In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

NRA threads going poof?

Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,184 ******
I've noticed that several threads discussing the NRA are just being deleted, including one of the better reference threads (that used to be a sticky in this forum). Is the NRA such a big sponsor of this site, that we can not discuss their checkered past or, more relevantly, their questionable/nefarious current acts?
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

Comments

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The NRA is a partner, Randy, so you may be correct.

    I do not see a reference, however, in the posting guidelines that specifically states one cannot criticize a partner, but this may fall under the:

    'Complaints or criticism about GunBroker.com, its staff, its policies, or any buyer or seller on that site.'

    I would appreciate some clarification on this as well, as I once criticized the product of a major advertiser and was sent to the woodshed for a spell.

    A number of the recent posts collected some garbage from a few members, and it is possible that they were removed because of language, name-calling, etc.


    Pickenup, any clarification possible?
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,184 ******
    edited November -1
    To be transparent, I have emailed Pickenup and he suggested that it was Admin. So, like you Don, I would like some clarification, particularly since this forum is not one of the searchable ones (like GD) which typically implies that there is a modicum more of free reign given.
    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
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I would appreciate some clarification on this as well

    As would I. If I would have known that it was going to go away, I would have copied some of the information from it.

    A thread that was OK for years, LOCKED as to not get nasty, is NOT OK now?
    Not really surprising that the truth is no longer allowed.

    This thread will probably disappear before long too.
  • BeeramidBeeramid Member, Moderator Posts: 7,264 ******
    edited November -1
    I have some of it from a while back, wish I had posted the rest of it at the time. The stickies on this forum just go away after a certain amount of time if they're not updated from time to time. Happened quite a few times in the politics forum.



    Is this who you want fighting for your rights?


    First
    I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment,
    AS IT WAS WRITTEN.

    What part of,
    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
    or
    The right to keep and BEAR arms,
    is hard to understand???

    Second,
    THE WHOLE TRUTH,
    If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.

    Or are some so afraid of the WHOLE truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?

    It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative about the NRA. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional!

    Even if you work within "their system" to change, the problem is, as with politicians, if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting MANY of them passed.

    Third,

    Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win some if they didn't, that 3-4 million membership number would fade away quickly. We had 2 terms of a republican president. How many gun laws did the NRA even TRY to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a Vermont/Alaska style CCW law in? How many states have they turned a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT (to bear arms) into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE (CCW) with the government deciding on who is ALLOWED to bear arms. (once the - fee - is paid, of course)

    I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?


    Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act of 1932" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.

    The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934" was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby "starting" an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements. Not so, the NRA was first.

    "The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
    and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.

    The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.

    In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
    Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
    1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
    2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
    3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgment of notification to local police;
    4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
    5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
    6. Increasing penalties for violation.

    NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.

    *****

    The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what it really is.

    The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep and hide arms" or "to keep and disassemble and lock up your arms" or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.

    *****

    "Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
    NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.

    *****

    Schools
    Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

    All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

    Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???

    *****

    LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
    checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."

    The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!

    *****

    First amendment rights?
    Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out PRO-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.

    *****

    It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.

    Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. The NRA started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.

    Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.

    Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."

    NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.

    From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
    I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT'S OUR BILL in five years.

    *****

    Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. The "Parker v. District of Columbia" case. First by trying to have the case consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, which would have drug this case out for YEARS. When that failed, the NRA got behind, and was pushing for the "DC Personal Protection Act" bill, which would, in effect, remove the law that the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case was based upon. Thereby preventing the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case from going before the supreme court.

    Why would they try to derail a case that ultimately DID overturned a gun ban, and potentially settle the long disputed "individual right v. the right of the militia" to keep and bear arms? Because they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the supreme court? A supreme court (considering the make up of it at present) where we had the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?

    *****

    Now we come to the Veterans Disarmament Act. H.R. 2640
    Just looking at who was sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Why was the NRA siding WITH the Brady bunch, Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, McCarthy, etc. When every PRO-gun organization was against it, along with veterans organizations. Many members wanted to know WHY. To my knowledge, the NRA never did answer these inquires.

    Nevermind the far reaching implications, with the potential of opening a Pandora's box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has seen some kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc). You NO LONGER have to have a court judge you adjudicated, now ANY authorized person can take your rights away. Above all, the UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.


    *****

    Lets not forget the NRA BOARD MEMBER (Joaquin Jackson) who indicated that assault rifles should only be in the hands of the military and/or law enforcement. But since they ARE legal for civilians to own, then civilians should be limited to 5 round magazines.

    And I quote.....
    I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five.
    .....end quote

    *****

    Katrina,
    Everyone was screaming, "Where is the NRA" when guns were being confiscated. Only AFTER the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit did the NRA jump in. Then after a favorable court decision, the NRA was sure proud of what they did. Follow up announcements from the NRA taking ALL of the credit, they seemed to LEAVE OUT the fact that the Second Amendment Foundation was involved at all. Hmmmm.....


    *****

    While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."


    In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
    Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.

    CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
    Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills

    TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.

    Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.

    Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.

    Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.

    Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?

    In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.

    In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.

    In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.


    In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS..NO ENDORSEMENT"
    NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???

    In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.

    In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.

    In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.

    *****

    John Dingell?
    The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term "jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?

    NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
    Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.

    Can't forget the help we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer.



    The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time

    Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!

    In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?

    From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.

    The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.



    Admittedly, some of this information is "historical" in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. Does this information show a distinct pattern? An agenda? If so, it's one that I'm not happy with at all.


    Is this the kind of "representation" that YOU want/expect, are PAYING FOR? There are more anti 2nd amendment bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.

    *****

    Why is it, that some NRA supporters will not accept the truth (even when presented with facts) about how the NRA has been selling our gun rights down the river for a VERY long time?

    I believe that everyone would agree, that the NRA is recognized as the 800 lb. Gorilla, in the fight for our gun rights. This is the very same organization that the NRA supporters have been paying money to for YEARS. Paying big bucks to be a "Life Member" Signing up their children/grand-children, almost as soon as they are born. Everyone KNOWS who the NRA is.

    They are relying on the NRA to be supportive in the fight for our gun rights. They consider the NRA to be the last bastion of hope. They will NOT admit that the NRA "might not" be on their side, because if they find that the NRA is NOT actually on our side,
    then....is there....really....any....hope?

    Maybe these MILLIONS of members should take it upon themselves to fight for their rights?
  • BeeramidBeeramid Member, Moderator Posts: 7,264 ******
    edited November -1
    Some people say, if you don't like it, change it, or start your own organization. The *idea* of changing from within, or starting your own group, is nothing new, as seen below. These people spent YEARS trying for change from within, and for various reasons, they COULD NOT!

    Now, some expect a few lowly PEON members, to be able to walk in off the street, and effect change? If these "insiders" couldn't do it, is it even realistic to expect "regular" members be able to? Do we even have the time left, to re-invent the wheel?


    Lets start with H. L. Richardson. He was a board member of the NRA for 10 years. Did he see a problem with their policies? When he found he could NOT change it from within, he left and started the Gun Owners Of America. What is now, the second largest gun rights activist organization in the country. Which is also known by MOST as the *NO COMPROMISE* gun lobby.

    Then we can turn out attention to Neal Knox, a career gun rights activist. A board member, as well as serving four years for the NRA, as the Executive Director of the Institute For Legislative Action. Which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. He TOO must have had a problem with the policies of the NRA, found it impossible to change from within, as he went on to found the Firearms Coalition. Another well known *NO COMPROMISE* organization.

    When Neal Knox was on the board, there was a vote to see if Executive Vice President (LaPierre) should be suspended or removed from office. It was supported by a solid 39-30 majority, but short of the two-thirds which was required for passage. At that time, what the Board majority didn't know, was that the previous week LaPierre and his supporters had secretly ordered the placement of a full page ad in the ballot issue of the NRA magazines-six weeks after the published deadline for election ads. The ad worked. five of the nine were defeated, tipping the balance of power on the Board back into LaPierre`s favor. (sheeple being spoon fed propaganda)

    Nancyann Rutledge, who was the President of the Santa Barbara NRA Members Council, later to become the Citizens Gun Rights Alliance. What happened to her? After refusing to support the NRA's gun control positions, and anti-gun candidates, she was decertified by the NRA.

    Dave Edmondson, a 2-term NRA Director. Another in a long line of past Directors, board members, etc. which are vocal critics of the NRA's leadership and direction. Dave went on to be founder of the *State Association Coordinating Committee.*

    Neil Smith, a life member of the NRA, is an outspoken gun rights activist who is NOT happy with the NRA. He is founder of International Coordinator of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus.

    A few other facts.

    What about Clarence Lovell, an ex-member of the NRA Board of Directors for 14 years. He left because, *he could no longer stomach the falsity of those heading the NRA.*

    Albert Ross, former NRA Directors, and second Vice President. Who is now Texas State Rifle Association Director, strongly CONDEMNS the NRA's very own program, Project Exile. Sighting Project Exile as laws that are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment.

    Other Board Directors, board members, life members, endowment members, etc that condemned the NRA for Project Exile. Former Chairman, NRA High-power Committee, David Gross, Larry R. Rankin, Arthur Nichols, H.S. "Gunnie" Reagan, Chris BeHanna, Robert T Fanning, Jr., Don Loucks, Jim Ramm, Anthony Brian, Jack H. Stuart, Arnold Gaunt, Clarence Lovell, Richard L. Carone, and more.

    Some of the comments C. Russell Howard made when he resigned from the NRA board.
    *The unholy alliance of NRA leaders, vendors, and Republican elements is the reason why NRA is declining in stature.

    (Addressing LaPierre)
    Compared to Mr. Knox's influence, you run the Board like a concentration camp commandant

    The struggle for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is at the core of a fundamental struggle for freedom........In any conflict, if those on the front lines cannot trust and rely on the honor of their comrades, the cause is doomed. While there are many good and honorable people on the Board with various stands on the current power struggle, there are some who cannot be trusted and are without honor.*

    ******

    What has the NRA done to RESCIND ANY UNconstitutional laws?
    No CCW BS, that is just MORE infringement.
    No laws with a built in "expiration date."
    No "fight for this, help with that" but RESCIND.
    Can you name even one law.

    P.S.
    Where would we be without the NRA?

    PROBABLY BETTER OFF.

    MILLIONS of gun owners would not have sent their dollars into a group that they THOUGHT were fighting FOR their gun rights, who in reality were stabbing them in the back. Instead, they might have been fighting the fight themselves. Granted, there was (and always will be) APATHY involved. But if people had not been complacent (because they sent their money in, and did NOTHING else) they quite possibly would/could have been more ACTIVE in the fight. Rather than the SINGLE voice of the NRA, MILLIONS of emails, phone calls, letters, could/would have had a more profound impact.
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,184 ******
    edited November -1
    Thanks Matt.
    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
  • BeeramidBeeramid Member, Moderator Posts: 7,264 ******
    edited November -1
    You're welcome, check this out![8D]

    http://goo.gl/umwUYV
  • USN_AirdaleUSN_Airdale Member Posts: 2,987
    edited November -1
    good thread, i may or may not be the #1 NRA basher, in 1976 at the NRA convention in San Diego, Neal Knox walked away from the NRA, i along with many more joined him in that walk out, at that time i was a 12 year member of NRA, i do not regret my decision !

    if i missed it in reading nearly every word in Beeramid's post, the NRA also helped the Demogooks in passing a law that forbids the manufacture and sale of full auto weapons for us lowly pee-ons (see below \/)

    quote:In 1986, a ban on the manufacture of new fully automatic machine guns for civilian sale was added as a last-minute amendment to the NRA's federal flagship bill of the 1980s the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act," commonly known as "McClure-Volkmer" for its Senate (Jim McClure, R-ID) and House (Howard Volkmer, D-MO) sponsors. (A pool of pre-1986 machine guns registered and controlled under the National Firearms Act of 1934 remains available to private citizens under federal law.)

    Negotiable Rights Association

    [:D]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
    good thread, i may or may not be the #1 NRA basher, in 1976 at the NRA convention in San Diego, Neal Knox walked away from the NRA, i along with many more joined him in that walk out, at that time i was a 12 year member of NRA, i do not regret my decision !

    if i missed it in reading nearly every word in Beeramid's post, the NRA also helped the Demogooks in passing a law that forbids the manufacture and sale of full auto weapons for us lowly pee-ons (see below \/)

    quote:In 1986, a ban on the manufacture of new fully automatic machine guns for civilian sale was added as a last-minute amendment to the NRA's federal flagship bill of the 1980s the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act," commonly known as "McClure-Volkmer" for its Senate (Jim McClure, R-ID) and House (Howard Volkmer, D-MO) sponsors. (A pool of pre-1986 machine guns registered and controlled under the National Firearms Act of 1934 remains available to private citizens under federal law.)

    Negotiable Rights Association

    [:D]


    The 'Demogooks'?

    Mayhaps you look at the party of the President who signed it into law in 1986.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • USN_AirdaleUSN_Airdale Member Posts: 2,987
    edited November -1
    i have looked, and if he had a Republican majority he never would have signed.

    THAT in my OPINION IS the worst thing he ever done !!
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
    i have looked, and if he had a Republican majority he never would have signed.

    THAT in my OPINION IS the worst thing he ever done !!


    That doesn't make any sense. A GOP majority would have made it easier for him to sign, provided he disagreed with.

    History tells us, however, that RR was a big supporter of gun control dating back to his governorship in the 1960's.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • USN_AirdaleUSN_Airdale Member Posts: 2,987
    edited November -1
    i guess there is no need to argue over OPINIONS.., i have mine.., you have yours, i lived in Commiefornia during his entire governorship and he defended the 2nd Amdt. .... [:D]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
    i guess there is no need to argue over OPINIONS.., i have mine.., you have yours, i lived in Commiefornia during his entire governorship and he defended the 2nd Amdt. .... [:D]


    http://santacruz.patch.com/groups/opinion/p/who-was-tougher-on-gun-control-barack-obama-or-ronald-reagan

    "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.'' ---Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.



    Supporters of gun control point to the strict legislation Reagan signed as governor of California, such as the Mulford Act of 1967, which forbid open carrying of guns. The act came at a time when the Black Panthers openly carried weapons.

    "There's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons," Reagan said at the time.



    I do not know how you would come to the conclusion that Ronald Reagan ever stood by the 2nd Amendment.

    He was a vocal leader of the modern Gun Control movement and, as noted in both these excerpts, probably never understood what the 2nd Amendment is all about. His beliefs, however, dovetail rather nicely with the original topic of this thread, as he was pretty close the NRA party line for most of his political career.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • USN_AirdaleUSN_Airdale Member Posts: 2,987
    edited November -1
    quote:In his Guns & Ammo column, Reagan left little doubt about his stance on the Second Amendment, writing: "In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea."

    Reagan's stance was that violent crime would never be eliminated, with or without gun control. Instead, he said, efforts to curb crime should target those who misuse guns, similarly to the way laws target those who use an automobile feloniously or recklessly. Saying the Second Amendment "leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate," he added that "the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive."

    disagree ?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
    quote:In his Guns & Ammo column, Reagan left little doubt about his stance on the Second Amendment, writing: "In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea."

    Reagan's stance was that violent crime would never be eliminated, with or without gun control. Instead, he said, efforts to curb crime should target those who misuse guns, similarly to the way laws target those who use an automobile feloniously or recklessly. Saying the Second Amendment "leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate," he added that "the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive."

    disagree ?


    Talk is cheap.

    His actions prove he didn't believe a word that he wrote.

    As governor, he took positive steps to disarm the Black Panthers by promoting and signing the Mulford Act in 1967.

    He signed the FOPA in 1986, putting a permanent cap on the number of select-fire arms available to the U.S. citizen.

    He stated in 1989 that, effectively, the 2nd Amendment does not cover arms that are not useful for hunting or home defense.

    He lobbied Congress in support of the Brady Bill, and promoted it strongly.

    Ronald Reagan was an enemy of the 2nd Amendment by action and effort for his 21 years as a politician and during his post-presidency while still capable.

    Not knowing when he wrote the Guns and Ammo column, he either changed his opinion dramatically in 1967 and never changed it back, or wrote a column that was extremely hypocritical.

    So yes, I disagree.[:)]
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,184 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
    quote:In his Guns & Ammo column, Reagan left little doubt about his stance on the Second Amendment, writing: "In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea."

    Reagan's stance was that violent crime would never be eliminated, with or without gun control. Instead, he said, efforts to curb crime should target those who misuse guns, similarly to the way laws target those who use an automobile feloniously or recklessly. Saying the Second Amendment "leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate," he added that "the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive."

    disagree ?
    I too disagree. His actions speak louder than his words. While he was a great president in several respects... one of the last true statesman that our country has seen. He was no friend to the 2nd amendment. My guess is he was scared of guns. If you watch any of his movies where he handled them it was awkward at best.
    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
Sign In or Register to comment.