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.
4 any1 not anti-NRA brainwashed yet....
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
We still have a chance to win the gun rights war by using political means; if we all pull together. We don't need to stand on the sidelines and mock and criticize others (the NRA for example) who are trying to win that political battle and thereby avoid going to a shooting war with our own government and against many of our fellow citizens.
When reading the extreme lengthly and frequent anti-NRA posts here, ask yourself exactly what motivates those poster to spend such a HUGE amount of time and effort constantly critizing and finding little or nothing good about the NRA. Also ask yourself why, after the NRA critics spend excessive time and energy in a destructive way trying to cause the NRA to lose supporters, why don't they take just a moment to try and do something constructive? Something constructive such as telling you what they are themselves doing to HELP gun rights; or urging you to join and support at least one of the gun rights organizations that nobody can deny is out there struggling to fight for your gun rights.
In other words, figure out why the anti-NRA complainers are willing to spend so much time being destructive towards the NRA but they never seem to have the time to be constructive in trying to divert your gun rights support to another and perhaps better cause.
Also remember that the anti-gun liberal media, the anti-gun politicans, the anti-gun organizations, etc. all join the anti-NRA people here in that they all hate the NRA. Doesn't that one fact make you have just a tiny little bit of doubt about the truth of their complaints?
Also remember that the NRA is a large organization that has operated for over 100 years under many different leaders. So just as with you, the reader of this post, the NRA has made some mistakes in their lives. But your mistakes (hopefully) don't mean you are a bad person, just as the mistakes of the NRA doesn't mean it is a bad organization.
OBTW, the anti-NRA media, the anti-NRA politicans and the anti-NRA organizations are having a banquet and hope all the anti-NRA people here will attend. So contact Diane Feinsten in Calif. and RSVP as soon as you can.
We still have a chance to win the gun rights war by using political means; if we all pull together. We don't need to stand on the sidelines and mock and criticize others (the NRA for example) who are trying to win that political battle and thereby avoid going to a shooting war with our own government and against many of our fellow citizens.
When reading the extreme lengthly and frequent anti-NRA posts here, ask yourself exactly what motivates those poster to spend such a HUGE amount of time and effort constantly critizing and finding little or nothing good about the NRA. Also ask yourself why, after the NRA critics spend excessive time and energy in a destructive way trying to cause the NRA to lose supporters, why don't they take just a moment to try and do something constructive? Something constructive such as telling you what they are themselves doing to HELP gun rights; or urging you to join and support at least one of the gun rights organizations that nobody can deny is out there struggling to fight for your gun rights.
In other words, figure out why the anti-NRA complainers are willing to spend so much time being destructive towards the NRA but they never seem to have the time to be constructive in trying to divert your gun rights support to another and perhaps better cause.
Also remember that the anti-gun liberal media, the anti-gun politicans, the anti-gun organizations, etc. all join the anti-NRA people here in that they all hate the NRA. Doesn't that one fact make you have just a tiny little bit of doubt about the truth of their complaints?
Also remember that the NRA is a large organization that has operated for over 100 years under many different leaders. So just as with you, the reader of this post, the NRA has made some mistakes in their lives. But your mistakes (hopefully) don't mean you are a bad person, just as the mistakes of the NRA doesn't mean it is a bad organization.
OBTW, the anti-NRA media, the anti-NRA politicans and the anti-NRA organizations are having a banquet and hope all the anti-NRA people here will attend. So contact Diane Feinsten in Calif. and RSVP as soon as you can.
Comments
Well, well, well......tr, the suspected NRA employee, is back again.
Wayne 'Iscariot' La Pee Aire assign you to make another attempt at 'pullin in the faithful'?
For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
Translated: Anyone remaining who has not fallen for the constant onslaught of 'NRA brainwashing and propaganda' and who has not seen the stark reality of NRA complicity in the erosion of Amendment II, please, please, pretty-please, listen to the NRA shill.
'Right vs. wrong' on the issue of gun-rights, is a no-brainer.
'Right' is the position that Amendment II is an absolute prohibition on any government infringement on a citizens RKBA.
'Wrong' is the NRA position that there is something called the Second Amendment, which used to mean something different than that which the government and the NRA supports.
The NRA's Second Amendment is supportive of certain citizens having the privilege to own and use certain firearms, in certain places and certain manners, but with the caveat that the government regulate, control, restrict and oversee this 'privilege to keep and bear arms'.
The NRA's Second Amendment is all about support for the BATFE and for strict Federal Government enforcement of gun-laws. In fact, the NRA has supported and actually assisted in drafting most of the infringements to the RKBA that are now preventing the free exercise of our God-given, or Natural 'Right' to keep and bear arms.
The NRA's Second Amendment has historically and primarily attempted to focus a citizens understanding on the 'hunting', 'shooting sports' 'self-defense' and 'youth training' areas, as the true meaning of our right, rather than that the our RKBA is intended to be 'Liberty's Teeth' and sacrosanct in providing a viable means of preventing tyranny in government.
We still have a chance to win the gun rights war by using political means; if we all pull together.
Translated: The government and the NRA still have hope to peacefully erode America's RKBA to a point where it is, in all practicality, 'toothless' and useless in any future, or potential citizen-driven attempt to take back our government and restore the Constitution and restore the Republic.
We don't need to stand on the sidelines and mock and criticize others (the NRA for example) who are trying to win that political battle and thereby avoid going to a shooting war with our own government and against many of our fellow citizens.
Translated: Please, please, please allow the government (with NRA/quisling assistance) to effectively disarm you, enough so that any possibility of a revolt, if that is absolutely and ultimately necessary, is all but impossible.
When reading the extreme lengthly and frequent anti-NRA posts here, ask yourself exactly what motivates those poster to spend such a HUGE amount of time and effort constantly critizing and finding little or nothing good about the NRA.
Translated: Please, please, please ignore the refutations that are certain to come, of my 'NRA kool-aide' and of my NRA-sponsored 'hissing' of soothing and 'reasonable' appeals for your acquiescence to further erosion's of your God-given/Natural Rights.
Also ask yourself why, after the NRA critics spend excessive time and energy in a destructive way trying to cause the NRA to lose supporters, why don't they take just a moment to try and do something constructive?
Factually, there is nothing more constructive and more healthy for this Republic, than to expose the traitors amongst us and to provide clear information, allowing some NRA zombies to break free of the NRA hypnosis, open their eyes and join the ranks of free men.
Something constructive such as telling you what they are themselves doing to HELP gun rights;
Typical tactic.
Try to plant the idea that unless you are supportive of the NRA, you are doing nothing to 'help' gun rights.
In reality, if a man did no more than what I am doing right here in shining light on 'actual' NRA positions, that man would do far more than anyone assisting in eroding Amendment II under the guise of 'reasonable gun-control' and 'necessary-compromise', such as the NRA does.
That said, most here are actively engaged in the battle to regain the Republic, contrary to what you hear from tr's 'hissing snake-lips'.
or urging you to join and support at least one of the gun rights organizations that nobody can deny is out there struggling to fight for your gun rights.
False again.
Other, no-compromise organizations have repeatedly been recommended, contrary to what you see 'Sir Hiss' spouting.
In other words, figure out why the anti-NRA complainers are willing to spend so much time being destructive towards the NRA but they never seem to have the time to be constructive in trying to divert your gun rights support to another and perhaps better cause.
More quisling falsehood.
Shining light on fact and rooting out an enemy from within our ranks, is a noble and absolutely necessary cause, as is outing one such as you, tr, for the shill and likely paid-NRA employee that you are.
Frankly put, I want you and the NRA out of my foxhole.
You and the NRA will stab me in the back when I am not looking, or give away my guns and ammo whilst I am sleeping and you are entrusted to be 'keeping watch'.
Also remember that the anti-gun liberal media, the anti-gun politicans, the anti-gun organizations, etc. all join the anti-NRA people here in that they all hate the NRA.
Not one of those organizations stand for anything I (or other individualists and free-men) stand for, e.g., individual liberty, limited government, free and armed citizens, an unfettered right to keep and bear arms, a Constitutional Republic, anti globalist-collectivist, support national sovereignty and on and on and on.....
Merely more 'tr La Pee Aire' falsehood and quisling-hissing.
Factually, the NRA and tr are more closely aligned with the big-government types and the media. They support many of the same goals and restrictions on free-men.
It is what it is, all attempts to divert aside.
Doesn't that one fact make you have just a tiny little bit of doubt about the truth of their complaints?
It certainly makes me look hard at 'you', tr.
Also remember that the NRA is a large organization that has operated for over 100 years under many different leaders. So just as with you, the reader of this post, the NRA has made some mistakes in their lives. But your mistakes (hopefully) don't mean you are a bad person, just as the mistakes of the NRA doesn't mean it is a bad organization.
The NRA has supported government gun-control and government restrictions of a free-citizens RKBA, almost since their inception.
They have been active in assisting government in restricting full-auto firearms, bans of certain guns and ammo, the 1968 GCA and a plethora of other anti-constitutional government gun-laws. They actively lobby for strict support and 'strict enforcement' of federal gun-laws and they support the BATFE.
'This' has been the common denominator of the NRA for its entire history.
Sorry tr, you lose the argument of fact and reality, hands down.
OBTW, the anti-NRA media, the anti-NRA politicans and the anti-NRA organizations are having a banquet and hope all the anti-NRA people here will attend. So contact Diane Feinsten in Calif. and RSVP as soon as you can.
Just so you know, tr, this presentation took very little time to draft. It is easy to refute what you and the NRA are and what 'snake-oil' you are attempting to sell.
It is increasingly being seen for what it is, as evidenced by your desperate pleas.
America is awakening to some degree. Those such as you and certainly the NRA, will be seen for and branded as the traitors to individual liberty that you are.
On a final note, when you go report back to Wayne 'Iscariot', 'Spokes-Model' Cox and your other handlers, tell them that ol El-Tee said they could kiss his nut-sack, okay?[;)]
September 10, 2009
Gun Purchases: Doctor Approval Needed?
If Barack Obama has his way, the federal government will be able to use your medical records -- including mental health records -- to keep you from purchasing or even owning a gun.
While the feds have been centralizing medical records and
-- thanks to the NRA working with Carolyn McCarthy -- collecting data on so-called "mental defectives" for years, they're only now building an apparatus large enough to exploit that data in real time -- ObamaCare.
(For more info about how the NRA sold out your gun rights after the Virginia Tech tragedy, click the link at the bottom of this message to be taken to Luke's blog, and click on H.R. 2640.)
Well, what in the world is a "mental defective"?
Quite simply, a "mental defective" is someone the government, working with the scientific elite, wishes to prohibit from owning a firearm for so-called "medical" reasons.
But if some doctor were to evaluate your mental health in such a fashion, you wouldn't be in a position to defend yourself: He's a doctor -- not a policeman. If you don't like his diagnosis, you can go somewhere else, right?
Not anymore -- not if H.R. 3200, the current health care bill, passes.
Under ObamaCare, if that doctor, working with the feds, reports his diagnosis, the feds might just feel compelled to revoke your Second Amendment rights.
No court. No legal battle. But you can't keep your guns anymore.
It gets worse.
To ensure the smooth flow of information between federal government agencies (read: violation of privacy, distribution of personal health records), lawmakers have actually taken precautions to nullify privacy protections already in U.S. Code for this particular bill!
To read Luke's blog on this frightening development in the healthcare debate, click here. As always, don't hesitate to post your thoughts on the discussion board.
In Liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
P.S. The National Association for Gun Rights is 100% dependent on our members' generosity. Please click here to support your no-compromise gun rights group.
To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.
To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.
Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!
It's very simple trfaux. You apparently, just have a ridiculous problem facing reality.
No one here brainwashed me. I looked at the NRA and its policies and then compared them to what the Founding Fathers wrote and I found the contradiction appauling. All it took was a simple comparing of the "facts". Give it up TR....i appreciate your sincerity but your just not inline with what the Founding Fathers intended. Have a good day sir!
For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
Not hard for a man that can look at, and accept, the FACTS.
We still have a chance to win the gun rights war by using political means; if we all pull together. We don't need to stand on the sidelines and mock and criticize others (the NRA for example) who are trying to win that political battle and thereby avoid going to a shooting war with our own government and against many of our fellow citizens.
Win by political means.....what a JOKE. It may not be such a joke, IF (as you say, we all pull together) but you KNOW that is not going to happen. The brainwashing that has been going on for DECADES, has done it's job. The vilification of firearms is INGRAINED into too many people for us to "all pull together"
When reading the extreme lengthly and frequent anti-NRA posts here, ask yourself exactly what motivates those poster to spend such a HUGE amount of time and effort constantly critizing and finding little or nothing good about the NRA.
Actually it didn't take that long to uncover the truth about the NRA. There is SO MUCH information out there, thanks to the advent of the internet, where this information can now be accumulated easily. There is MUCH MORE information out there, than has been presented here.
Also ask yourself why, after the NRA critics spend excessive time and energy in a destructive way trying to cause the NRA to lose supporters, why don't they take just a moment to try and do something constructive? Something constructive such as telling you what they are themselves doing to HELP gun rights; or urging you to join and support at least one of the gun rights organizations that nobody can deny is out there struggling to fight for your gun rights. In other words, figure out why the anti-NRA complainers are willing to spend so much time being destructive towards the NRA but they never seem to have the time to be constructive in trying to divert your gun rights support to another and perhaps better cause.
Other organizations have been promoted time and time and time again. You really should get a new gripe. Or at least an honest one.
Also remember that the anti-gun liberal media, the anti-gun politicans, the anti-gun organizations, etc. all join the anti-NRA people here in that they all hate the NRA. Doesn't that one fact make you have just a tiny little bit of doubt about the truth of their complaints?
Truth? If you doubt the FACTS presented here. Simple.....then DISPUTE THEM. Prove to us where the NRA did not take the ANTI-GUN actions that they are accused of. If you can.
Also remember that the NRA is a large organization that has operated for over 100 years under many different leaders. So just as with you, the reader of this post, the NRA has made some mistakes in their lives. But your mistakes (hopefully) don't mean you are a bad person, just as the mistakes of the NRA doesn't mean it is a bad organization.
And for 100 years, they have been PROMOTING different forms of GUN CONTROL. These mistakes (as you call them) by the NRA have PERMANENTLY infringed on OUR RIGHTS. The NRA is even PROUD of these.......accomplishments. [V]
OBTW, the anti-NRA media, the anti-NRA politicans and the anti-NRA organizations are having a banquet and hope all the anti-NRA people here will attend. So contact Diane Feinsten in Calif. and RSVP as soon as you can.
The NRA will be there, holding hands with these undesirables, JUST LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN. When the NRA, ALONG WITH, the Brady bunch, Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi, etc. SUPPORTED anti-gun legislation such as the "Veterans Disarmament ACT" and well as others. Including the ANTI-GUN legislation THAT THE NRA WROTE THEMSELVES.
Just because they are the largest organization out there, does NOT mean they are the best one to represent our rights. They have been pulling the wool over our eyes for a long, LONG TIME....I say, NO MORE. Their agenda has been exposed, and it looks as if it boils more down to MONEY, than the protection of our rights.
People have the right to know who the enemy is. "Some" will wake up, and quit sleeping with the enemy, "some" will continue to.
And just what is your viable alternative, Mr. pickenup? And the others? Continue the meaningless rants here? Go the the mattresses, and start a revolution? I can't imagine most having the cojones... Why not use all the political clout you can muster? Join the pro-gun organization that has real numbers and can effect some action. Besides the NRA, there aren't too many. As said, they aren't perfect, maybe far from it. But a member can influence the organization they belong to, if you feel the need.
I beleive the closet liberal guncontroller in the OP started the meaningless rant. Ill pass on joining the "pro-gun organization" with all the numbers cause the "effect" of their actions has done nothing but further erode the 2A. C,mon man! you seem like a common sense kinda person just look and compare facts...its not hard to come to a conclusion.
For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
We still have a chance to win the gun rights war by using political means; if we all pull together. We don't need to stand on the sidelines and mock and criticize others (the NRA for example) who are trying to win that political battle and thereby avoid going to a shooting war with our own government and against many of our fellow citizens.
When reading the extreme lengthly and frequent anti-NRA posts here, ask yourself exactly what motivates those poster to spend such a HUGE amount of time and effort constantly critizing and finding little or nothing good about the NRA. Also ask yourself why, after the NRA critics spend excessive time and energy in a destructive way trying to cause the NRA to lose supporters, why don't they take just a moment to try and do something constructive? Something constructive such as telling you what they are themselves doing to HELP gun rights; or urging you to join and support at least one of the gun rights organizations that nobody can deny is out there struggling to fight for your gun rights.
In other words, figure out why the anti-NRA complainers are willing to spend so much time being destructive towards the NRA but they never seem to have the time to be constructive in trying to divert your gun rights support to another and perhaps better cause.
Also remember that the anti-gun liberal media, the anti-gun politicans, the anti-gun organizations, etc. all join the anti-NRA people here in that they all hate the NRA. Doesn't that one fact make you have just a tiny little bit of doubt about the truth of their complaints?
Also remember that the NRA is a large organization that has operated for over 100 years under many different leaders. So just as with you, the reader of this post, the NRA has made some mistakes in their lives. But your mistakes (hopefully) don't mean you are a bad person, just as the mistakes of the NRA doesn't mean it is a bad organization.
OBTW, the anti-NRA media, the anti-NRA politicans and the anti-NRA organizations are having a banquet and hope all the anti-NRA people here will attend. So contact Diane Feinsten in Calif. and RSVP as soon as you can.
Uh-oh; Paul Blart has returned.
Tr,
As long as your hiatus has been, I would have thought you'd spend that time to regroup, and create 'new and improved' arguments in your defense of No Real Action. Alas, I was wrong.
One can search the forums and find the same blather you have used here is the same rubbish you have been using for years; it's still not working.
Not everyone here has short memories. A few of us are well aware that your beloved NRA has not changed it's 'spots', and contrary to popular opinion, time does not heal all wounds.
The next time you speak to the Fuhrer (LaPierre), tell him that gun owners across the country are still waiting on a formal apology from him for selling them out.
You may also deliver a personal message from me;
Advise him that former LM Shane wishes for him to stick the thirty pieces of silver up his *.[:(!]
Uh-oh; Paul Blart has returned.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!![:D]
And just what is your viable alternative, Mr. pickenup? And the others? Continue the meaningless rants here? Go the the mattresses, and start a revolution? I can't imagine most having the cojones... Why not use all the political clout you can muster? Join the pro-gun organization that has real numbers and can effect some action. Besides the NRA, there aren't too many. As said, they aren't perfect, maybe far from it. But a member can influence the organization they belong to, if you feel the need.
Are you really that clueless that all you can do is spout the same, blathering challenges of 'what are you going to do'?
Are you so blind as to view factual information of a quisling organization as 'meaningless', or are you somehow 'invested' in some continuing defense of the NRA, in the face of irrefutable information?
Oh, yeah, you are a 'Benefactor' Member, so admitting you have been duped, would be akin to finding out and admitting that your 'faithful' wife of many years, has actually been regularly cheating on you since before you got married.
Are you that ridiculous that you will also attempt the tired old and overused 'revolution' diversion?
Another sideways jab about 'cojones' to denigrate someone who dares point to simple facts about your beloved NRA?
Do you feel that a traitorous organization is appropriate to use as 'political clout' in defense of a fundamental right, when it is clear that the organization does not, in fact, believe in this fundamental right?
Is the number of members of an organization to be the measure of its 'support' for a God-Given/Natural Right, or, rather, should the stance and the actions that they actually take, measured by the simple and clear meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, be used the 'yardstick' of what a group actually stands for?
You go on to tie membership numbers and this quisling organization along with 'some action' together, as if that is something to hold up as an example of righteous and appropriate constitutional action.
Got news for you....'some action', when compared to historical 'action' taken by the NRA, is factually in opposition to the tenants of this Republic and to Amendment II.
Can you not grasp this simple and provable fact?
Are you somehow brainwashed so that you cannot apply simple cognitive reasoning and critical thinking to this issue?
Do you realize how pathetic and ridiculous your protestations and defenses appear to a free-man who has a basic understanding of the Constitution and the Principles of this Republic?
You guys are absolutely maddening in your blind defense and your blind support of that which is indefensible and unsupportable.
The only logical conclusion that can be drawn by such willful defense and support, is that you actually believe in that which the NRA believes.
Those beliefs are simply not constitutional.
It is that simple.
And just what is your viable alternative, Mr. pickenup? And the others?
And just why is it, that "I" (and others) are now REQUIRED to provide a viable alternative???
Simply because we provide information about the NRA, that you will not hear FROM the NRA? Information that exposes them, showing their true colors?
There may not be a "viable" alternative. (key word being....viable)
But I am DEFINITELY NOT going to align myself with an organization that is MORE THAN WILLING to cut off my fingers "this time" my hand the "next time" and my arm the "time after that" etc.
But a member can influence the organization they belong to, if you feel the need.
Thank you for providing the perfect platform for the following information.
Now, some expect a few lowly PEON members, to be able to walk in off the street, and effect change? If these "insiders" couldn't do it, is it even realistic to expect "regular" members be able to? Do we even have the time left, to re-invent the wheel?
Lets start with H. L. Richardson. He was a board member of the NRA for 10 years. Did he see a problem with their policies? When he found he could NOT change it from within, he left and started the Gun Owners Of America. What is now, the second largest gun rights activist organization in the country. Which is also known by MOST as the "NO COMPROMISE" gun lobby.
Then we can turn out attention to Neal Knox, a career gun rights activist. A board member, as well as serving four years for the NRA, as the Executive Director of the Institute For Legislative Action. Which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. He TOO must have had a problem with the policies of the NRA, found it impossible to change from within, as he went on to found the Firearms Coalition. Another well known "NO COMPROMISE" organization.
When Neal Knox was on the board, there was a vote to see if Executive Vice President (LaPierre) should be suspended or removed from office. It was supported by a solid 39-30 majority, but short of the two-thirds which was required for passage. At that time, what the Board majority didn't know, was that the previous week LaPierre and his supporters had secretly ordered the placement of a full page ad in the ballot issue of the NRA magazines-six weeks after the published deadline for election ads. The ad worked. five of the nine were defeated, tipping the balance of power on the Board back into LaPierre`s favor. (sheeple being spoon fed propaganda)
Nancyann Rutledge, who was the President of the Santa Barbara NRA Members Council, later to become the Citizens Gun Rights Alliance. What happened to her? After refusing to support the NRA's gun control positions, and anti-gun candidates, she was decertified by the NRA.
Dave Edmondson, a 2-term NRA Director. Another in a long line of past Directors, board members, etc. which are vocal critics of the NRA's leadership and direction. Dave went on to be founder of the "State Association Coordinating Committee."
Neil Smith, a life member of the NRA, is an outspoken gun rights activist who is NOT happy with the NRA. He is founder of International Coordinator of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus.
A few other facts.
What about Clarence Lovell, an ex-member of the NRA Board of Directors for 14 years. He left because, "he could no longer stomach the falsity of those heading the NRA."
Albert Ross, former NRA Directors, and second Vice President. Who is now Texas State Rifle Association Director, strongly CONDEMNS the NRA's very own program, Project Exile. Sighting Project Exile as laws that are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment.
Other Board Directors, board members, life members, endowment members, etc that condemned the NRA for Project Exile. Former Chairman, NRA High-power Committee, David Gross, Larry R. Rankin, Arthur Nichols, H.S. "Gunnie" Reagan, Chris BeHanna, Robert T Fanning, Jr., Don Loucks, Jim Ramm, Anthony Brian, Jack H. Stuart, Arnold Gaunt, Clarence Lovell, Richard L. Carone, and more.
Some of the comments C. Russell Howard made when he resigned from the NRA board.
"The unholy alliance of NRA leaders, vendors, and Republican elements is the reason why NRA is declining in stature.
(Addressing LaPierre)
Compared to Mr. Knox's influence, you run the Board like a concentration camp commandant
The struggle for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is at the core of a fundamental struggle for freedom........In any conflict, if those on the front lines cannot trust and rely on the honor of their comrades, the cause is doomed. While there are many good and honorable people on the Board with various stands on the current power struggle, there are some who cannot be trusted and are without honor."
******
What has the NRA done to RESCIND ANY UNconstitutional laws?
No CCW BS, that is just MORE infringement.
No laws with a built in "expiration date."
No "fight for this, help with that" but RESCIND.
Can you name even one law.
P.S.
Where would we be without the NRA?
PROBABLY BETTER OFF.
MILLIONS of gun owners would not have sent their dollars into a group that they THOUGHT were fighting FOR their gun rights, who in reality were stabbing them in the back. Instead, they might have been fighting the fight themselves. Granted, there was (and always will be) APATHY involved. But if people had not been complacent (because they sent their money in, and did NOTHING else) they quite possibly would/could have been more ACTIVE in the fight. Rather than the SINGLE voice of the NRA, MILLIONS of emails, phone calls, letters, could/would have had a more profound impact.
Cap'n, I would appreciate your input, you do not have to feel "left out" LOL. [;)]
Is this who you want fighting for your rights?
First
I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment,
AS IT WAS WRITTEN.
What part of,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
The right to keep and BEAR arms,
is hard to understand???
Second,
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Or are some so afraid of the WHOLE truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?
It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative about the NRA. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional!
Even if you work within "their system" to change, the problem is, as with politicians, if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting MANY of them passed.
Third,
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win some if they didn't, that 3-4 million membership number would fade away quickly. We had 2 terms of a republican president. How many gun laws did the NRA even TRY to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a Vermont/Alaska style CCW law in? How many states have they turned a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT (to bear arms) into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE (CCW) with the government deciding on who is ALLOWED to bear arms. (once the - fee - is paid, of course)
I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?
*****
Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the "compromise" in this?
*****
What HARM can they do / have they done?
Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act of 1932" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.
The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934" was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby "starting" an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements. Not so, the NRA was first.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of 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?
Quotations are original from the "American Rifleman" article and to NRA Executives.
NRA quotes are in italics & bold to better find/read them. Red and blue are added by el-tee to emphasize certain points.
__________________________________________________
NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
March 29, 2002
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
INTRODUCTION
When I recently used the term "NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record #65533; to prove my claim and inform others.
I agree that blaming today's NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did #65533; and they have for a very long time.
Don't take my word for it.
_____________________________________________
KeepAndBearArms.com
The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.
As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.
To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.
Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman NRA's premier magazine, then and now and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.
First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later, decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.
The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)
The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch, a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.
"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)
That's one form of registration.
"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)
That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.
In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts, "NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:
"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"
That's a registration list.
"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"
That's another registration mechanism.
"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgment of notification to local police;"
Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.
"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"
That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."
"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"
"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service #65533; another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.
"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)
What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?
At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:
"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."
Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.
and
"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]
Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has, over 70 years ago.
Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)
"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)
"Worthwhile gun legislation"?
The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder, their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.
Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source)
NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you'd like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
###
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws
By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.
"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.
Here is the record over the years:
Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.
Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.
Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.
"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:
The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.
The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
"Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 23
The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.
NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:
1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.
2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.
3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.
4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)
b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;
f. increasing penalties for violation.
Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:
"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."
The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:
NRA Secretary Daniel
"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."
The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.
Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.
END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
You can find this article and many other documented accounts of NRA management's support of gun control at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/NRA and http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Exile.
_____________________________________________________
This is 'your' NRA. The self-imposed, self-aggrandizing "staunch defender of your Second Amendment rights".
Nothing has changed. The NRA continues to strive for "workable" and "common sense" gun control laws, just as it has since its inception.....in their own words.
It is what it is.
Well said, tr fox The NRA might not be a perfect organization, and I have chafed at some things myself over the years, but they probably the strongest and most effective organization out there to preserve our gun rights. I put my money where my mouth is; I often contribute, and am a Benefactor Life Member. The diatribes of those who are against the NRA I view as venting the frustrations of the way our country is going. But it isn't the NRA's fault, far from it. I hope we can fix things in our country, before it is too late, with knowledge and information, and our votes. If you don't like the NRA, fine, but don't stay at home and rant and rave on the computer; get out and VOTE. Get your friends and neighbors to do the same! Vote these communists and would-be dictators OUT OF OFFICE.
I joined the NRA at the same time I started voting(18), contributed to ILA(got a couple of belt buckles), got my wife to join when I married to get both AR and AH magazines. Praised the gun insurance(easiest claim process of any type of insurance) when the home was robbed. I never stopped voting and won't till I die or the right is taken from me. Not sure how to say it without appearing to bash, but I ceased to be a NRA member about the same time I quit voting party lines. They play by the same compromising, wishy-washy rules that runs washington politics. Idealogically I can't contribute money to that. They are slowing the erosion of our gun rights, no doubt about that, just not sure what appears to be a 'good' thing is actually best for the long run.
Wake up America and pull your head out of that hole (as in ostrich) you have it stuck in.
Lance
And just what is your viable alternative, Mr. pickenup? And the others? Continue the meaningless rants here? Go the the mattresses, and start a revolution? I can't imagine most having the cojones... Why not use all the political clout you can muster? Join the pro-gun organization that has real numbers and can effect some action. Besides the NRA, there aren't too many. As said, they aren't perfect, maybe far from it. But a member can influence the organization they belong to, if you feel the need.
One alternative is to cease supporting an organization that actively works against the 2nd Amendment.
Supporting the NRA is fine if you wish to retain the ability to get permission to own a hunting rifle, shotgun, or self-defense weapon. In their efforts to protect these privileges, however, they undermine that which the 2nd is specifically in place to protect, the right of the people to retain the ability to thwart tyranny.
Your argument is no different than suggesting to pro-lifers that they should support planned parenthood because, while they do perform abortions, they are the biggest and most vocal supporters of birth control in the nation, and by doing so, probably prevent more abortions than they perform.
Brad Steele
I don't know if the last paragraph is original, but it certainly is accurate. Thanks Mr.McManus
+1.
quote:One alternative is to cease supporting an organization that actively works against the 2nd Amendment.
Supporting the NRA is fine if you wish to retain the ability to get permission to own a hunting rifle, shotgun, or self-defense weapon. In their efforts to protect these privileges, however, they undermine that which the 2nd is specifically in place to protect, the right of the people to retain the ability to thwart tyranny.
Your argument is no different than suggesting to pro-lifers that they should support planned parenthood because, while they do perform abortions, they are the biggest and most vocal supporters of birth control in the nation, and by doing so, probably prevent more abortions than they perform.
What a superb summation of the situation. Thanks, Don.
Trfox is not difficult to figure out ;
He is a gun controller.
He believes in NIC's checks, and the vetting of citizens by government before they `may' own guns.
Original meaning means NOTHING to his ilk. He is, quite simply, a Quisling ..willing to consort with, aid, and abet the enemy in order to `secure' HIS permission to own firearms for HIS lifetime ..screw the country, screw the children.
Just as is the NRA.
One should put precisely the same value and weight to his arguments as one does to a babies' babblings.
None at all.
WTH? My post is still alive and running? Pickitup hasn't deleted or locked it yet? Well, there is still time.
Why would he do that?
This thread is another of many excellent and specific thrashings that you and your NRA-Zombie positions have been handed.
There are many cogent points and much good information contained herein that illustrates the flawed positions that both you and the NRA stand on.
Come back soon, TR, for yet another try at rallying the 'faithful' around the 'NRA Standard', for Wayne 'Iscariot' and Spokes-Model Cox.
Methinks, however, that there are not so many 'faithful' remaining here any longer and I bet that this simple fact drives you NRA-Zombies half-nuts, huh?
I suspect that factual information and illustrative positioning, have shined light on the cockroach that the NRA really is.
It is not possible to reasonably, or logically, dispute that which is easily provable, huh , TR?
It is not possible to reasonably, or logically, dispute that which is easily provable, huh , TR?
At this point, wouldn't it be fair to say PaulBlart has a mental disorder? Perhaps OCD, but likely, something much more serious?
Your argument is no different than suggesting to pro-lifers that they should support planned parenthood because, while they do perform abortions, they are the biggest and most vocal supporters of birth control in the nation, and by doing so, probably prevent more abortions than they perform.
Generally, I hate analogies. This one is outstanding.
WTH? My post is still alive and running? Pickitup hasn't deleted or locked it yet? Well, there is still time.
Still too STUPID to get it right, huh ankle nipper?
Delete or lock a thread with SO MUCH GOOD information in it?
No way.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
WTH? My post is still alive and running? Pickitup hasn't deleted or locked it yet? Well, there is still time.
Still too STUPID to get it right, huh ankle nipper?
Delete or lock a thread with SO MUCH GOOD information in it?
No way.
Picken, if he didn't give himself credit, who would? I know for a fact it is only us criticizing him (feeding the troll) that keeps him coming back.
OBTW, the anti-NRA media, the anti-NRA politicans and the anti-NRA organizations are having a banquet and hope all the anti-NRA people here will attend. So contact Diane Feinsten in Calif. and RSVP as soon as you can.
Do you have her contact info?
Call Wayne; I imagine he has her info on his rolodex, as well as speed dial.[}:)]
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OBTW, the anti-NRA media, the anti-NRA politicans and the anti-NRA organizations are having a banquet and hope all the anti-NRA people here will attend. So contact Diane Feinsten in Calif. and RSVP as soon as you can.
Do you have her contact info?
Call Wayne; I imagine he has her info on his rolodex, as well as speed dial.[}:)]
+1, but TR Blart, Renta Cop, refuses to remove his head from insertion long enough to see the obvious!
I think you could tell tr fox that the NRA Board of Directors had gone to the streets of Virginia killing babies with LaPierre in the lead, all caught on video and he would still tell you they are "The Last, Best and Only Hope we gun owners have." He will support them no matter what they have done because he has been so brainwashed like so many other Fudds in America because that's all they have ever known and don't care to look at the truth.
ruger,
X-ring.[;)]
BTW, how much longer until them youngins arrive?
The Doc has pushed up the delivery date so they will probably be born next week sometime by C section--thanks for asking[:D]
Keep us posted.[;)][:D]
quote:Originally posted by ruger41
The Doc has pushed up the delivery date so they will probably be born next week sometime by C section--thanks for asking[:D]
Keep us posted.[;)][:D]
+1
The people here who oppose the NRA convinced me to join the NRA. The vitriolic nature of their opposition should be a warning to any clear thinking person.
quote:For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
The people here who oppose the NRA convinced me to join the NRA. The vitriolic nature of their opposition should be a warning to any clear thinking person.
Personally, I assess you to be full of schite.
You are most likely a long-time NRA member/supporter and actually a willing government gun-control supporter, to whatever the degree.
You are blathering now in an attempt to deceive, when the reality is, that you are simply angry that your beloved organization has been exposed, thus exposing them and you, for being in support of gun-control.
You never considered the NRA, or yourself to be gun-controllers and you got you poor 'wittle feelers' hurt by the blunt truth.
That about sums it up, I suspect.[:)]
But still, what grates on my nerves is what I have indentified as irrational behavior by most NRA critics; at least those few NRA critics that are actually doing as I described above and, while criticizing the NRA, are still spending their own time, money and effort to fight for our rights. In short, they are doing something other than just criticizing the NRA and its supporters (me,for example.)
This irrational behavior I am describing is that the productive NRA critics is that they are not raging at their best target! Their best target being those gun owners who do absolutely nothing to help with saving our constitutional rights. Anybody who does even one small thing a year to help with gun rights should be mad as hell at the free loaders who do nothing; especially nothing but gripe.
All the majority of the gun owners and the constant complainers do is to sit on their canary * and gripe about things. They sit on their canary * and somehow expect someone else to save their constitutional rights. Hehe, it is almost as though they think they have a "right" to their constitutional rights.
Which, BTW, they do. But sadly, for as long as I can remember, there have been people spending THEIR time, money and effort to take away constitutional rights those people don't believe you should have; or, conversely, those same destructive people work to GIVE constitutional rights that aren't deserved or to give those rights to people that should not have them (illegal aliens for just one example.) Unfortuntely to counter that effort by our enemies, we gun owners have no choice but to ban together and pool our money, time, effort and votes to help fight our enemies. Supporting the NRA is just one way to pool our strengths.
Now, you will be glad to see this "finally" it is a proven fact that the NRA is observed frequently actually doing some good for gun rights (filing and winning lawsuits, etc.) but the vast majority of the NRA critics are usually OBSERVED DOING NOTHING BUT GRIPING!
So, which side do you want to be on?
Now, you will be glad to see this "finally" it is a proven fact that the NRA is observed frequently actually doing some good for gun rights (filing and winning lawsuits, etc.) but the vast majority of the NRA critics are usually OBSERVED DOING NOTHING BUT GRIPING!
So, which side do you want to be on?
The same question can be asked of you, because you still refuse to present a defense of the damning evidence posted about the grave damage the NRA has done to the RTKBA since the 1930s.
Well, tr; I'm waiting......
Here's the info:
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
Now, tr; defend the above actions taken by your organization.
I generally do not poke fun at bad spellings...I am no speller.
This example is a perfect slip of the tongue exemplifying this...AND the nras...positions, however.
His continual bleatings about 'what are you doing' ignores the reality ; All the action taken in the WORLD to advance gun control, by WHATEVER degree, is destructive of our freedoms.
Better for the Second Amendment that he...AND the NRA.just shut the hell up.
Actually, the very BEST thing for the Second Amendment is for them to be REMOVED as spokespersons for `Gun Rights'.
They MUST be forced to publically announce their positions, every day ;
They stand for GUN CONTROL ;
They stand AGAINST the Second Amendment.
Perhaps that should be the answer, every time one of these hissing lips slither by ;
You are a gun controller ;
We are not.
So, which side do you want to be on?
The way I see it, there is no side. There are not multiple ways to protect the 2A. Either you are for full RTKBA or you are against it.