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 question
Lonestar86
Member Posts: 130 ✭✭✭
I am sure this question has been hashed a thousand times on this board, but since I am new, and I have not been educated on the claims made against the NRA, I am going to ask anyways. Again, not intended to start a holy war, just trying to get an education. Don't read anything into it (I gave up my membership in the NRA in 1998, but not for exactly all the reasons the Canary's have been sharing)
If the NRA is not the "logical" supporter of gun rights in America, who is??? As it is clear that some organization is required to change unconstituitonal gun laws. Who do strict constitutonalists turn to fight there battles in the public arena. Again, not looking for a fight or argument, just a place or information to look at about who can I support or help to change these laws if the NRA (and I am not convinced they are) is not the answer.
If the NRA is not the "logical" supporter of gun rights in America, who is??? As it is clear that some organization is required to change unconstituitonal gun laws. Who do strict constitutonalists turn to fight there battles in the public arena. Again, not looking for a fight or argument, just a place or information to look at about who can I support or help to change these laws if the NRA (and I am not convinced they are) is not the answer.
Comments
LINK http://gunowners.org/
BTW don't worry every NRA thread turns into a blood bath. [;)]
Now there are THREE organizations to look into. Report back, if you would, and tell us what ya think.
If the NRA is not the "logical" supporter of gun rights in America, who is???
Ultimately.........YOU are.
My issue, I guess if we want to call it that, is that I have been a shooter, hunter, collector for over 25 years and non of these strict constitutional groups are mainstream and are so small that I have never heard of them. I thought I was fairly knowledgable about gun rights, but honestly I feel like a novice since I came to this board.
So my question is how do we promote groups like this to become mainstream, because until they are brought from the fringe of the political spectrum, they will not be accepted in "Polite Political Company" so to speak even in the gun rights crowd. Is it the "failure/refusal" to comromise that keeps them from being invited to the table? And if so then our views will never be given due process under the law.
I am betwicked and between on this. Words from the "peanut gallery" will never be considered, but giving in is not a viable answer either. So as asked before by others is the compromise that the NRA brings to the table better then nothing? I don't have a good answer.
Perhaps the answer is a new political movement based more on the republican ideals of Jefferson. Call it the Constitutional Party if you will. However this party must be about more then just the second amendment, it must be about the strict interpretation of the ENTIRE constitution. Gun rights can be given its due, but in my opinion it must take its place in line with other constitutional threats equally threatening to our nation.
Any way you look at it Middle America needs a voice that can show common sense yet still protect the bacis tenants of our republic.
Thanks for the information, keep it coming. I enjoy all ya'lls views (that's plural for ya'll to the Yankees)
quote:So my question is how do we promote groups like this to become mainstream, because until they are brought from the fringe of the political spectrum, they will not be accepted in "Polite Political Company" so to speak even in the gun rights crowd. Is it the "failure/refusal" to comromise that keeps them from being invited to the table? And if so then our views will never be given due process under the law
Any way you can. Donate money, attend meetings and bring friends, volunteer to man tables at gun shows, op ed's using accurate quotes from org officials.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
In the past, MANY feel that they incorporate TOO MUCH RELIGION into their platform. While there is a basis for religion in the founding of this country, some feel that mixing politics and religion should be avoided. You can judge for yourself.
**********
As for the NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, or ANY other group. I am becoming more and more convinced that joining ANY of them, expecting them "TO FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS" is an act in futility. YOU have to take responsibility for YOUR rights. Throwing money at any organization once a year, then saying to yourself that you have done your part, well, besides being a cop-out, those days are OVER. An explanation will be forthcoming.
While the NRA is obviously the "big dog" on the block, they have proven over and over, that they are MORE THAN WILLING to compromise our rights away. A little at a time, just like the government is willing to do. The other groups, while they (at times) strike "some" fear into our elected representatives, are too small to be very effective.
The indisputable fact is that the NRA has been around a very long time, with millions of members as support, its presence has not stopped anti-firearm legislation from being introduced, being passed, and becoming law. However (and this is more my point) since the proliferation of the internet, better/faster information and organization of second amendment supporters have caused the likes of Pelosi and Reid to say "we don't need more gun control". 65 Dems signed the letter saying that we don't need another AWB. Do they personally believe it? No. But it sure isn't the NRA that concerns them.
We are in an age, for once, where they can't slip legislation by us and get a vote in the house/senate without most of the community of firearm owners knowing about it in advance. Very little can be slipped by "in the dark of night" anymore. Where we hear about it from the NRA "after the fact" saying that is the best they could do.
We have a massive liberal majority in the House, Senate, and Executive office, with a track record for anti-firearm attitudes, but they shy away from anything anti-firearm. The NRA is unchanged, so ask yourself what is the difference? The difference is YOU.
Take for instance the latest AWB(s) that were proposed. Last year, under the Bush administration HR-1022 was introduced. That bill garnered 67 cosponsors. Yet still died in committee. This year HR-45 was introduced, and has YET to have ANY cosponsors. In a year when they have the majority. Hmmmm.... Maybe it is because there was such and outcry from YOU, the firearms owner.
To further explain my statement above. Joining ANY of these groups expecting them "TO FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS" is IMHO throwing your money away. BUT.....joining them, so that they can "KEEP YOU INFORMED" is quite another matter. The email alerts they provide, on up to date pending legislation etc., is invaluable. Even if you are not a member, you can sign up for their email alerts. Then it is up to EACH OF US to contact our representatives.
The NRA is ONLY ONE voice. Same with the GOA, or any other group. WE (as in MILLIONS of us) have to make our voices heard. One voice is easy to ignore, MILLIONS are not dismissed quite so easily.
Don't forget your LOCAL groups. (if you have one)
They are just as important.
I support mine in every way I can, including financially.
http://www.rmgo.org/
For those who say, "it is only the internet" ask Zumbo.
One statement, and one weekend later. [B)]
Very well stated.
Power to the people cuts both ways.
Brad Steele
Agreed, I assumed being active within an organization was a given, even just for information at a minimum. However, paying others to fight for you still has a place and time because of the high cost of the legislation process.
On the value of such organizations. I would say they are critical to the system and cause. I would also agree they can't compromise on their principles. If the NRA has done this they should be ashamed of their actions.
I have held public office at the county level and can say for certain that legislation is an expensive proposition. Some may call it corruption, others may call it due process but it is and always has been part of the political system in the United States, rightly or wrongly. Elections aren't cheap, it's that plain and simple.
Our government was founded on the premise of special interests/multi party system by design to prevent any one cause from gaining too much power. Creating gridlock and a quagmire is the beauty of the design. I am sure those conspiracy theorists will call this out and that's fine, but if your a pragmatist (That doesn't mean compromiser, I could already see the posts coming at that comment) you will see and understand that is how the system is designed.
Off topic but related. A question to stir debate, hypothetically does the 2nd amendment by strict interpretation guarantee the right of any citizen to own fully automatic weapons, and if so does this include military grade 50 cal's, 40 Mike Mikes, 60's, SAW's, mini guns, etc? This question was debated at the watering hole earlier today at the golf course. Had a few of the boys up in arms both ways, lets hear ya'll's thoughts.
One extreme example given, was how would our society look/function if by strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment a fella could mount a mini gun to his SUV in front of his sunroof and drive our streets and hiways. I had to argue for it but I gotta tell you the boys are looking at me a little funnier now. They didn't buy my arguement it was for hog eradication on the ranch.[;)]
I would also agree they can't compromise on their principles. If the NRA has done this they should be ashamed of their actions.
IF???
Guess you have not read these threads.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=287342
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=263795
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=292203
quote:Originally posted by Lonestar86
A question to stir debate, hypothetically does the 2nd amendment by strict interpretation guarantee the right of any citizen to own fully automatic weapons, and if so does this include military grade 50 cal's, 40 Mike Mikes, 60's, SAW's, mini guns, etc?
Stir debate? You could say it has been beaten to death, kind of like the NRA.
A few discussions, some lasting years.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=279595
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=112979
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=331417
quote:Originally posted by Lonestar86
I would also agree they can't compromise on their principles. If the NRA has done this they should be ashamed of their actions.
IF???
Guess you have not read these threads.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=287342
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=263795
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=292203
quote:Originally posted by Lonestar86
A question to stir debate, hypothetically does the 2nd amendment by strict interpretation guarantee the right of any citizen to own fully automatic weapons, and if so does this include military grade 50 cal's, 40 Mike Mikes, 60's, SAW's, mini guns, etc?
Stir debate? You could say it has been beaten to death, kind of like the NRA.
A few discussions, some lasting years.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=279595
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=112979
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=331417
Point conceded.
Dadgum those threads were good reading. Made our discussion after golf look down right gentile. The 20mm cannon might be a little extreme for me, but it's still a great debate topic, and I am sure in the right hands a handy home defense weapon[;)]
Thanks for the information. I appreciate you taking the time to pull them up for me.