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.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Jim I answered your question before you asked it, you just need to reread my post. I looked for and couldn't find your answer to my question, But I will admit my question might be a tad complicated. So let's try this one instead. What exactly are you fighting for?
It seems to be a fight for government granted permission and for anti-Amendment II prohibitions, controls or dare I say it, 'infringements' on the fundamental constitutional God-given right to keep and bear arms, which are expressly against the absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from doing so in the text of Amendment II.
Jim wants prior restraint/control/prohibition/infringement, by government, on firearms and weapons that he either fears or that he doesn't want others to have, for whatever the reason.
Hate to be so blunt, but then, that's the way it is, as I have seen it.
Yeah I kind of thought that's where this conversation would lead, if he was willing to take it that far. It amazes me how many people turn there back on America and then claim to be fighting for it.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Jim I answered your question before you asked it, you just need to reread my post. I looked for and couldn't find your answer to my question, But I will admit my question might be a tad complicated. So let's try this one instead. What exactly are you fighting for?
It seems to be a fight for government granted permission and for anti-Amendment II prohibitions, controls or dare I say it, 'infringements' on the fundamental constitutional God-given right to keep and bear arms, which are expressly against the absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from doing so in the text of Amendment II.
Jim wants prior restraint/control/prohibition/infringement, by government, on firearms and weapons that he either fears or that he doesn't want others to have, for whatever the reason.
Hate to be so blunt, but then, that's the way it is, as I have seen it.
The 'management' of the right has nothing to with fear, only reality. Honestly, you think you can get the majority of this country to go along with your 'ideal' implication of Amendment # 2???/
I think not. You would NEVER get public opinion on your side, so you are being silly to think you could EVER accomplish what you preach. I on the other hand I agree with 98+% of what you do,BUT I give it the reality test, and it fails miserably. Just a fact which you and other refuse to recognize.[:0]
So when you and your friends come back to reality lets get started fighting for our rights!!![8D]
don't make any huge bets on that, they know we are the force who will jump to defend America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights long before the NRA takes any action. also recall there was no NRA in 1776ad the defenders of our nation were common citizens who preferred freedom and liberty over a tyrannical "King" and his rules, i and many millions of NON-NRA'ers will be the force to fire the next first shot heard round the world.., NOT the Negotiable Rights Association.
i too once was a member of the NRA, but when Neal Knox walked away from them, i and many, many others during the 1976ad convention in San Diego walked away and never looked back.
face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!
other than myself, how many here think/believe that full auto ban should be rescinded [?] [?] [?]
quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
quote:Yep.. The Brady Bunch love NRA bashers...
don't make any huge bets on that, they know we are the force who will jump to defend America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights long before the NRA takes any action. also recall there was no NRA in 1776ad the defenders of our nation were common citizens who preferred freedom and liberty over a tyrannical "King" and his rules, i and many millions of NON-NRA'ers will be the force to fire the next first shot heard round the world.., NOT the Negotiable Rights Association.
i too once was a member of the NRA, but when Neal Knox walked away from them, i and many, many others during the 1976ad convention in San Diego walked away and never looked back.
face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!
other than myself, how many here think/believe that full auto ban should be rescinded [?] [?] [?]
maybe i should make it a poll [?] [?]
Well said.
As for the full auto ban, allow me to simply say the Amendment II clearly 'states' that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That is dirt-simple text and it is a clear and absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from infringing on that fundamental constitutionally enumerated right, read controlling, regulating, prohibiting, prior restraints, 'permitting' et al.
quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!
Just making sure, you are talking about the 1986 ban on sales of new machine guns to citizens.....correct?
Not the 1934 ban on private ownership without being registered, taxed, etc., which they ALSO backed.
YES ! the 1986ad ban, the 1934ad ban and every anti gun legislation to hit congress, many of which the NRA agreed with and/or compromised on.
in 1976ad the NRA was still deeply concerned about the rights of "Duck Hunters" shotguns, that is what Neal Knox was disagreeing with them about, the "Black Rifle" was gaining popularity, the NRA's leaders at the time did not like the "Black Rifle", it looked to militaristic and had no sporting purpose.
Neal wanted the Negotiable Rights Association to protect and defend the rights of every gun owner and their choice of firearms but as usual the Negotiable Rights Association balked and has sided more with the ANTI's than with their membership which at that time they lost a few thousand members over their, protecting the rights of "Duck Hunters", plus their constant caving and compromising.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
quote:Yep.. The Brady Bunch love NRA bashers...
don't make any huge bets on that, they know we are the force who will jump to defend America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights long before the NRA takes any action. also recall there was no NRA in 1776ad the defenders of our nation were common citizens who preferred freedom and liberty over a tyrannical "King" and his rules, i and many millions of NON-NRA'ers will be the force to fire the next first shot heard round the world.., NOT the Negotiable Rights Association.
i too once was a member of the NRA, but when Neal Knox walked away from them, i and many, many others during the 1976ad convention in San Diego walked away and never looked back.
face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!
other than myself, how many here think/believe that full auto ban should be rescinded [?] [?] [?]
maybe i should make it a poll [?] [?]
Well said.
As for the full auto ban, allow me to simply say the Amendment II clearly 'states' that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That is dirt-simple text and it is a clear and absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from infringing on that fundamental constitutionally enumerated right, read controlling, regulating, prohibiting, prior restraints, 'permitting' et al.
That would be inclusive of full-autos.
OK Jeff,
Let us say we agree on this. What is your plan to make it happen????????? You just proved what I have been trying to get across to you for a long time. If you can't come up with a realistic plan to accomplish your goal you are wasting your time and effort. In today's world, with so many overly civilized idealistic idiot out there (liberal progressives), just how do you and your fellow believers intend to accomplish this?????? Simply put, you can't. It is not a realistic goal!!!
The two (Rau's[;)]) rules of goal seating are:
1. The goal must be realistic. (probability to accomplish the goal)
2. The goals but be non conflicting.
Our differences are slight, except for the fact that you and many here are idealists and I am a realist!!![:)]
Perfect/ideal is only found in the mind of the beholder, not in the real world![V]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
quote:Yep.. The Brady Bunch love NRA bashers...
don't make any huge bets on that, they know we are the force who will jump to defend America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights long before the NRA takes any action. also recall there was no NRA in 1776ad the defenders of our nation were common citizens who preferred freedom and liberty over a tyrannical "King" and his rules, i and many millions of NON-NRA'ers will be the force to fire the next first shot heard round the world.., NOT the Negotiable Rights Association.
i too once was a member of the NRA, but when Neal Knox walked away from them, i and many, many others during the 1976ad convention in San Diego walked away and never looked back.
face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!
other than myself, how many here think/believe that full auto ban should be rescinded [?] [?] [?]
maybe i should make it a poll [?] [?]
Well said.
As for the full auto ban, allow me to simply say the Amendment II clearly 'states' that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That is dirt-simple text and it is a clear and absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from infringing on that fundamental constitutionally enumerated right, read controlling, regulating, prohibiting, prior restraints, 'permitting' et al.
That would be inclusive of full-autos.
OK Jeff,
Let us say we agree on this. What is your plan to make it happen????????? You just proved what I have been trying to get across to you for a long time. If you can't come up with a realistic plan to accomplish your goal you are wasting your time and effort. In today's world, with so many overly civilized idealistic idiot out there (liberal progressives), just how do you and your fellow believers intend to accomplish this?????? Simply put, you can't. It is not a realistic goal!!!
The two (Rau's[;)]) rules of goal seating are:
1. The goal must be realistic. (probability to accomplish the goal)
2. The goals but be non conflicting.
Our differences are slight, except for the fact that you and many here are idealists and I am a realist!!![:)]
Perfect/ideal is only found in the mind of the beholder, not in the real world![V]
No, Jim, lets not say that we agree, because we do not.
Our differences are not 'slight' at all. You cede government the authority to do that which they are expressly prohibited from doing.
One cannot logically start from that position, Mr. Rau-realist.
My 'plan' is as it always has been...
That being, to cock-block any and all examples of government infringement on the RKBA and the efforts and advocacy of people (like you) who attempt to rationalize, justify or gain acceptance for such prohibited government actions...and to shine bright light upon those actions, government or citizen led, whilst working on educating, in my typical unwavering and blunt style, that such actions and such advocacy are contrary to Amendment II and pointing to the place that they inevitably lead.
All the while, I speak out in many venues, I write letters in the same manner, I petition government in the same manner, I urge support for groups who understand and stand for Amendment II and who have a national voice, I shine the light of provable fact on and urge non-support of organizations and people who take your approach, which is contrary to Amendment II
I dare say, that the El-Tee plan vs. the Jim Rau plan, conducted by each of us, is more effective.
I have seen a number of members here who have openly stated that they were awakened and changed their approach and views based on such efforts (not necessarily by me) by people who take the Amendment II textual position and who call things as they are.
How about your plan? You having any converts to accepting government usurpation? If so, more is the pity.
Idealism is not idiocy, as you claim.
Constitution and Liberty Idealism is the well-spring of principle, ethic and integrity and the base from which principled advocacy and non-acceptance of predatory extra/anti-constitutional governance, springs.
Thinking that one can wrest a fundamental right back from government, once that right is conceded to be mere privilege, is lunacy, IMO.
There was a time where men would stand up and claim their rights and take the position that they would NOT accept, or accede to certain things.
Sadly, such men seem to be all but gone and such principle has all but been eradicated, replaced, rather, with some namby-pamby 'go along to get along' and 'be reasonable' about government taking powers that are not theirs to take.
Jeff,
Have you ever heard it said "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"?
Your 'hold their head under the water' tactics will not make them drink. They will push back against your efforts.
Sorry you can't or won't recognize the truth/common sense here!
I would say I am more patient than you and those who take the 'push them along' stance. You MUST recognize reality and human nature if you wish to accomplih anything positive. I am sorry our patience has run out, mine is wearing thin too!!![;)]
I guess we will both have to keep trying to get this car going back the right direction in our own way, but we are not 'enemies'!
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
Have you ever heard it said "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"?
Your 'hold their head under the water' tactics will not make them drink. They will push back against your efforts.
Sorry you can't or won't recognize the truth/common sense here!
I would say I am more patient than you and those who take the 'push them along' stance. You MUST recognize reality and human nature if you wish to accomplih anything positive. I am sorry our patience has run out, mine is wearing thin too!!![;)]
I guess we will both have to keep trying to get this car going back the right direction in our own way, but we are not 'enemies'!
Course not, Jim.[:)] We differ in opinion and certain beliefs and we will not reconcile on those points. So what?
Aside from that, you seem to be good people and I respect those things I know about that you have done, at risk to your future. That took courage and balls.
Why does anyone pay attention to poll's in the first place? For one they are too easily manipulated, asking specific questions in a specific manner to specific groups of people, allowing only certain responses in order to get a specific response, and some how this represents legitimate national views.
Any look into the NRA's history, even a cursory look, will reveal just how involved they've been in implementing gun control in this country, going all the way back to the Uniform Firearms Act, the National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act and so on. Their behavior during the Heller and McDonald case's was disgraceful to say the least and then have the gall to state they are the friend of gun owners. Pleeeezzzz!!!!!
The NRA can state whatever it wants but their history conspires against them in ways that they simply can not refute.
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
Why does anyone pay attention to poll's in the first place? For one they are too easily manipulated, asking specific questions in a specific manner to specific groups of people, allowing only certain responses in order to get a specific response, and some how this represents legitimate national views.
Any look into the NRA's history, even a cursory look, will reveal just how involved they've been in implementing gun control in this country, going all the way back to the Uniform Firearms Act, the National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act and so on. Their behavior during the Heller and McDonald case's was disgraceful to say the least and then have the gall to state they are the friend of gun owners. Pleeeezzzz!!!!!
The NRA can state whatever it wants but their history conspires against them in ways that they simply can not refute.
Well, yeah...BUT facts never get in the way of a dedicated NRA-zombie simply disregarding or ignoring their provable history of supporting gun-control and government oppression.
When that fails due to someone refusing to allow the willful-ignorance, then the true colors come out that these NRA-zombies actually support the NRA-style of gun-control, but with the caveat that they desperately attempt to rationalize and justify it.
Just read what Jim Rau has posted over the years, for an illustration.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
OOOH, OOOOH, Mista Kotter, I know this one.
Step 1) STOP SUPPORTING NRA-ILA[;)][;)]
Sorry Jim, pretty sure not the answer you were looking for.
No it was the answer, which is not an answer, I expected. Now try and answer the question![;)]
The only answer is 'you can't change the system from out side the system with out using violence'! [xx(] Just a little more reality you all try and ignore!!![|)]
quote:The only answer is 'you can't change the system from out side the system with out using violence'!True, unfortunately. Another group of oppressed subjects tried assembling, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions, and with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, and declared that they would no longer be oppressed.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Look at like this guys.
You are gong the wrong way down the road at 60+ mph. Your goal is go the right/other way. If you simply crank the steering wheel hard and try to turn around you will end up in a big wreck.
You MUST first slow the vehicle down going the wrong way, then when it is stopped you MUST carefully turn around and then, and only then can you go down the right road.
You all need to stop jerking the wheel or you are going to end up in a big wreck!!!!![;)]
Actually, we're the ones going the right way, you're the one going the wrong way, and jerking the wheel as you go. As I see it.
So you are gong the right way, what are your accomplishments so far. I have not seen you cause any positive changes in the current laws or environment as a result of your stand on this! The only thing I (and many others) see is some bitter, closed mined, folks who seem to have nothing positive to help in this fight. Only criticism and attempts to hinder and attack those who really do give a chitt and work to get things changed.[V]
I notice that whenever I point to how someone is pedaling in the wrong direction, their response is to say "well, what have you done". Well, for one, I stopped pedaling in the wrong direction. Once you stop doing that, then we can talk.
So your actions are self satisfying but do nothing to help the rest of us who believe there is still a fight worth fighting for ALL of us!!! As I said before, I will not change your mind or any others who have closed their minds to any other position other than their own. The various pro gun organizations have steped in to support many folks who have been wronged individually and collectively, but to those with your believes they have not helped in any way. The bottom line is 'any compromise' in what you believe is wrong and those who do not do things as you think they should are wrong and the 'enemy'.
To me the 'wreck' occurs when we have a progressive dictator in chief, as we do now, who has appointed a Supreme Court of progressive judges, and the progressives have both houses of congress. Then we will be forced to use violence to defend our RTKABA'S. Until that occurs I will maintain my grasp on reality and do what I can to try and get this 'turned around' and going the right way with out violence.
I am sorry so many here have given up the fight!!![V]
You have so completely missed the point that perhaps I should not even continue to try to address you on this matter.
Let me try to paint it for you clearly:
You support the NRA.
The NRA fights for gun control.
By supporting the NRA, you fight for gun control.
I, conversely, do not support the NRA and therefor do not support gun control. I do OTHER things that support gun rights, many of which are in direct opposition to the things the NRA is doing.
Do you now see how we (you and I) are diametrically opposed?
If not, perhaps I can use smaller words???
Some will die in hot pursuit
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
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.'
'Defense of self, family, and country' qualifies the 2nd. 'Shall not be infinged' is not qualified. This is the qualification the NRA wanted and got in Heller and McDonald.
And then:
'It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.'
A nice sentiment from a man who has promoted NICS from day one. Perhaps it is merely OK for a government the NRA-ILA can influence to do such evil things.
And finally:
'Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.'
Has Mr. La Perri?re conceded the right of civilians to own military arms? Oh, that's right, his organization promotes such restrictions.
So, to answer your question:
While the NRA has spoken to the question of qualified gun rights at the UN, it has not, in any meaningful way spoken to the true meaning of the individual human right expressed by the 2nd.
Not at the UN.
Not to Congress.
Not through any promoted legislation.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by wpage
What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?
better question.
Some will die in hot pursuit
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
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
No, Jim, it is not 'quite' simple. To say so is for you to be either abjectly ignorant of the internal process, or to be willfully deceptive.
Knowing something about you, I don't see you as deceptive. I expect it is abject ignorance.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
Since you disagree so resolutely, and since you knocked down the one and only positive I can see that the organization does, would you care to list a few things you think they're doing to further gun rights? I'd wager the list is shorter than a penguin's pecker in February.
You want to do the balance sheets on this, because for every point positive you can list, I can list at least one counterpoint, perhaps more, if indeed you can list even one point positive.
Some will die in hot pursuit
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
Considering the NRA's documentable complicity in getting gun control enacted into law for most of it's history one has to wonder what the NRA has left to offer in this fight.
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
Considering the NRA's documentable complicity in getting gun control enacted into law for most of it's history one has to wonder what the NRA has left to offer in this fight.
Your wife trained you well![;)][:D][^]
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wpage
What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?
'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.'
'Defense of self, family, and country' qualifies the 2nd. 'Shall not be infringed' is not qualified. This is the qualification the NRA wanted and got in Heller and McDonald.
Nonsense. The reading you propose is self serving, and is not a necessary understanding of the words used. Neither is your apparent use of the term "infringed".
I figure you think it helps your argument, but misuse of the terms as an argument is obvious and actually diminishes the power of your claims.
You have stated nothing here, Barzillia. 'Not a necessary understanding'? Of course my understanding of Wayne's Words is not a necessary understanding. There is not a necessary understanding possible.
He could have meant any number of things, but his history, and the history of his organization suggests my interpretation. The NRA continuously references the 2nd with respect to self defense, hunting, and sporting. One almost never sees it specifically address the preservation of the ability of the citizenry to protects its freedoms from an over-reaching government. The reason that a lobbying organization rarely takes this position is self-evident.
I am unsure of what you are suggesting when you reference my use of the word 'infringed'. I have merely agreed with Scalia that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the operative clause. This leads to the obvious statement that, in the 2nd Amendment, the word 'infringed' is not qualified. Please, Barzillia, tell me specifically what you mean by my 'apparent use of term 'infringed'. And please make it simple. I would hate to miss the necessary understanding of your statement.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Feel free to point to something that backs up your assertion. I won't hold my breath, for even a brief perusal of the sticky at the top of this page throws a wet blanket on your rather ludicrous assertions. You are either willfully ignorant, an idiot, or working for the NRA. Which is it?
Some will die in hot pursuit
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
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Read for comprehension, Jim.
I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.
To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.
Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment.
While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Read for comprehension, Jim.
I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.
To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.
Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment. I won't hold my breath.
While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.
They are anti-gun in many respects. They oppose automatic weapons, they oppose firearms which have magazines of capacity 11 or higher, they oppose weapons where it is possible to attach a bayonet or rifles with a pistol grip, and they regularly denigrate weapons with no "sporting purpose". I dare say they would oppose more types save for the ads and reviews they run in order to bring in money and fools.
Some will die in hot pursuit
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
Don,
MANY here are down right hateful, but you nailed it when you said the NRA is not against the RTKABA'S, but they do not fully support the 2nd Amendment!!!! I agree with you. But my approach is not to simply set around at the computer and make ridiculous, silly, hateful comments about this, I prefer to try and get their ear and let them know they need to 'bend' less and use their numbers to push those in power to start aligning the statutory laws closer to the Constitution!!! This has been my pet peeve from the local level to the national level since day one.
Some here remind me of those I worked with over the years who simply * and complain but when you ask them for the solution for the problems they are complaining about they shrug their shoulders and just keep on complaining. It's called venting, and I think that is what MANY here use this forum for. And I don't have a problem with that if it makes them feel better, but get the hell out of the way and let those who want to TRY and make some positive change do our think without all the BS they are shoveling!!!![}:)]
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Read for comprehension, Jim.
I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.
To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.
Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment. I won't hold my breath.
While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.
They are anti-gun in many respects. They oppose automatic weapons, they oppose firearms which have magazines of capacity 11 or higher, they oppose weapons where it is possible to attach a bayonet or rifles with a pistol grip, and they regularly denigrate weapons with no "sporting purpose". I dare say they would oppose more types save for the ads and reviews they run in order to bring in money and fools.
I don't know where you get your info, but they do not support limited magazine capacity, they do not support the semi-automatic weapons (erroneously referred to as assault weapons)ban. As for their exact position on Full auto, I can't honestly say where they stand, and I don't care. When we get the rest of the important stuff addressed then I will look at full auto. There are places where the mere possession of a hand gun is considered unlawful. We need to address the basics first, you have the 'cart ahead of the horse' if you are worried about full auto as this point.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
MANY here are down right hateful, but you nailed it when you said the NRA is not against the RTKABA'S, but they do not fully support the 2nd Amendment!!!! I agree with you. But my approach is not to simply set around at the computer and make ridiculous, silly, hateful comments about this, I prefer to try and get their ear and let them know they need to 'bend' less and use their numbers to push those in power to start aligning the statutory laws closer to the Constitution!!! This has been my pet peeve from the local level to the national level since day one.
Some here remind me of those I worked with over the years who simply * and complain but when you ask them for the solution for the problems they are complaining about they shrug their shoulders and just keep on complaining. It's called venting, and I think that is what MANY here use this forum for. And I don't have a problem with that if it makes them feel better, but get the hell out of the way and let those who want to TRY and make some positive change do our think without all the BS they are shoveling!!!![}:)]
Back the truck up, here, Jim.
I have specifically said that the actions of the NRA diminish the 2nd Amendment. It is an obvious fact and it confirms for me that the NRA is anti 2nd Amendment.
They are pro gun and pro gun ownership. Nothing more.
We cannot afford to confuse legislated privileges with rights, and such confusion is one of the results of the actions and publications of the NRA-ILA. My gut tells me that sowing this confusion is one of the goals of the organization. There is just too much that is said and done under their banner to lead folks in that direction for it to be coincidence or a simple unintended outcome.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
You have stated nothing here, Barzillia. 'Not a necessary understanding'? Of course my understanding of Wayne's Words is not a necessary understanding. There is not a necessary understanding possible.
Then why do you put them forth in argument, as if to claim they have any meaning at all, as if they prove something ? ?
I am simply presenting what I take from the statement made. It is the meaning I get from it; a meaning based upon the words stated and the actions and words of the man in the past. Why would you suggest that I am trying to prove anything? It is a logical understanding, not a necessary one.
quote:
He could have meant any number of things, but his history, and the history of his organization suggests my interpretation. The NRA continuously references the 2nd with respect to self defense, hunting, and sporting. One almost never sees it specifically address the preservation of the ability of the citizenry to protects its freedoms from an over-reaching government. The reason that a lobbying organization rarely takes this position is self-evident.
I see . Like I said, self-serving. It means what you want it to mean because you want it to mean that.
I don't get the 'self-serving', Barzillia. As noted above, it is what I see in the statement. Sure, it fits into what I think about the man and his organization, but it was the actions of same that brought me to this point. It is obvious that an individual will reach his own understanding of what a person states or writes. If you wish to twist that into 'self-serving', so be it.quote:
I am unsure of what you are suggesting when you reference my use of the word 'infringed'. I have merely agreed with Scalia that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the operative clause. This leads to the obvious statement that, in the 2nd Amendment, the word 'infringed' is not qualified. Please, Barzillia, tell me specifically what you mean by my 'apparent use of term 'infringed'. And please make it simple. I would hate to miss the necessary understanding of your statement.
There are certain words that when used with a modicum of precision, carry necessary implications.
Such as the term "murder".
In our culture, murder is not simply the same thing as killing. Different words for different purposes, and with different necessary implications. It is most always a wrongful act; no just man says, "Gee, it is good that a man was murdered tonight."
Now, there are probably only limited situations in which a just man might say "It is good that a man was killed tonight", but it can be so.
The same goes for "infringed". It carries the implication of a breach, and a wrong. No just man says "I am glad that an infringement occurred tonight," it would neither sound right, nor make sense.
But a just man could say, "It is good that such and such a limit was accomplished tonight", and make entirely good sense.
The founders knew the meanings of words, the laws of nature and nature's God were widely expounded among them, and there is a reason "infringed" was chosen.
And not "limited".
Again, all I stated was that the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the word 'infringe'. I have not attempted to define the term 'infringe' or even use the term 'infringe'. I am sure you think you have a point, but if you do, it has nothing to do with anything I've stated in this exchange. Dare I suggest that your entire 'infringe' shtick is just a bit self-serving?
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
From The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style, regarding the meaning of the word "infringe" dating back to the 18th century:
impinge/infringe
"The verb impinge sounds a little like and has the same basic meaning as infringe, so it's not surprising that these words are often used interchangeably. Impinge comes from Latin impingere, 'to drive into, strike against.' The word still has this meaning, especially in science where one reads of waves or particle streams impinging on a surface. Infringe ultimately derives from Latin frangere 'to break,' and was most often used in English to express the idea of violating a law or right. Both words have had the meaning 'to encroach' since the 18th century, and infringe can be both transitive and intransitive, while impinge is only used intransitively. Thus, in standard usage, a person might infringe, infringe on, or impinge on someone else's constitutional rights."
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
MANY here are down right hateful, but you nailed it when you said the NRA is not against the RTKABA'S, but they do not fully support the 2nd Amendment!!!! I agree with you. But my approach is not to simply set around at the computer and make ridiculous, silly, hateful comments about this, I prefer to try and get their ear and let them know they need to 'bend' less and use their numbers to push those in power to start aligning the statutory laws closer to the Constitution!!! This has been my pet peeve from the local level to the national level since day one.
Some here remind me of those I worked with over the years who simply * and complain but when you ask them for the solution for the problems they are complaining about they shrug their shoulders and just keep on complaining. It's called venting, and I think that is what MANY here use this forum for. And I don't have a problem with that if it makes them feel better, but get the hell out of the way and let those who want to TRY and make some positive change do our think without all the BS they are shoveling!!!![}:)]
Back the truck up, here, Jim.
I have specifically said that the actions of the NRA diminish the 2nd Amendment. It is an obvious fact and it confirms for me that the NRA is anti 2nd Amendment.
They are pro gun and pro gun ownership. Nothing more.
We cannot afford to confuse legislated privileges with rights, and such confusion is one of the results of the actions and publications of the NRA-ILA. My gut tells me that sowing this confusion is one of the goals of the organization. There is just too much that is said and done under their banner to lead folks in that direction for it to be coincidence or a simple unintended outcome.
Pro gun and Pro ownership (of guns) is anti-2nd Amendment?????
You lost me on that one!!!![?]
They need to push harder to get more concessions from the 'lawmakers' who have passed all of these unconstitutional laws for sure, but to say they are anti 2nd Amendment is just plain silly and childish.
Many here remind me of a 'child' having a temper tantrum because they did not get there way. We have to continue to work at getting these unconstitutional laws over turned ANY WAY WE CAN!!!! The NRA has backed many laws which are a compromise and many call that selling out, but unless any of you here are capable of 'leading a tall building in a single bound' we need to try and get to the top one step at a time and for some that is not good enough. So be it, but I will continue to keep trying to get there one step at a time because, unlike most of you, I am not Superman!!!![;)]
Comments
Merry Christmas Jim,......regardless of our differences.[:)]
+1
quote:Jim I answered your question before you asked it, you just need to reread my post. I looked for and couldn't find your answer to my question, But I will admit my question might be a tad complicated. So let's try this one instead. What exactly are you fighting for?
It seems to be a fight for government granted permission and for anti-Amendment II prohibitions, controls or dare I say it, 'infringements' on the fundamental constitutional God-given right to keep and bear arms, which are expressly against the absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from doing so in the text of Amendment II.
Jim wants prior restraint/control/prohibition/infringement, by government, on firearms and weapons that he either fears or that he doesn't want others to have, for whatever the reason.
Hate to be so blunt, but then, that's the way it is, as I have seen it.
Yeah I kind of thought that's where this conversation would lead, if he was willing to take it that far. It amazes me how many people turn there back on America and then claim to be fighting for it.
(edited for spelling)
quote:Jim I answered your question before you asked it, you just need to reread my post. I looked for and couldn't find your answer to my question, But I will admit my question might be a tad complicated. So let's try this one instead. What exactly are you fighting for?
It seems to be a fight for government granted permission and for anti-Amendment II prohibitions, controls or dare I say it, 'infringements' on the fundamental constitutional God-given right to keep and bear arms, which are expressly against the absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from doing so in the text of Amendment II.
Jim wants prior restraint/control/prohibition/infringement, by government, on firearms and weapons that he either fears or that he doesn't want others to have, for whatever the reason.
Hate to be so blunt, but then, that's the way it is, as I have seen it.
The 'management' of the right has nothing to with fear, only reality. Honestly, you think you can get the majority of this country to go along with your 'ideal' implication of Amendment # 2???/
I think not. You would NEVER get public opinion on your side, so you are being silly to think you could EVER accomplish what you preach. I on the other hand I agree with 98+% of what you do,BUT I give it the reality test, and it fails miserably. Just a fact which you and other refuse to recognize.[:0]
So when you and your friends come back to reality lets get started fighting for our rights!!![8D]
don't make any huge bets on that, they know we are the force who will jump to defend America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights long before the NRA takes any action. also recall there was no NRA in 1776ad the defenders of our nation were common citizens who preferred freedom and liberty over a tyrannical "King" and his rules, i and many millions of NON-NRA'ers will be the force to fire the next first shot heard round the world.., NOT the Negotiable Rights Association.
i too once was a member of the NRA, but when Neal Knox walked away from them, i and many, many others during the 1976ad convention in San Diego walked away and never looked back.
face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!
other than myself, how many here think/believe that full auto ban should be rescinded [?] [?] [?]
maybe i should make it a poll [?] [?]
quote:Yep.. The Brady Bunch love NRA bashers...
don't make any huge bets on that, they know we are the force who will jump to defend America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights long before the NRA takes any action. also recall there was no NRA in 1776ad the defenders of our nation were common citizens who preferred freedom and liberty over a tyrannical "King" and his rules, i and many millions of NON-NRA'ers will be the force to fire the next first shot heard round the world.., NOT the Negotiable Rights Association.
i too once was a member of the NRA, but when Neal Knox walked away from them, i and many, many others during the 1976ad convention in San Diego walked away and never looked back.
face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!
other than myself, how many here think/believe that full auto ban should be rescinded [?] [?] [?]
maybe i should make it a poll [?] [?]
Well said.
As for the full auto ban, allow me to simply say the Amendment II clearly 'states' that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That is dirt-simple text and it is a clear and absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from infringing on that fundamental constitutionally enumerated right, read controlling, regulating, prohibiting, prior restraints, 'permitting' et al.
That would be inclusive of full-autos.
face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!
Just making sure, you are talking about the 1986 ban on sales of new machine guns to citizens.....correct?
Not the 1934 ban on private ownership without being registered, taxed, etc., which they ALSO backed.
in 1976ad the NRA was still deeply concerned about the rights of "Duck Hunters" shotguns, that is what Neal Knox was disagreeing with them about, the "Black Rifle" was gaining popularity, the NRA's leaders at the time did not like the "Black Rifle", it looked to militaristic and had no sporting purpose.
Neal wanted the Negotiable Rights Association to protect and defend the rights of every gun owner and their choice of firearms but as usual the Negotiable Rights Association balked and has sided more with the ANTI's than with their membership which at that time they lost a few thousand members over their, protecting the rights of "Duck Hunters", plus their constant caving and compromising.
quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
quote:Yep.. The Brady Bunch love NRA bashers...
don't make any huge bets on that, they know we are the force who will jump to defend America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights long before the NRA takes any action. also recall there was no NRA in 1776ad the defenders of our nation were common citizens who preferred freedom and liberty over a tyrannical "King" and his rules, i and many millions of NON-NRA'ers will be the force to fire the next first shot heard round the world.., NOT the Negotiable Rights Association.
i too once was a member of the NRA, but when Neal Knox walked away from them, i and many, many others during the 1976ad convention in San Diego walked away and never looked back.
face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!
other than myself, how many here think/believe that full auto ban should be rescinded [?] [?] [?]
maybe i should make it a poll [?] [?]
Well said.
As for the full auto ban, allow me to simply say the Amendment II clearly 'states' that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That is dirt-simple text and it is a clear and absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from infringing on that fundamental constitutionally enumerated right, read controlling, regulating, prohibiting, prior restraints, 'permitting' et al.
That would be inclusive of full-autos.
OK Jeff,
Let us say we agree on this. What is your plan to make it happen????????? You just proved what I have been trying to get across to you for a long time. If you can't come up with a realistic plan to accomplish your goal you are wasting your time and effort. In today's world, with so many overly civilized idealistic idiot out there (liberal progressives), just how do you and your fellow believers intend to accomplish this?????? Simply put, you can't. It is not a realistic goal!!!
The two (Rau's[;)]) rules of goal seating are:
1. The goal must be realistic. (probability to accomplish the goal)
2. The goals but be non conflicting.
Our differences are slight, except for the fact that you and many here are idealists and I am a realist!!![:)]
Perfect/ideal is only found in the mind of the beholder, not in the real world![V]
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
quote:Yep.. The Brady Bunch love NRA bashers...
don't make any huge bets on that, they know we are the force who will jump to defend America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights long before the NRA takes any action. also recall there was no NRA in 1776ad the defenders of our nation were common citizens who preferred freedom and liberty over a tyrannical "King" and his rules, i and many millions of NON-NRA'ers will be the force to fire the next first shot heard round the world.., NOT the Negotiable Rights Association.
i too once was a member of the NRA, but when Neal Knox walked away from them, i and many, many others during the 1976ad convention in San Diego walked away and never looked back.
face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!
other than myself, how many here think/believe that full auto ban should be rescinded [?] [?] [?]
maybe i should make it a poll [?] [?]
Well said.
As for the full auto ban, allow me to simply say the Amendment II clearly 'states' that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That is dirt-simple text and it is a clear and absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from infringing on that fundamental constitutionally enumerated right, read controlling, regulating, prohibiting, prior restraints, 'permitting' et al.
That would be inclusive of full-autos.
OK Jeff,
Let us say we agree on this. What is your plan to make it happen????????? You just proved what I have been trying to get across to you for a long time. If you can't come up with a realistic plan to accomplish your goal you are wasting your time and effort. In today's world, with so many overly civilized idealistic idiot out there (liberal progressives), just how do you and your fellow believers intend to accomplish this?????? Simply put, you can't. It is not a realistic goal!!!
The two (Rau's[;)]) rules of goal seating are:
1. The goal must be realistic. (probability to accomplish the goal)
2. The goals but be non conflicting.
Our differences are slight, except for the fact that you and many here are idealists and I am a realist!!![:)]
Perfect/ideal is only found in the mind of the beholder, not in the real world![V]
No, Jim, lets not say that we agree, because we do not.
Our differences are not 'slight' at all. You cede government the authority to do that which they are expressly prohibited from doing.
One cannot logically start from that position, Mr. Rau-realist.
My 'plan' is as it always has been...
That being, to cock-block any and all examples of government infringement on the RKBA and the efforts and advocacy of people (like you) who attempt to rationalize, justify or gain acceptance for such prohibited government actions...and to shine bright light upon those actions, government or citizen led, whilst working on educating, in my typical unwavering and blunt style, that such actions and such advocacy are contrary to Amendment II and pointing to the place that they inevitably lead.
All the while, I speak out in many venues, I write letters in the same manner, I petition government in the same manner, I urge support for groups who understand and stand for Amendment II and who have a national voice, I shine the light of provable fact on and urge non-support of organizations and people who take your approach, which is contrary to Amendment II
I dare say, that the El-Tee plan vs. the Jim Rau plan, conducted by each of us, is more effective.
I have seen a number of members here who have openly stated that they were awakened and changed their approach and views based on such efforts (not necessarily by me) by people who take the Amendment II textual position and who call things as they are.
How about your plan? You having any converts to accepting government usurpation? If so, more is the pity.
Idealism is not idiocy, as you claim.
Constitution and Liberty Idealism is the well-spring of principle, ethic and integrity and the base from which principled advocacy and non-acceptance of predatory extra/anti-constitutional governance, springs.
Thinking that one can wrest a fundamental right back from government, once that right is conceded to be mere privilege, is lunacy, IMO.
There was a time where men would stand up and claim their rights and take the position that they would NOT accept, or accede to certain things.
Sadly, such men seem to be all but gone and such principle has all but been eradicated, replaced, rather, with some namby-pamby 'go along to get along' and 'be reasonable' about government taking powers that are not theirs to take.
Sorry, Jim, I ain't buying any.[:)]
Have you ever heard it said "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"?
Your 'hold their head under the water' tactics will not make them drink. They will push back against your efforts.
Sorry you can't or won't recognize the truth/common sense here!
I would say I am more patient than you and those who take the 'push them along' stance. You MUST recognize reality and human nature if you wish to accomplih anything positive. I am sorry our patience has run out, mine is wearing thin too!!![;)]
I guess we will both have to keep trying to get this car going back the right direction in our own way, but we are not 'enemies'!
Jeff,
Have you ever heard it said "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"?
Your 'hold their head under the water' tactics will not make them drink. They will push back against your efforts.
Sorry you can't or won't recognize the truth/common sense here!
I would say I am more patient than you and those who take the 'push them along' stance. You MUST recognize reality and human nature if you wish to accomplih anything positive. I am sorry our patience has run out, mine is wearing thin too!!![;)]
I guess we will both have to keep trying to get this car going back the right direction in our own way, but we are not 'enemies'!
Course not, Jim.[:)] We differ in opinion and certain beliefs and we will not reconcile on those points. So what?
Aside from that, you seem to be good people and I respect those things I know about that you have done, at risk to your future. That took courage and balls.
Any look into the NRA's history, even a cursory look, will reveal just how involved they've been in implementing gun control in this country, going all the way back to the Uniform Firearms Act, the National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act and so on. Their behavior during the Heller and McDonald case's was disgraceful to say the least and then have the gall to state they are the friend of gun owners. Pleeeezzzz!!!!!
The NRA can state whatever it wants but their history conspires against them in ways that they simply can not refute.
Why does anyone pay attention to poll's in the first place? For one they are too easily manipulated, asking specific questions in a specific manner to specific groups of people, allowing only certain responses in order to get a specific response, and some how this represents legitimate national views.
Any look into the NRA's history, even a cursory look, will reveal just how involved they've been in implementing gun control in this country, going all the way back to the Uniform Firearms Act, the National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act and so on. Their behavior during the Heller and McDonald case's was disgraceful to say the least and then have the gall to state they are the friend of gun owners. Pleeeezzzz!!!!!
The NRA can state whatever it wants but their history conspires against them in ways that they simply can not refute.
Well, yeah...BUT facts never get in the way of a dedicated NRA-zombie simply disregarding or ignoring their provable history of supporting gun-control and government oppression.
When that fails due to someone refusing to allow the willful-ignorance, then the true colors come out that these NRA-zombies actually support the NRA-style of gun-control, but with the caveat that they desperately attempt to rationalize and justify it.
Just read what Jim Rau has posted over the years, for an illustration.
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
OOOH, OOOOH, Mista Kotter, I know this one.
Step 1) STOP SUPPORTING NRA-ILA[;)][;)]
Sorry Jim, pretty sure not the answer you were looking for.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
OOOH, OOOOH, Mista Kotter, I know this one.
Step 1) STOP SUPPORTING NRA-ILA[;)][;)]
Sorry Jim, pretty sure not the answer you were looking for.
No it was the answer, which is not an answer, I expected. Now try and answer the question![;)]
The only answer is 'you can't change the system from out side the system with out using violence'! [xx(] Just a little more reality you all try and ignore!!![|)]
We all know how that turned out.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Look at like this guys.
You are gong the wrong way down the road at 60+ mph. Your goal is go the right/other way. If you simply crank the steering wheel hard and try to turn around you will end up in a big wreck.
You MUST first slow the vehicle down going the wrong way, then when it is stopped you MUST carefully turn around and then, and only then can you go down the right road.
You all need to stop jerking the wheel or you are going to end up in a big wreck!!!!![;)]
Actually, we're the ones going the right way, you're the one going the wrong way, and jerking the wheel as you go. As I see it.
So you are gong the right way, what are your accomplishments so far. I have not seen you cause any positive changes in the current laws or environment as a result of your stand on this! The only thing I (and many others) see is some bitter, closed mined, folks who seem to have nothing positive to help in this fight. Only criticism and attempts to hinder and attack those who really do give a chitt and work to get things changed.[V]
I notice that whenever I point to how someone is pedaling in the wrong direction, their response is to say "well, what have you done". Well, for one, I stopped pedaling in the wrong direction. Once you stop doing that, then we can talk.
So your actions are self satisfying but do nothing to help the rest of us who believe there is still a fight worth fighting for ALL of us!!! As I said before, I will not change your mind or any others who have closed their minds to any other position other than their own. The various pro gun organizations have steped in to support many folks who have been wronged individually and collectively, but to those with your believes they have not helped in any way. The bottom line is 'any compromise' in what you believe is wrong and those who do not do things as you think they should are wrong and the 'enemy'.
To me the 'wreck' occurs when we have a progressive dictator in chief, as we do now, who has appointed a Supreme Court of progressive judges, and the progressives have both houses of congress. Then we will be forced to use violence to defend our RTKABA'S. Until that occurs I will maintain my grasp on reality and do what I can to try and get this 'turned around' and going the right way with out violence.
I am sorry so many here have given up the fight!!![V]
You have so completely missed the point that perhaps I should not even continue to try to address you on this matter.
Let me try to paint it for you clearly:
You support the NRA.
The NRA fights for gun control.
By supporting the NRA, you fight for gun control.
I, conversely, do not support the NRA and therefor do not support gun control. I do OTHER things that support gun rights, many of which are in direct opposition to the things the NRA is doing.
Do you now see how we (you and I) are diametrically opposed?
If not, perhaps I can use smaller words???
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
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
Brad Steele
What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6993
The words of Mr. La Perri?r:
'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.'
'Defense of self, family, and country' qualifies the 2nd. 'Shall not be infinged' is not qualified. This is the qualification the NRA wanted and got in Heller and McDonald.
And then:
'It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.'
A nice sentiment from a man who has promoted NICS from day one. Perhaps it is merely OK for a government the NRA-ILA can influence to do such evil things.
And finally:
'Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.'
Has Mr. La Perri?re conceded the right of civilians to own military arms? Oh, that's right, his organization promotes such restrictions.
So, to answer your question:
While the NRA has spoken to the question of qualified gun rights at the UN, it has not, in any meaningful way spoken to the true meaning of the individual human right expressed by the 2nd.
Not at the UN.
Not to Congress.
Not through any promoted legislation.
Brad Steele
What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?
better question.
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
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
No, Jim, it is not 'quite' simple. To say so is for you to be either abjectly ignorant of the internal process, or to be willfully deceptive.
Knowing something about you, I don't see you as deceptive. I expect it is abject ignorance.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
Since you disagree so resolutely, and since you knocked down the one and only positive I can see that the organization does, would you care to list a few things you think they're doing to further gun rights? I'd wager the list is shorter than a penguin's pecker in February.
You want to do the balance sheets on this, because for every point positive you can list, I can list at least one counterpoint, perhaps more, if indeed you can list even one point positive.
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
Considering the NRA's documentable complicity in getting gun control enacted into law for most of it's history one has to wonder what the NRA has left to offer in this fight.
Your wife trained you well![;)][:D][^]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wpage
What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6993
The words of Mr. La Perri?r:
'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.'
'Defense of self, family, and country' qualifies the 2nd. 'Shall not be infringed' is not qualified. This is the qualification the NRA wanted and got in Heller and McDonald.
Nonsense. The reading you propose is self serving, and is not a necessary understanding of the words used. Neither is your apparent use of the term "infringed".
I figure you think it helps your argument, but misuse of the terms as an argument is obvious and actually diminishes the power of your claims.
You have stated nothing here, Barzillia. 'Not a necessary understanding'? Of course my understanding of Wayne's Words is not a necessary understanding. There is not a necessary understanding possible.
He could have meant any number of things, but his history, and the history of his organization suggests my interpretation. The NRA continuously references the 2nd with respect to self defense, hunting, and sporting. One almost never sees it specifically address the preservation of the ability of the citizenry to protects its freedoms from an over-reaching government. The reason that a lobbying organization rarely takes this position is self-evident.
I am unsure of what you are suggesting when you reference my use of the word 'infringed'. I have merely agreed with Scalia that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the operative clause. This leads to the obvious statement that, in the 2nd Amendment, the word 'infringed' is not qualified. Please, Barzillia, tell me specifically what you mean by my 'apparent use of term 'infringed'. And please make it simple. I would hate to miss the necessary understanding of your statement.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????[?]
A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.
It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.
I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.[^]
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Feel free to point to something that backs up your assertion. I won't hold my breath, for even a brief perusal of the sticky at the top of this page throws a wet blanket on your rather ludicrous assertions. You are either willfully ignorant, an idiot, or working for the NRA. Which is it?
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
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Read for comprehension, Jim.
I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.
To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.
Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment.
While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Read for comprehension, Jim.
I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.
To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.
Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment. I won't hold my breath.
While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.
They are anti-gun in many respects. They oppose automatic weapons, they oppose firearms which have magazines of capacity 11 or higher, they oppose weapons where it is possible to attach a bayonet or rifles with a pistol grip, and they regularly denigrate weapons with no "sporting purpose". I dare say they would oppose more types save for the ads and reviews they run in order to bring in money and fools.
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
MANY here are down right hateful, but you nailed it when you said the NRA is not against the RTKABA'S, but they do not fully support the 2nd Amendment!!!! I agree with you. But my approach is not to simply set around at the computer and make ridiculous, silly, hateful comments about this, I prefer to try and get their ear and let them know they need to 'bend' less and use their numbers to push those in power to start aligning the statutory laws closer to the Constitution!!! This has been my pet peeve from the local level to the national level since day one.
Some here remind me of those I worked with over the years who simply * and complain but when you ask them for the solution for the problems they are complaining about they shrug their shoulders and just keep on complaining. It's called venting, and I think that is what MANY here use this forum for. And I don't have a problem with that if it makes them feel better, but get the hell out of the way and let those who want to TRY and make some positive change do our think without all the BS they are shoveling!!!![}:)]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.
You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.
All include restrictions.
All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.
While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.
You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?
I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.
The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.[;)]
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Read for comprehension, Jim.
I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.
To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.
Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment. I won't hold my breath.
While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.
They are anti-gun in many respects. They oppose automatic weapons, they oppose firearms which have magazines of capacity 11 or higher, they oppose weapons where it is possible to attach a bayonet or rifles with a pistol grip, and they regularly denigrate weapons with no "sporting purpose". I dare say they would oppose more types save for the ads and reviews they run in order to bring in money and fools.
I don't know where you get your info, but they do not support limited magazine capacity, they do not support the semi-automatic weapons (erroneously referred to as assault weapons)ban. As for their exact position on Full auto, I can't honestly say where they stand, and I don't care. When we get the rest of the important stuff addressed then I will look at full auto. There are places where the mere possession of a hand gun is considered unlawful. We need to address the basics first, you have the 'cart ahead of the horse' if you are worried about full auto as this point.
Don,
MANY here are down right hateful, but you nailed it when you said the NRA is not against the RTKABA'S, but they do not fully support the 2nd Amendment!!!! I agree with you. But my approach is not to simply set around at the computer and make ridiculous, silly, hateful comments about this, I prefer to try and get their ear and let them know they need to 'bend' less and use their numbers to push those in power to start aligning the statutory laws closer to the Constitution!!! This has been my pet peeve from the local level to the national level since day one.
Some here remind me of those I worked with over the years who simply * and complain but when you ask them for the solution for the problems they are complaining about they shrug their shoulders and just keep on complaining. It's called venting, and I think that is what MANY here use this forum for. And I don't have a problem with that if it makes them feel better, but get the hell out of the way and let those who want to TRY and make some positive change do our think without all the BS they are shoveling!!!![}:)]
Back the truck up, here, Jim.
I have specifically said that the actions of the NRA diminish the 2nd Amendment. It is an obvious fact and it confirms for me that the NRA is anti 2nd Amendment.
They are pro gun and pro gun ownership. Nothing more.
We cannot afford to confuse legislated privileges with rights, and such confusion is one of the results of the actions and publications of the NRA-ILA. My gut tells me that sowing this confusion is one of the goals of the organization. There is just too much that is said and done under their banner to lead folks in that direction for it to be coincidence or a simple unintended outcome.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
You have stated nothing here, Barzillia. 'Not a necessary understanding'? Of course my understanding of Wayne's Words is not a necessary understanding. There is not a necessary understanding possible.
Then why do you put them forth in argument, as if to claim they have any meaning at all, as if they prove something ? ?
I am simply presenting what I take from the statement made. It is the meaning I get from it; a meaning based upon the words stated and the actions and words of the man in the past. Why would you suggest that I am trying to prove anything? It is a logical understanding, not a necessary one.
quote:
He could have meant any number of things, but his history, and the history of his organization suggests my interpretation. The NRA continuously references the 2nd with respect to self defense, hunting, and sporting. One almost never sees it specifically address the preservation of the ability of the citizenry to protects its freedoms from an over-reaching government. The reason that a lobbying organization rarely takes this position is self-evident.
I see . Like I said, self-serving. It means what you want it to mean because you want it to mean that.
I don't get the 'self-serving', Barzillia. As noted above, it is what I see in the statement. Sure, it fits into what I think about the man and his organization, but it was the actions of same that brought me to this point. It is obvious that an individual will reach his own understanding of what a person states or writes. If you wish to twist that into 'self-serving', so be it.quote:
I am unsure of what you are suggesting when you reference my use of the word 'infringed'. I have merely agreed with Scalia that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the operative clause. This leads to the obvious statement that, in the 2nd Amendment, the word 'infringed' is not qualified. Please, Barzillia, tell me specifically what you mean by my 'apparent use of term 'infringed'. And please make it simple. I would hate to miss the necessary understanding of your statement.
There are certain words that when used with a modicum of precision, carry necessary implications.
Such as the term "murder".
In our culture, murder is not simply the same thing as killing. Different words for different purposes, and with different necessary implications. It is most always a wrongful act; no just man says, "Gee, it is good that a man was murdered tonight."
Now, there are probably only limited situations in which a just man might say "It is good that a man was killed tonight", but it can be so.
The same goes for "infringed". It carries the implication of a breach, and a wrong. No just man says "I am glad that an infringement occurred tonight," it would neither sound right, nor make sense.
But a just man could say, "It is good that such and such a limit was accomplished tonight", and make entirely good sense.
The founders knew the meanings of words, the laws of nature and nature's God were widely expounded among them, and there is a reason "infringed" was chosen.
And not "limited".
Again, all I stated was that the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the word 'infringe'. I have not attempted to define the term 'infringe' or even use the term 'infringe'. I am sure you think you have a point, but if you do, it has nothing to do with anything I've stated in this exchange. Dare I suggest that your entire 'infringe' shtick is just a bit self-serving?
Brad Steele
impinge/infringe
"The verb impinge sounds a little like and has the same basic meaning as infringe, so it's not surprising that these words are often used interchangeably. Impinge comes from Latin impingere, 'to drive into, strike against.' The word still has this meaning, especially in science where one reads of waves or particle streams impinging on a surface. Infringe ultimately derives from Latin frangere 'to break,' and was most often used in English to express the idea of violating a law or right. Both words have had the meaning 'to encroach' since the 18th century, and infringe can be both transitive and intransitive, while impinge is only used intransitively. Thus, in standard usage, a person might infringe, infringe on, or impinge on someone else's constitutional rights."
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
MANY here are down right hateful, but you nailed it when you said the NRA is not against the RTKABA'S, but they do not fully support the 2nd Amendment!!!! I agree with you. But my approach is not to simply set around at the computer and make ridiculous, silly, hateful comments about this, I prefer to try and get their ear and let them know they need to 'bend' less and use their numbers to push those in power to start aligning the statutory laws closer to the Constitution!!! This has been my pet peeve from the local level to the national level since day one.
Some here remind me of those I worked with over the years who simply * and complain but when you ask them for the solution for the problems they are complaining about they shrug their shoulders and just keep on complaining. It's called venting, and I think that is what MANY here use this forum for. And I don't have a problem with that if it makes them feel better, but get the hell out of the way and let those who want to TRY and make some positive change do our think without all the BS they are shoveling!!!![}:)]
Back the truck up, here, Jim.
I have specifically said that the actions of the NRA diminish the 2nd Amendment. It is an obvious fact and it confirms for me that the NRA is anti 2nd Amendment.
They are pro gun and pro gun ownership. Nothing more.
We cannot afford to confuse legislated privileges with rights, and such confusion is one of the results of the actions and publications of the NRA-ILA. My gut tells me that sowing this confusion is one of the goals of the organization. There is just too much that is said and done under their banner to lead folks in that direction for it to be coincidence or a simple unintended outcome.
Pro gun and Pro ownership (of guns) is anti-2nd Amendment?????
You lost me on that one!!!![?]
They need to push harder to get more concessions from the 'lawmakers' who have passed all of these unconstitutional laws for sure, but to say they are anti 2nd Amendment is just plain silly and childish.
Many here remind me of a 'child' having a temper tantrum because they did not get there way. We have to continue to work at getting these unconstitutional laws over turned ANY WAY WE CAN!!!! The NRA has backed many laws which are a compromise and many call that selling out, but unless any of you here are capable of 'leading a tall building in a single bound' we need to try and get to the top one step at a time and for some that is not good enough. So be it, but I will continue to keep trying to get there one step at a time because, unlike most of you, I am not Superman!!!![;)]