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
Stepping Down
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
I have reflected on the recent discussions over membership and how to gain it. I fully understand the positions that have been laid out by the various members.
It has been a rewarding and enjoyable association for me and I have gained some new friends and some knowledge.
My views and my stance on membership are simply an impediment to gaining what are likely quality and productive new Brethren. I will not attempt to dictate, or cajole, my brothers into adopting some rule, or practice of exclusion that goes against the general wishes and desires of the Brethren, nor is this individualist going to compromise on what I see as a very important distinction in membership standards.
That said, I am stepping down as No. 4 in the Brethren. Better to do so whilst in good spirits, in good camaraderie and on my terms, than to leave in frustration and under less than favorable terms at some point in the future.
A purely personal decision, based on a reflection of who and what I am and what the Brethren means to me. There is no animosity or hard-feelings from me toward the Brethren, or toward any individual member.
Simply put, I have views and positions that are not conducive to 'belonging' to any group. I recognize that these views may be seen as 'elitist', albeit without that intent, from me. This then, is the beauty of voluntary association and of rugged-individualism.
So be it.
You are all good men, you are all stalwart individualists and you will carry on with the continuing fight in the name of the Brethren.
I will be standing next to you in this battle against collectivism and will be posting right beside you, just without the name of Canary *.
It is important to me that you understand why I am taking this action, at least those that care. This move is no reflection on the Order of The Brethren of The Canary *, but, rather, is being made to allow me to maintain my self-set standard and to remove my positions, views and desires from being a stumbling block, or a source of division.
You all remain Brothers to me.[:)]
It has been a rewarding and enjoyable association for me and I have gained some new friends and some knowledge.
My views and my stance on membership are simply an impediment to gaining what are likely quality and productive new Brethren. I will not attempt to dictate, or cajole, my brothers into adopting some rule, or practice of exclusion that goes against the general wishes and desires of the Brethren, nor is this individualist going to compromise on what I see as a very important distinction in membership standards.
That said, I am stepping down as No. 4 in the Brethren. Better to do so whilst in good spirits, in good camaraderie and on my terms, than to leave in frustration and under less than favorable terms at some point in the future.
A purely personal decision, based on a reflection of who and what I am and what the Brethren means to me. There is no animosity or hard-feelings from me toward the Brethren, or toward any individual member.
Simply put, I have views and positions that are not conducive to 'belonging' to any group. I recognize that these views may be seen as 'elitist', albeit without that intent, from me. This then, is the beauty of voluntary association and of rugged-individualism.
So be it.
You are all good men, you are all stalwart individualists and you will carry on with the continuing fight in the name of the Brethren.
I will be standing next to you in this battle against collectivism and will be posting right beside you, just without the name of Canary *.
It is important to me that you understand why I am taking this action, at least those that care. This move is no reflection on the Order of The Brethren of The Canary *, but, rather, is being made to allow me to maintain my self-set standard and to remove my positions, views and desires from being a stumbling block, or a source of division.
You all remain Brothers to me.[:)]
Comments
I have reflected on the recent discussions over membership and how to gain it. I fully understand the positions that have been laid out by the various members.
It has been a rewarding and enjoyable association, for me and I have gained some new friends and some knowledge.
My views and my stance on membership are simply an impediment to gaining what are likely quality and productive new Brethren. I will not attempt to dictate, or cajole, my brothers into adopting some rule, or practice of exclusion that goes against the general wishes and desires of the Brethren, nor is this individualist going to compromise on what I see as a very important distinction in membership standards.
That said, I am stepping down as No. 4 in the Brethren. Better to do so whilst in good spirits, in good camaraderie and on my terms, than to leave in frustration and under less than favorable terms at some point in the future.
A purely personal decision, based on a reflection of who and what I am and what the Brethren means to me. There is no animosity or hard-feelings from me toward the Brethren, or toward any individual member.
Simply put, I have views and positions that are not conducive to 'belonging' to any group. I recognize that these views may be seen as 'elitist', albeit without that intent, from me. This then, is the beauty of voluntary association and of rugged-individualism.
So be it.
You are all good men, you are all stalwart individualists and you will carry on with the continuing fight in the name of the Brethren.
I will be standing next to you in this battle against collectivism and will be posting right beside you, just without the name of Canary *.
It is important to me that you understand why I am taking this action, at least those that care. This move is no reflection on the Order of The Brethren of The Canary *, but, rather, is being made to allow me to maintain my self-set standard and to remove my positions, views and desires from being a stumbling block, or a source of division.
You all remain Brothers to me.[:)]
Damn[V]
But I understand. However, I do not see your positions, views, or desires as either a stumbling block or a source of division.
I saw the term 'lone wolf' mentioned in the other thread related to this subject. Hell, I believe every one of us are. Although each and every one of us unequivocally support the Constitution and liberty as it was intended, each one of us is our 'own man'.
It is my hope that you will reconsider. Even if you do not, I have absolutely no doubt that you will continue to be the strong advocate of liberty that you have been thus far,
Brother Jeff.[:)]
I understand perfectly.
After the minor dust-up when I voted against the Brethren on an inductee, however, I came to the opposite conclusion.
My take on those events was that regardless of what was transpiring in the day to day, I desired to maintain my association with you gentlemen, specifically because that is how everyone behaved.
IMO, your views create no stumbling block, and have created no division, as they are presented within an atmosphere of mutual respect.
All the best, Brother.
Brad Steele
I have reflected on the recent discussions over membership and how to gain it. I fully understand the positions that have been laid out by the various members.
It has been a rewarding and enjoyable association, for me and I have gained some new friends and some knowledge.
My views and my stance on membership are simply an impediment to gaining what are likely quality and productive new Brethren. I will not attempt to dictate, or cajole, my brothers into adopting some rule, or practice of exclusion that goes against the general wishes and desires of the Brethren, nor is this individualist going to compromise on what I see as a very important distinction in membership standards.
That said, I am stepping down as No. 4 in the Brethren. Better to do so whilst in good spirits, in good camaraderie and on my terms, than to leave in frustration and under less than favorable terms at some point in the future.
A purely personal decision, based on a reflection of who and what I am and what the Brethren means to me. There is no animosity or hard-feelings from me toward the Brethren, or toward any individual member.
Simply put, I have views and positions that are not conducive to 'belonging' to any group. I recognize that these views may be seen as 'elitist', albeit without that intent, from me. This then, is the beauty of voluntary association and of rugged-individualism.
So be it.
You are all good men, you are all stalwart individualists and you will carry on with the continuing fight in the name of the Brethren.
I will be standing next to you in this battle against collectivism and will be posting right beside you, just without the name of Canary *.
It is important to me that you understand why I am taking this action, at least those that care. This move is no reflection on the Order of The Brethren of The Canary *, but, rather, is being made to allow me to maintain my self-set standard and to remove my positions, views and desires from being a stumbling block, or a source of division.
You all remain Brothers to me.[:)]
I hope you reconsider because your input and reasoning is of sound mind. I see no conflict just an Honest man and I totally respect that!
A short characterization from a 'me' perspective may be in order, for understandings sake. Indulge me for a moment, if you will.......
Mayhap my characterization of my being a stumbling block or an impediment was not appropriately used. The issue being more internalized and personal to me, rather than to the Brethren, is more accurate.
As most of you know and as most of you are yourselves, I am a man of strong opinion, strict stances and a man who, once a situation is pondered and assessed, will be decisive and stick to that decision.
Rather than argue, attempt to cajole, or complain about what the entry process was/is/will be, I took some time to be self-reflective on exactly my stance and my willingness to compromise my strongly held position.
Well, there simply is no compromise within me in most areas, never really has been on such issues. Simply put, this is a 'me' thing, not reflective to, or on, anyone else.
The end result would likely have been 'my' increasing frustration over an 'internal' set of standards that, to me, represent the idea and ideal of The Brethren.
Before anyone starts down the path of my judgment on anothers writing ability, that is not the issue; composition/content of the 'message' and its 'understandability' to and impact on others, is the bar 'I' have set in my 'ideal' that is The Brethren.
In addition, I oft sidetrack into squabbling in a somewhat 'petty' manner, which is certainly not a proper reflection on The Brethren, yet, being a member, the broad-brush is used by many who see the petty back and forth.
Bottom-line, this is entirely an issue within me, not any member, initiate, potential initiate, or other factor.
If all this makes me an 'elitist', so be it. I am what I am and I make no apology for that simple fact.
I am still with you my Brothers, in philosophy, in fact and in spirit, yet not in 'group/name'.
Hope that clarifies things, for it really is important to me to have that understanding from my brothers, if not agreement.
No hard feeling from me. You are STILL a brother to me. Allways will be.
Lance
I appreciate the sentiments expressed, really.[:)]
A short characterization from a 'me' perspective may be in order, for understandings sake. Indulge me for a moment, if you will.......
Mayhap my characterization of my being a stumbling block or an impediment was not appropriately used. The issue being more internalized and personal to me, rather than to the Brethren, is more accurate.
As most of you know and as most of you are yourselves, I am a man of strong opinion, strict stances and a man who, once a situation is pondered and assessed, will be decisive and stick to that decision.
Rather than argue, attempt to cajole, or complain about what the entry process was/is/will be, I took some time to be self-reflective on exactly my stance and my willingness to compromise my strongly held position.
Well, there simply is no compromise within me in most areas, never really has been on such issues. Simply put, this is a 'me' thing, not reflective to, or on, anyone else.
The end result would likely have been 'my' increasing frustration over an 'internal' set of standards that, to me, represent the idea and ideal of The Brethren.
Before anyone starts down the path of my judgment on anothers writing ability, that is not the issue; composition/content of the 'message' and its 'understandability' to and impact on others, is the bar 'I' have set in my 'ideal' that is The Brethren.
In addition, I oft sidetrack into squabbling in a somewhat 'petty' manner, which is certainly not a proper reflection on The Brethren, yet, being a member, the broad-brush is used by many who see the petty back and forth.
Bottom-line, this is entirely an issue within me, not any member, initiate, potential initiate, or other factor.
If all this makes me an 'elitist', so be it. I am what I am and I make no apology for that simple fact.
I am still with you my Brothers, in philosophy, in fact and in spirit, yet not in 'group/name'.
Hope that clarifies things, for it really is important to me to have that understanding from my brothers, if not agreement.
Independence of thought is necessary for the success of a country that is founded upon the supremacy of the individual.
If, at any point, one feels his actions run contrary to the encouragement of the independent thought of himself or others, that person must re-evaluate his path.
FWIW, Jeff, and I hope it is worth something, you have my understanding and respect.
Brad Steele
Don, you do not know how much your opinion, respect and understanding mean to me.
That sentence is of immeasurable value to me. Thank you.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
I have reflected on the recent discussions over membership and how to gain it. I fully understand the positions that have been laid out by the various members.
It has been a rewarding and enjoyable association, for me and I have gained some new friends and some knowledge.
My views and my stance on membership are simply an impediment to gaining what are likely quality and productive new Brethren. I will not attempt to dictate, or cajole, my brothers into adopting some rule, or practice of exclusion that goes against the general wishes and desires of the Brethren, nor is this individualist going to compromise on what I see as a very important distinction in membership standards.
That said, I am stepping down as No. 4 in the Brethren. Better to do so whilst in good spirits, in good camaraderie and on my terms, than to leave in frustration and under less than favorable terms at some point in the future.
A purely personal decision, based on a reflection of who and what I am and what the Brethren means to me. There is no animosity or hard-feelings from me toward the Brethren, or toward any individual member.
Simply put, I have views and positions that are not conducive to 'belonging' to any group. I recognize that these views may be seen as 'elitist', albeit without that intent, from me. This then, is the beauty of voluntary association and of rugged-individualism.
So be it.
You are all good men, you are all stalwart individualists and you will carry on with the continuing fight in the name of the Brethren.
I will be standing next to you in this battle against collectivism and will be posting right beside you, just without the name of Canary *.
It is important to me that you understand why I am taking this action, at least those that care. This move is no reflection on the Order of The Brethren of The Canary *, but, rather, is being made to allow me to maintain my self-set standard and to remove my positions, views and desires from being a stumbling block, or a source of division.
You all remain Brothers to me.[:)]
Damn[V]
But I understand. However, I do not see your positions, views, or desires as either a stumbling block or a source of division.
I saw the term 'lone wolf' mentioned in the other thread related to this subject. Hell, I believe every one of us are. Although each and every one of us unequivocally support the Constitution and liberty as it was intended, each one of us is our 'own man'.
It is my hope that you will reconsider. Even if you do not, I have absolutely no doubt that you will continue to be the strong advocate of liberty that you have been thus far,
Brother Jeff.[:)]
I appreciate your thoughts Shane, I really do. You are and will remain, my Brother.[:)]
DAMIT.....just...damit.
Highball, I want you of all people to understand that this has zero to do with you. I did the best I could to explain my thoughts and reasoning.
I hope it was enough to not alienate any of you.
I hold you in the highest regard and you also will remain, to me, my Brother.
[:(] Sad day
Brother Deadred[:)]. I will remain side by side in the fight, with all of you.
10-4 el-tee. I accept it as it is.....reluctantly though.
Your reluctance is like a salve to my discomfort over the potential of alienating any of you. You are a good man and also my Brother in liberty.[:)]
Captain I understand where you are coming from. I understand why you are stepping down.
No hard feeling from me. You are STILL a brother to me. Allways will be.
James, your understanding is also much appreciated by me and I had hoped that you would have no hard feelings.[:)]
No doubt, you are also my Brother in liberty and will so remain.
Hate to see you remove your name! Brothers we will always be! I understand for sure, best.
Lance
Brother Lance.[:)] You too will remain so to me.
I also am relieved that you understand my position.
if you canary * cant stick together with your own philosophy how do you expect us that have "similar" beliefs supposed to do it.
i agree with about 95% of what you guys say and i dont want to see you guys split up but man, since you have started you have lost 3 members. well i guess that means i am not quite so different in my thinking that a little bit of your thinking is a hair off. although i didn't agree 100% i wanted your group to hang around and be a little harder core than myself to help educate others even a little bit.
just because our views are a little bit different doesnt mean we dont all want the same goal for this country and its people.
my take(as if you cared):
if you canary * cant stick together with your own philosophy how do you expect us that have "similar" beliefs supposed to do it.
i agree with about 95% of what you guys say and i dont want to see you guys split up but man, since you have started you have lost 3 members. well i guess that means i am not quite so different in my thinking that a little bit of your thinking is a hair off. although i didn't agree 100% i wanted your group to hang around and be a little harder core than myself to help educate others even a little bit.
just because our views are a little bit different doesnt mean we dont all want the same goal for this country and its people.
As it relates to the content of your post, of course I care what you think.
My stepping down is unrelated in any manner to any philosophical difference between any of us.
A firm understanding of what 'rugged-individualism' comprises, is necessary, I suspect, to fully grasp the whole Brethren thingy.
I would suggest that you actually read my several detailed explanations in this thread. It should bring clarity to your understanding of the issue.
my take(as if you cared):
if you canary * cant stick together with your own philosophy how do you expect us that have "similar" beliefs supposed to do it.
i agree with about 95% of what you guys say and i dont want to see you guys split up but man, since you have started you have lost 3 members. well i guess that means i am not quite so different in my thinking that a little bit of your thinking is a hair off. although i didn't agree 100% i wanted your group to hang around and be a little harder core than myself to help educate others even a little bit.
just because our views are a little bit different doesnt mean we dont all want the same goal for this country and its people.
Since we started, we have gained approximately 15 members and lost 3. It is important to note that the three that left are all on good terms with those that remain, and there is no feeling of 'splitting up' as you put it. Equally important is the fact that there exists little to no difference in the philosophical beliefs of current and past members. There a differences in approach, which, IMO is both necessary and healthy, as a hard-line approach will work with some, and a, for lack of a better word, gentler approach is necessary for others.
I think, (and obviously I do not speak for all CA members) one thing that my association with the GB Forums has shown me is that we gunowners do not all really have the same goals for this country and its people. Most of us * believe that if you are free to walk the streets, you are my equal, and it is not Government's purpose or purview to decide otherwise. This concept is at the heart of the arguments over the 2nd Amendment, and failing to support this position is the acceptance of, and acquiescence to, Government control and infringement of this precious right.
I know of no CA Member, past or present, that believes otherwise.
Brad Steele
The message of the C.A.'s is still one with my own, and their are no hard feelings in the group. One can be an individual, and share very strong core belief's.
I have read many of your posts and agree with 99.999% of them no matter what the topic. I don't post here as much as many of you but I just wanted to say IF most would have the intergrity,morals,ethics and the self confidence/induvidualism that you do this world/country would be as close to perfect as it could possibly be.
Your wisdom in your thoughts and words are an inspiration to me to know that I'm among common beliefs. I do not have the savvy ability to express my beliefs they way you can but the way you compose the words to describe the moral way of life is exactly what I believe.
To me your an inspiration and not anything close to an elitist. It's a shame that in todays world someone with morals/ethics are often labeled elite. That's how far down the road to hell we have gone.
Anyway just my 2c worth and thanks again for being a decent human being.
In regards to so many of you bragging about being "lone wolfs" or "rugged individuals" or "marching to your own drum beat", try that as a soldier on the battle field, standing shoulder to shoulder with his fellow soldiers, getting ready to try and repel an enemy attack. See where "going or doing things your own way" gets you in a case like that.
And that is the situation we gun people face. The anti-gun crowd is a well organized army who work together to try and take away our gun rights. Yet many of you here refuse to work together, like soldiers on a battle field, in an attempt to defeat the anti-gun people.
Dang. With all the slobbering you all are doing over each other (brother this, brother that) a new reader might think you guys have actually done something over the last several months. A new reader might even mistakenly believe that many of you have ACTUALLY MET EACH OTHER IN PERSON. Or that you * have actually done something for gun rights other than set behind the comfort of your keyboards and post your boasting, critical thoughts.
In regards to so many of you bragging about being "lone wolfs" or "rugged individuals" or "marching to your own drum beat", try that as a soldier on the battle field, standing shoulder to shoulder with his fellow soldiers, getting ready to try and repel an enemy attack. See where "going or doing things your own way" gets you in a case like that.
And that is the situation we gun people face. The anti-gun crowd is a well organized army who work together to try and take away our gun rights. Yet many of you here refuse to work together, like soldiers on a battle field, in an attempt to defeat the anti-gun people.
That is an large assumption on your part. What makes you think we have NOT met each other? I have met a lot of people from the forums.
Dang. With all the slobbering you all are doing over each other (brother this, brother that) a new reader might think you guys have actually done something over the last several months. A new reader might even mistakenly believe that many of you have ACTUALLY MET EACH OTHER IN PERSON. Or that you * have actually done something for gun rights other than set behind the comfort of your keyboards and post your boasting, critical thoughts.
In regards to so many of you bragging about being "lone wolfs" or "rugged individuals" or "marching to your own drum beat", try that as a soldier on the battle field, standing shoulder to shoulder with his fellow soldiers, getting ready to try and repel an enemy attack. See where "going or doing things your own way" gets you in a case like that.
And that is the situation we gun people face. The anti-gun crowd is a well organized army who work together to try and take away our gun rights. Yet many of you here refuse to work together, like soldiers on a battle field, in an attempt to defeat the anti-gun people.
I thought better of my reply and decided NOT to lower myself to your standards.
Lance
Dang. With all the slobbering you all are doing over each other (brother this, brother that) a new reader might think you guys have actually done something over the last several months.
Pointing out the failures of others is much more effective when you can contrast it with your own success.
So what exactly have you managed to accomplish in the name of gun rights, individual freedoms, etc?
Dang. With all the slobbering you all are doing over each other (brother this, brother that) a new reader might think you guys have actually done something over the last several months. A new reader might even mistakenly believe that many of you have ACTUALLY MET EACH OTHER IN PERSON. Or that you * have actually done something for gun rights other than set behind the comfort of your keyboards and post your boasting, critical thoughts.
In regards to so many of you bragging about being "lone wolfs" or "rugged individuals" or "marching to your own drum beat", try that as a soldier on the battle field, standing shoulder to shoulder with his fellow soldiers, getting ready to try and repel an enemy attack. See where "going or doing things your own way" gets you in a case like that.
And that is the situation we gun people face. The anti-gun crowd is a well organized army who work together to try and take away our gun rights. Yet many of you here refuse to work together, like soldiers on a battle field, in an attempt to defeat the anti-gun people.
Stuff a sock in it!
What would you have us do, tr? Support/work with an organization that puts profit ahead of principle?
Doug
That is an large assumption on your part. What makes you think we have NOT met each other? I have met a lot of people from the forums.
That (assumptions) and backing a corrupt anti-gun association, are the only things Paul Blart is good at. Leave him be. As they say in the politics forum, though it is never heeded, but is still good advice nonetheless...."Do not feed the trolls".
Any and all of you are welcome to the truly open doors of www.1776x2.com
Doug
Doug, even gun grabbers like trfaux? If yes, no thanks.
Dang.
And that is the situation we gun people face. The anti-gun crowd is a well organized army who work together to try and take away our gun rights. Yet many of you here refuse to work together, like soldiers on a battle field, in an attempt to defeat the anti-gun people.
These are the facts, and they are irrefutable:
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 acknowledgment 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 disassemble 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 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 had 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.
*****
Now we come to the Veterans Disarmament Act. H.R. 2640
Just looking at who was sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Why was the NRA siding WITH the Brady bunch, Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, McCarthy, etc. When every PRO-gun organization was against it, along with veterans organizations. Many members wanted to know WHY. To my knowledge, the NRA never did answer these inquires.
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). You NO LONGER have to have a court judge you adjudicated, now ANY authorized person can take your rights away. Above all, the UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.
*****
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.
And I 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, it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five.
.....end quote
*****
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. 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, are PAYING FOR? 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.
*****
Katrina,
Everyone was screaming, "Where is the NRA" when guns were being confiscated. Only AFTER the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit did the NRA jump in. Then after a favorable court decision, the NRA was sure proud of what they did. Follow up announcements from the NRA taking ALL of the credit, they seemed to LEAVE OUT the fact that the Second Amendment Foundation was involved at all. Hmmmm.....
*****
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. They will NOT admit that the NRA "might not" be on their side, because if they find that the NRA is NOT actually on our side,
then....is there....really....any....hope?
Maybe these MILLIONS of members should take it upon themselves to fight for their rights?
Dang. With all the slobbering you all are doing over each other (brother this, brother that) a new reader might think you guys have actually done something over the last several months. A new reader might even mistakenly believe that many of you have ACTUALLY MET EACH OTHER IN PERSON. Or that you * have actually done something for gun rights other than set behind the comfort of your keyboards and post your boasting, critical thoughts.
In regards to so many of you bragging about being "lone wolfs" or "rugged individuals" or "marching to your own drum beat", try that as a soldier on the battle field, standing shoulder to shoulder with his fellow soldiers, getting ready to try and repel an enemy attack. See where "going or doing things your own way" gets you in a case like that.
And that is the situation we gun people face. The anti-gun crowd is a well organized army who work together to try and take away our gun rights. Yet many of you here refuse to work together, like soldiers on a battle field, in an attempt to defeat the anti-gun people.
The hissing 'tool' is back, yet again.
Wayne Iscariot and Spokes-model Cox get tired of you exemplifying that lineage of 'Mississippi leg-hanger' that you have?
For a fact, I do not want any such as you to be shoulder to shoulder in any fight that I am involved in. You simply can't be trusted.
You'd be the weasel that would be on guard duty whilst I was getting a few winks and who would stab me in the back and let the enemy through the line, or who would steal my ammo, or my food.
A band of like-minded brothers, standing on founding and constitutional principles, members of a group or of no group at all, is head and shoulders above any snake-oil selling, quisling weasel individual (that's you) and a like-minded organization (that's your vaunted NRA), any day of the week.
Any hope of restoring this Republic is going to take such men, who do not sway with the hissing false-wind, or bend over at the behest of Wayne and Co.
You and your ilk are a clear enemy of individual liberty, certainly in word and I suspect, in deed.
You have, as usual, exactly nothing to back your blather. All you are good for is to be used as a chalkboard to illustrate that which is part of the erosion of the Republic.
At that, you excel, so please keep posting.
You do more good for the Order of the Brethren of the Canary * and other like-minded proponents of basic constitutional principles, than anything we could do alone by merely advocating. You, well, you provide a taylor-made proving ground for the illustration of that which is destroying America.
Keep on keeping on, Skippy.[:)]
496 you mentioned the term elitist more than once. Though I am not a CA and feel this thread should be open to all(I'm not saying it isn't)but I don't want to but in, however I feel the need to express my opinion of such a moral person as yourself.
I have read many of your posts and agree with 99.999% of them no matter what the topic. I don't post here as much as many of you but I just wanted to say IF most would have the intergrity,morals,ethics and the self confidence/induvidualism that you do this world/country would be as close to perfect as it could possibly be.
Your wisdom in your thoughts and words are an inspiration to me to know that I'm among common beliefs. I do not have the savvy ability to express my beliefs they way you can but the way you compose the words to describe the moral way of life is exactly what I believe.
To me your an inspiration and not anything close to an elitist. It's a shame that in todays world someone with morals/ethics are often labeled elite. That's how far down the road to hell we have gone.
Anyway just my 2c worth and thanks again for being a decent human being.
Hunter, your words are much appreciated, really.
I do not know what to say beyond that, and a simple heart-felt, thank you.
Dang Captain sorry to hear. I can relate though about belonging to a group. I myself have always marched to the beat of my own drum. That is one reason I don't participate in some of the CA discussions, votes, etc. I just don't function well in a group,but I'm always here. I have the deepest respect for you Captain, and you'll always be a brother on my list.
HPD, I appreciate your understanding also. It really does mean a lot to me.
Brother HPD.[:)]
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Dang. With all the slobbering you all are doing over each other (brother this, brother that) a new reader might think you guys have actually done something over the last several months. A new reader might even mistakenly believe that many of you have ACTUALLY MET EACH OTHER IN PERSON. Or that you * have actually done something for gun rights other than set behind the comfort of your keyboards and post your boasting, critical thoughts.
In regards to so many of you bragging about being "lone wolfs" or "rugged individuals" or "marching to your own drum beat", try that as a soldier on the battle field, standing shoulder to shoulder with his fellow soldiers, getting ready to try and repel an enemy attack. See where "going or doing things your own way" gets you in a case like that.
And that is the situation we gun people face. The anti-gun crowd is a well organized army who work together to try and take away our gun rights. Yet many of you here refuse to work together, like soldiers on a battle field, in an attempt to defeat the anti-gun people.
The hissing 'tool' is back, yet again.
Wayne Iscariot and Spokes-model Cox get tired of you exemplifying that lineage of 'Mississippi leg-hanger' that you have?
For a fact, I do not want any such as you to be shoulder to shoulder in any fight that I am involved in. You simply can't be trusted.
You'd be the weasel that would be on guard duty whilst I was getting a few winks and who would stab me in the back and let the enemy through the line, or who would steal my ammo, or my food.
A band of like-minded brothers, standing on founding and constitutional principles, members of a group or of no group at all, is head and shoulders above any snake-oil selling, quisling weasel individual (that's you) and a like-minded organization (that's your vaunted NRA), any day of the week.
Any hope of restoring this Republic is going to take such men, who do not sway with the hissing false-wind, or bend over at the behest of Wayne and Co.
You and your ilk are a clear enemy of individual liberty, certainly in word and I suspect, in deed.
You have, as usual, exactly nothing to back your blather. All you are good for is to be used as a chalkboard to illustrate that which is part of the erosion of the Republic.
At that, you excel, so please keep posting.
You do more good for the Order of the Brethren of the Canary * and other like-minded proponents of basic constitutional principles, than anything we could do alone by merely advocating. You, well, you provide a taylor-made proving ground for the illustration of that which is destroying America.
Keep on keeping on, Skippy.[:)]
Brother, and I do mean Brother,
Jeff[;)][:)]
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Dang. With all the slobbering you all are doing over each other (brother this, brother that) a new reader might think you guys have actually done something over the last several months. A new reader might even mistakenly believe that many of you have ACTUALLY MET EACH OTHER IN PERSON. Or that you * have actually done something for gun rights other than set behind the comfort of your keyboards and post your boasting, critical thoughts.
In regards to so many of you bragging about being "lone wolfs" or "rugged individuals" or "marching to your own drum beat", try that as a soldier on the battle field, standing shoulder to shoulder with his fellow soldiers, getting ready to try and repel an enemy attack. See where "going or doing things your own way" gets you in a case like that.
And that is the situation we gun people face. The anti-gun crowd is a well organized army who work together to try and take away our gun rights. Yet many of you here refuse to work together, like soldiers on a battle field, in an attempt to defeat the anti-gun people.
The hissing 'tool' is back, yet again.
Wayne Iscariot and Spokes-model Cox get tired of you exemplifying that lineage of 'Mississippi leg-hanger' that you have?
For a fact, I do not want any such as you to be shoulder to shoulder in any fight that I am involved in. You simply can't be trusted.
You'd be the weasel that would be on guard duty whilst I was getting a few winks and who would stab me in the back and let the enemy through the line, or who would steal my ammo, or my food.
A band of like-minded brothers, standing on founding and constitutional principles, members of a group or of no group at all, is head and shoulders above any snake-oil selling, quisling weasel individual (that's you) and a like-minded organization (that's your vaunted NRA), any day of the week.
Any hope of restoring this Republic is going to take such men, who do not sway with the hissing false-wind, or bend over at the behest of Wayne and Co.
You and your ilk are a clear enemy of individual liberty, certainly in word and I suspect, in deed.
You have, as usual, exactly nothing to back your blather. All you are good for is to be used as a chalkboard to illustrate that which is part of the erosion of the Republic.
At that, you excel, so please keep posting.
You do more good for the Order of the Brethren of the Canary * and other like-minded proponents of basic constitutional principles, than anything we could do alone by merely advocating. You, well, you provide a taylor-made proving ground for the illustration of that which is destroying America.
Keep on keeping on, Skippy.[:)]
Brother, and I do mean Brother,
Jeff[;)][:)]
Back at you Brother Shane.[;)]
Do you think that the 'tool' will slink away again, after his latest ankle-nipping attempt.[:)]