance.
  • breakerdanbreakerdan Member Posts: 364 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by breakerdan


    I do support the unrestricted right of lawful citizen to own Assault rifles. As I said, I dont like em and dont need em, but I would not ban or restrict them. Last I checked, the second amendment did not specify that an assault rifle was any different than a 2 shot derringer. As firearms, I believe in the ownership and use of them.




    Define "lawful" for me, in your assessment, if you don't mind.

    "Ownership and use" are pretty broad. Do you support restrictions on what, when and where one can "carry" aka "bear" these firearms?

    Just trying to gauge your stance.




    Lawful: anyone not convicted of a felony, or an illegal alien.
    Ownership and Use: I support concealed carry. No support of restrictions on where and when you can carry. I like the TX gun laws of being able to defend yourself and carry in your car w/o liscence- It is your duty to defend yourself, family and society. All men should possess and know how to use a firearm responsibly for the event of self defense, feeding the family in a societal meltdown, or invasion by foreign forces (US enemies fear this). If you happen to like one of those black plastic assault rifles-more power to you.
  • breakerdanbreakerdan Member Posts: 364 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    While bolt guns play a very important role were war to come to this land... assault weapons will be necessary to win such a war.

    Like it or not ..I believe that to be fact. So too does the government ..witness their unending attacks on them, and their ever more restrictions on silencers/full autos/semi autos.
    I do NOT believe in giving comfort to the enemy...and I regard gun controllers as domestic enemies.

    Therefore ..I own a black gun or two. I believe strongly in poking a stick in the eye of my enemy, if it is possible to do so without all-out war...and legally owning black weapons DOES so.
    The day all-out war begins...those evil black weapons will carry the day...IF enough decent citizens own them and are prepared to use them.

    I have no problem at all with your stand concerning black weapons; I share, believe it or not, much of your repugnance with the genre.
    That being said ..I would personally prefer that one that feels that way remain silent ..so as not to give the enemy a club with which to beat we gun owners with.

    As a gun owner ..your opinion in the matter is powerful to the unwashed masses that have been taught to despise weapons of ANY stripe ..and black weapons especially.

    Now;
    I apologize for the rabid dog attack.
    That is my job today...to rapidly separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to gun Rights. I no longer have the time or the patience to be polite in the matter.


    apology accepted. Believe me, I am no gun controller- I support concealed carry, all types of gun ownership, hunting, and self defense of home, yourself or property.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    breakerdan,
    Considering the evolution of this thread, I'm glad to see you didn't run away saying "those guys aren't nice" in the Gun Rights forum.

    We have had our share of Tories in this forum, who would be first to throw the torch, burning down the church. From the sounds of it, your not one of them. Welcome to the forum.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    I take exception to one, possibly two items:
    1) *possible* you referred to conceal carry. Do you feel that BOR #2 has already covered this, or do feel it should be "licensed"?

    2) Felons: either they've paid their debt, and should have full rights returned, or they should still be locked up. If they are not deemed safe to own a weapon and freedom, they should not have either. If they are deemed fit for one, they should have the other.
  • breakerdanbreakerdan Member Posts: 364 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    I take exception to one, possibly two items:
    1) *possible* you referred to conceal carry. Do you feel that BOR #2 has already covered this, or do feel it should be "licensed"?

    2) Felons: either they've paid their debt, and should have full rights returned, or they should still be locked up. If they are not deemed safe to own a weapon and freedom, they should not have either. If they are deemed fit for one, they should have the other.


    In TX, you can carry concealed in the vehicle w/o permit but not on person w/o permit.
    I dont really think you should have to be liscensed to carry, but the training is beneficial. If you are competent enough to use a gun around home or vehicle, I dont see why people should have to get a liscence, but that is the law.

    On the felon part, I cannot support felons being able to purchase guns, but I am not naive enough to think that they wont get them off the black market.
  • breakerdanbreakerdan Member Posts: 364 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    breakerdan,
    Considering the evolution of this thread, I'm glad to see you didn't run away saying "those guys aren't nice" in the Gun Rights forum.

    We have had our share of Tories in this forum, who would be first to throw the torch, burning down the church. From the sounds of it, your not one of them. Welcome to the forum.

    thank you
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    He is not a Canary *;

    Hopefully, he will point his rifle the right way when tyranny finally cannot wait any longer.
Sign In or Register to comment.