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.
Victory for NRA
cce1302
Member Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭
Credit where credit is due.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7662-nra-sells-out-second-amendment-on-patriot-act
defeat for freedom & gun owners.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7662-nra-sells-out-second-amendment-on-patriot-act
defeat for freedom & gun owners.
Comments
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
Brad Steele
CLEARLY the NRA is working to restore the rights of gunowners.
[xx(]
Duck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The stuff that the fan hits will be heading your way!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Oops! Already has!)
He has effectively put everyone of the Senators on record as to gun rights .
And many have no place to hide now !
I read where McConnell will more than likely face a primary challenge due to his lack of support for Paul's ammendment .
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
I wonder how many people who will post in this thread are in any organization - whether gunowners.org or their state rifle & pistol organization?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
I wonder how many people who will post in this thread are in any organization - whether gunowners.org or their state rifle & pistol organization?
What does that have to do with the wayne laP goo guzzlers out there?
Don
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
I wonder how many people who will post in this thread are in any organization - whether gunowners.org or their state rifle & pistol organization?
What does that have to do with the wayne laP goo guzzlers out there?
Don
Just saying people do alot of complaining and don't participate at all, nothing changes. If another gun organization added membership and started taking from NRA they (NRA) might take note. But most gun owners sit on their fannies, gripe and do nothing but gripe. That changes nothing, but I guess it makes them feel better. That's all.
Also, are any of you FFL holders?
Can someone provide a link to the post with all the compromises the NRA has made so we can ad this to the list?
Contact pickenup here
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=451774
quote:Originally posted by Beeramid
Can someone provide a link to the post with all the compromises the NRA has made so we can ad this to the list?
Contact pickenup here
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=451774
that's a great link. Thanks for posting that.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
I will not support any organization that does NOT whole-heartedly support the Second Amendment.
Now wait! You have not given TR a chance to rationalize and justify the actions of his vaunted NRA!
CLEARLY the NRA is working to restore the rights of gunowners.
[xx(]
At least the NRA is doing more than posting their rantings on GB.com
Can someone provide a link to the post with all the compromises the NRA has made so we can ad this to the list?
Is a "compromise" automatically bad? Don't almost all people, countries, organizations sometimes make compromises?
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
I wonder how many people who will post in this thread are in any organization - whether gunowners.org or their state rifle & pistol organization?
What does that have to do with the wayne laP goo guzzlers out there?
Don
It appears you would rather avoid answering the question. You probably don't even have a good answer. The question is basically a statement saying that most people don't do even one damn thing to try and save our gun rights. But the worst people are the ones who do nothing all the while criticizing people and organizations that are doing something. A.K.A. free riders.
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
I am a member of GOA. But for anyone to ignore their overblown trademark phrase "no compromise" is to appear hypocritical. Reason being that GOA has been active for over 20 years. During that time we gun owners have gotten burdened with an awful lot of new gun laws and lost some gun rights. So how come nobody blames the GOA since they don't "compromise" and all? All the criticism is directed only at the NRA.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
I wonder how many people who will post in this thread are in any organization - whether gunowners.org or their state rifle & pistol organization?
Organizations are not for everyone.
While I am a life member of both the Gunowners of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation, I have personal reasons for these memberships that may not apply to others. IMO, the most important work that can be done is educating people as to the actual reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.
To do this, one almost always has to counter the conditioning put forth by the NRA, as evidenced by their reaction to Paul's amendment and their actions in the Heller case and the McDonald case as examples.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
I wonder how many people who will post in this thread are in any organization - whether gunowners.org or their state rifle & pistol organization?
Organizations are not for everyone.
While I am a life member of both the Gunowners of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation, I have personal reasons for these memberships that may not apply to others. IMO, the most important work that can be done is educating people as to the actual reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.
To do this, one almost always has to counter the conditioning put forth by the NRA, as evidenced by their reaction to Paul's amendment and their actions in the Heller case and the McDonald case as examples.
Good answer but the anti-constitutional, anti-gun side is very well organized and funded. While individuals can fight them to a degree, to fight and win will require our own pro-constitutional organizations.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are alternatives to the NRA that actually believe in the four simple words 'Shall not be infringed':
http://gunowners.org/a05252011.htm
I wonder how many people who will post in this thread are in any organization - whether gunowners.org or their state rifle & pistol organization?
Organizations are not for everyone.
While I am a life member of both the Gunowners of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation, I have personal reasons for these memberships that may not apply to others. IMO, the most important work that can be done is educating people as to the actual reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.
To do this, one almost always has to counter the conditioning put forth by the NRA, as evidenced by their reaction to Paul's amendment and their actions in the Heller case and the McDonald case as examples.
Good answer but the anti-constitutional, anti-gun side is very well organized and funded. While individuals can fight them to a degree, to fight and win will require our own pro-constitutional organizations.
particularly when there are gun owners that come down on the side of gun control, just like those that coddle Cox and LaPeee-u-air.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Good answer but the anti-constitutional, anti-gun side is very well organized and funded. While individuals can fight them to a degree, to fight and win will require our own pro-constitutional organizations.
I mentioned the two best (IMO) Pro-Constitutional organizations that have a national reach and impact. It is up to us, however, to individual point others to these groups and also to educate people as to what infringed (for example) actually means. Subordinating the 2nd Amendment to a discussion about self-protection and the shooting sports lowers the bar of freedom, and allows for the distorted view that many have today.
It should be obvious that an organization that makes a portion of its money in the training and permitting of people for concealed carry has a conflict of interest regarding the definition of infringe.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by freemind
Now wait! You have not given TR a chance to rationalize and justify the actions of his vaunted NRA!
CLEARLY the NRA is working to restore the rights of gunowners.
[xx(]
At least the NRA is doing more than posting their rantings on GB.com
Are you seriously comfortable with that, eh, less than intellegent response?
How come your standard response IS, "at least the NRA is doing something"? Do you realize that you surely make it sound like YOU pass YOUR responsibilites off to the NRA, that are YOUR responsibilites as a citizen? You talk about others getting a "free ride" but you certainly shirk your responsibilites if you rely on the NRA to represent YOU. If you are not 100% on board with what they do, you support them 100% anyway.
Paying dues to the NRA is like paying someone to "satisfy" your wife. [xx(]
And GOA has now branched out from Second into right wing politics. Not what I paid dues for so they lost me.
I am unaware of this, He Dog.
A quick check of their web-site didn't reveal anything that was unrelated to firearms.
Could you elaborate or point me to what it is you are referring?
Thanks,
Don
Brad Steele
What has the GOA done to turn the tide in DC?
For starters they aren't part of the problem that is DC
%^&* compromise, that is all the NRA does, It has not made a damm bit of difference, other than infringe ones individual rights.
$%^& compromise $%^& it!
If it is a compromise of my rights, the answer is always yes.
quote:Is a "compromise" automatically bad? Don't almost all people, countries, organizations sometimes make compromises?
If it is a compromise of my rights, the answer is always yes.
How about a specific example of compromise and see what your answer is. In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law. That should be no surprise to anyone since Clinton was president and the House and Senate were controlled by his fellow democrats. So, hoping to gain at least a little something out of what appeared to be a total loss, the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban. Ten years later, 2004, that sunset clause was the ONLY reason we do not still have that worthless "assault weapons" ban.
So, rewind the tape of history to 1994. Are you and everyone else here still "always" against compromise?
quote:Originally posted by carbine100
quote:Is a "compromise" automatically bad? Don't almost all people, countries, organizations sometimes make compromises?
If it is a compromise of my rights, the answer is always yes.
How about a specific example of compromise and see what your answer is. In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law. That should be no surprise to anyone since Clinton was president and the House and Senate were controlled by his fellow democrats. So, hoping to gain at least a little something out of what appeared to be a total loss, the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban. Ten years later, 2004, that sunset clause was the ONLY reason we do not still have that worthless "assault weapons" ban.
So, rewind the tape of history to 1994. Are you and everyone else here still "always" against compromise?
If the sons a bitches in DC listen to those that elect them
"the people" we wouldn't need to compromise. I seriously doubt the NRA offered that particular compromise.
The NRA would sees to exist if the elected officials actually did their jobs and did what the people tell them to do. The nra for years has always trumpeted that they got us a better deal. Well guess what, they authored the deal to begin with. If for not other reason than to justify their existence and then they swoop in and offer a "compromise."
How bout they stand up and say $%^& no for a chance #$%^ compromise.
Oh wait, but there isn't any money just being an organization of like minded people that organizes shooting events and fosters the meaning of the second Amendment. Instead they compromise
IF the politicians, judges ect would uphold the constitution that they SWORE to uphold when they took office there would be no need to compromise? Nothing short of treason IMO.
But then I woke up and was late for work. [:(]
quote:Originally posted by carbine100
quote:Is a "compromise" automatically bad? Don't almost all people, countries, organizations sometimes make compromises?
If it is a compromise of my rights, the answer is always yes.
How about a specific example of compromise and see what your answer is. In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law. That should be no surprise to anyone since Clinton was president and the House and Senate were controlled by his fellow democrats. So, hoping to gain at least a little something out of what appeared to be a total loss, the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban. Ten years later, 2004, that sunset clause was the ONLY reason we do not still have that worthless "assault weapons" ban.
So, rewind the tape of history to 1994. Are you and everyone else here still "always" against compromise?
Are you suggesting that it might not have been better to stand opposed to an outright ban altogether? Imagine if the NRA, as powerful as it is, had said "enough is enough. No ban, no how. We have millions of members who will be on your door guns in hand if this passes." And organized same. Of course that is fairy tale land. But could you imagine? Instead, they chose to compromise... so sad. Because we got saddled with a ban for 10 years.
"shall not be infringed... in 10 years... maybe..."
[xx(][xx(][xx(]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law.
the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban.
Still spewing that crap?
Feinstein DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT to get the ban passed.
SHE had to compromise by inserting the sunset clause HERSELF in order to get enough votes.
Her QUOTE...
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
SHE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT!!!!!
Instead, they chose to compromise... so sad. Because we got saddled with a ban for 10 years.
Yep, and NICS checks forever.[xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(]
The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups had pushed for a much stronger bill that would have precluded doctors in many cases from asking patients about whether they own guns. Backers of the measure, sponsored, by Sen. Greg Evers, R-Baker, had said patients were being harassed over gun ownership.
But citing the confidentiality of what is said between doctors and patients, and a broader desire to protect other members of patients' families, doctors had pushed back hard against the bill (SB 432). The issue had promised a fight between two of the most powerful lobbies at the Florida Capitol.
But an amendment adopted before the committee's vote on Monday would now generally allow doctors to ask questions about gun ownership, as long as the physician doesn't "harass" the patient, and doesn't enter the information into the patient's record without a good reason. That leaves enough room that doctors now support the measure, as does the NRA.
"We have an agreed-to, good bill here," said Evers.
While the committee advanced the bill, four members, two Republicans and two Democrats, said they still were uncomfortable with anything that would give doctors pause about asking questions about safety issues, and voted against it.
"I am concerned this degrades and diminishes the doctor-patient relationship," said Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood. "A doctor should ask about safety in the home whether it's pool safety, helmet safety or gun safety."
Sen. Mike Bennett said his opposition was personal - because of his own experience as a child with a father who "chased his wife around" the House with a gun.
"I've been there, done that," said Bennett, R-Bradenton.
"What about the patients' children? What about the patient's wife getting a beating every Saturday night?" Bennett asked.
Evers said the new version of the legislation would take care of that concern - allowing doctors to ask questions now, if they feel there's a valid reason.
"There has to be a justification (however)," said the sponsor of the compromise amendment, Sen. Thad Altman, R-Viera. "The doctor can't do it arbitrarily."
The bill also no longer carries any civil or criminal penalties, leaving it up to professional medical boards to police the requirement.
The compromise appeared necessary to get the proposal moving - the bill had been stalled in the Health Regulation Committee for more than two weeks, and even some who voted for it on Monday expressed some skepticism.
The bill still has two more committee stops in the Senate, but Evers gave the panel his commitment that only minor changes would be made in those committees, and that the bill wouldn't revert to its former form. A similar House bill (HB 155) still has two committee stops there.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law.
the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban.
Still spewing that crap?
Feinstein DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT to get the ban passed.
SHE had to compromise by inserting the sunset clause HERSELF in order to get enough votes.
Her QUOTE...
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
SHE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT!!!!!
Here is some more "crap" for you Mr. Ponytail. Feinstein had the votes to pass an assault weapons ban without the very important "sunset clause." The pro-gun side knew they could not stop the ban. Although as with most controversial bills, nobody can be absolutely positive how the final vote will go. But it strongly appeared that Feinstein's assault weapons ban would pass in spite of opposition of the pro-gun congressmen and would positively be sign by President Bill Clinton. So as a last resort, as a "hail mary" the pro-gun side compromised with the sunset clause. Without that clause we would still have the ban.
If you doubt, then please closely examine your ignorance. Why in the hell would a powerful, extremely anti-gun senator like Feinstein VOLUNTARILY WEAKEN her own gun control bill UNLESS it was because of pressure by the pro-gun side?
Also, since the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Bill Clinton, why would you be dumb enough to think Feinstein's gun control bill would not pass in spite of pro-gun opposition?
How about a direct answer for that?
Oh, and "Happy 4th of July" to you.
What a keyboard commando...Pounding away from the safety of your keyboard, tossing out insults. You are afraid to post your real name and afraid to post such insults where someone would be able to identify you.
You really should step back and take a look at your recent postings.
They read like a textbook on someone who is attempting to bolster their own weak ethic and substandard character relating to liberty and freedom by going on a manic attack and by demanding others pick-up your lame falsely set-up 'gauntlet'.
Please, do continue though, I am actually enjoying your self-dismantling and melt-down.[:)]
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In 1994 the pro-gun people could clearly see that Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban could not be stopped from being put into law.
the pro-gun side agreed on a compromise. That compromise was the insertion of a 10 year automatic "sunset clause" in the ban.
Still spewing that crap?
Feinstein DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT to get the ban passed.
SHE had to compromise by inserting the sunset clause HERSELF in order to get enough votes.
Her QUOTE...
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
SHE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT!!!!!
Here is some more "crap" for you Mr. Ponytail. Feinstein had the votes to pass an assault weapons ban without the very important "sunset clause." The pro-gun side knew they could not stop the ban. Although as with most controversial bills, nobody can be absolutely positive how the final vote will go. But it strongly appeared that Feinstein's assault weapons ban would pass in spite of opposition of the pro-gun congressmen and would positively be sign by President Bill Clinton. So as a last resort, as a "hail mary" the pro-gun side compromised with the sunset clause. Without that clause we would still have the ban.
If you doubt, then please closely examine your ignorance. Why in the hell would a powerful, extremely anti-gun senator like Feinstein VOLUNTARILY WEAKEN her own gun control bill UNLESS it was because of pressure by the pro-gun side?
Also, since the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Bill Clinton, why would you be dumb enough to think Feinstein's gun control bill would not pass in spite of pro-gun opposition?
How about a direct answer for that?
Oh, and "Happy 4th of July" to you.
Nothing to reply to here, since you are wrong......as usual.
Just copying this so that it can not be edited.....AGAIN.
Lowering yourself to these kinds of insults speaks VOLUMES about your character.
Just a question, mind you. Do you think there would be some interest, by some, in having your real name, address, and phone # Larry?