In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Just Joined GOA
dsmith
Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
I just joined GOA, and I'm really impressed. I didn't get my first newsletter yet, but I'm very happy with the website. www.gunowners.org. Unlike the NRA, they supply me with prewritten messages I can customize and send to my elected officials either automatically as an email, or print out to send through the regular mail. I like their no compromise attitude.
I don't think I'll renew my NRA membership however. I would like to register machineguns to myself however as of now about the only thing I'll be able to afford is an Uzi. The NRA supported the bans of machineguns in 1934 and the worse ban in 1986. If they come back with another attempt to take away the ones already registered, I don't want them to do it with my money.
I don't think I'll renew my NRA membership however. I would like to register machineguns to myself however as of now about the only thing I'll be able to afford is an Uzi. The NRA supported the bans of machineguns in 1934 and the worse ban in 1986. If they come back with another attempt to take away the ones already registered, I don't want them to do it with my money.
Comments
good show,Dsmith...
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
Not trying to be pushy at all, but here is another good one. Take a look-see. Tell me what you think.
http://www.jpfo.org/
The gene pool needs chlorine.
If you snag one of the $10.00 off coupons in the NRA catalog, it only costs you a measly $25.00 per year (averages out to $2.08 per month) to maintain your NRA membership. Guys, that (the additional NRA membership) is like having an extra lock or bolt on your front door when someone you DON'T want in (anti-gun groups) is pounding at your door. Even if you pay the full $35.00 yearly membership that only averages out to $2.92 per month. So since no one here is claiming that the NRA is out to ban all guns, or is in bed with Sarah Brady, why is anyone complaining about spending $2.92 per month to help another pro-gun organization?
So say I agreed that the NRA has and is doing a few things I don't agree with. Where are you going to find an organization that has been around for over 100 years AND YOU AGREE WITH EVERYTHING IT HAS DONE?????????
So send in your $25.00 for your yearly membership to the NRA and then forget about the NRA. At least you will have helped a pro-gun organization by giving them some more clout by being able to show another dues paying member on their membership roster. And then concentrate your interest and efforts on the other pro-gun organizations you belong to. (I assume there will be more than one). And quite trying to slip a poison pill to the NRA. For many decades the NRA was the only pro-gun organization, on a national level, that EVEN EXISTED! If you suceed in killing the NRA it will not help you and you might find it might hurt you.
And if one, or even a few, of the anti-gun crowd took the time and effort to infiltrate this forum to spread stealth propaganda, ask yourself if they would be preaching with me or against me and my stand on the NRA?
Stop and realize that Sarah Brady LOVES hearing people on a pro-gun website bash the NRA. She probably loves you for it.
BTW I am a dues paying member of the NRA, GOA and Second Admendment Foundatation. Plus I have donated money to JPFO.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Nobody said that the NRA is out to ban all guns. What I said is that to the best of my knowledge there is no ban on machineguns that the NRA did not support. It is because of their actions that I will not be able to afford an MP5K, the gun I really want. If surrendering my full autos to keep my semi autos was my definition of success, then I wouldn't need to join the GOA and could stick with the NRA.
I don't want to offend anybody, especially somebody like you who seems to be on my side (I appreciate that you are pro-gun), but if my memory serves me correctly, TRFox said that it is not a big deal if machineguns are illegal because that it might lead to an increase in full auto crime. Thereby giving more ammo to the gun prohibitionists. Just a little friendly advice (and I am really not trying to offend you), before you become so supportive of the NRA and not about the "no compromise" groups you should make your stance clear. Do you support the right of people to own (or even license) full autos, or are you just concerned with the "less controversial" guns?
I believe it was Franklin who said "We must hang together or surely we will all hang seperately". I'd just like to know where you stand on Class III. If the NRA supports my owning a semi-auto, but will support any law against my owning a full auto, I'm not gaining ground. The GOA supports my owning not only semi-autos, but full autos. If the NRA is going to hinder the GOA's ability to attack anti-machinegun laws, then the NRA is being extremely counterproductive. I want old laws repealed, not just maintaining the status-quo.
OR one may believe that I am a Red Blooded American so pis*** at an organization engaged in selling MY RIGHTS down the river...
Just as you chose.
The FACTS are on MY side..not yours.
22,000 Gun Laws,my friend..22,000.EVERY ONE UNCONSTITUTIONAL..and MOST supported by the NRA.
Keep sending money to them..and keep supporting those destroying your freedoms.Sounds like a PLAN to me...
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Strangely (hypocritically?) they are affiliated with the NRA (maybe their intentions aren't really giving machine gun owners any support?)
In regards to the very fair and honest question of how I feel about citizen ownership of fully automatic weapons, I will try to give a fair and honest answer. I am very conflicted on that subject. Part of the reason for that is that, and this is just part of human nature, I am so far removed from ever wanting or owning one that it is hard for me to take the question seriously. I can't afford the ammo to get any use out of fully auto fire. I already have to expend plenty of effort to hit my target at rifle range without trying to control full auto fire. And even though I believe in maximum citizen and gun owner freedom, I also believe that in many cases most (maybe even all) freedoms must have some limits, if only for the reason that in a society of people there is not enough "room" for each and every one to have unlimited freedom. For example, how many of us (there are a few, maybe more) would argue that it should be legal for each and everyone of us to own a military tank, fully armed with cannon and several machine guns? And once that ownership is legal, then it logically follows that the owner should have the right to drive it around the city and country. Now I know that a hand-held machine gun is not the same as a tank, I am just reaching for comparisons.
Now for anyone who would say I am a pro-gun hypocrite, please note that I have posted several times on how I do not think the civilian police should have nor do they need fully automatic firearms. And I do believe that any kind of firearms the civilian police have should also be legal for the lawful citizens to own. So in that respect, if I came out for a ban on citizens owning machine guns, I also support the same ban on the police. I do not find that hypocritical as the anti-gunners who think the police should have any guns they want while the lowly citizens should have NO GUNS AT ALL. In fact, maybe this is my best answer to the machine gun debate.
Bottom line, say you and your wife have been going to a really great family doctor for years and years and overall you are pretty happy with that doctor. You are happy with that doctor because, even though he/she is not perfect, you know that NO ONE IS PERFECT. Then one day your wife discovers she is pregnant and during the visit with your doctor the subject of abortion is brought up. You doctor is for/against abortion which conflicts with the belief of you and your woman. Now you must make a choice. Will you destroy your great relationship with this person who has helped you all these years or will you continue with them and for this particular situation FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO HELP YOU?
I don't know which you will say you would chose, but I will tell you (and you already know this) if you go through life trying to destroy old friends who have stuck with you for years in spite of your faults, and that friend makes one or two mistakes (in your eyes) at the end of your life you will discover why you have been very, very lonely.
Once again I will say that the NRA is not some force of nature that you have no control over. You have no control over a tornado headed your way. It is understandable that you would just curse the tornado and try to avoid it. And you would be doing your friends a favor if you urged them to follow your example. But the NRA is a democratic organization (UNLIKE THE GOA! hey, I'm still a happy GOA member). The people who run it and take the positions you might like are either elected by the NRA members or appointed by those who are elected. It only costs less than $3.00 per month for a yearly NRA membership. THIS IS ALL THE NRA "DEMANDS" FOR YOU TO DO. After three years (or maybe two) of continus membership, you are eligiable to vote for the board of directors. I wish people would at least give minimal support for the NRA and then go ahead and join and support ALL the progun organizations that they can find and spend less time bashing the NRA.
Folks, it is NOT going to help you to kill the NRA and when it is gone you just might miss it.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
i have a big problem with the notion that allowing full auto weapons will create more full auto crime. first there is so little ful auto crime that most of it is arrests for possesion in the usa, strangely in many other more restrictive countries there is higher full auto crime.second the argument doesnt hold water since there are plenty of right to carry states where crime hasnt increased, it has in fact decreased. it folows that law abiding gun owners would not generate an increase in crime with available full auto weapons.
the nra is an advocacy organization,that means they are supposed to advocate for gun rights. a political organization compromises to get its agenda passed. now ive never heard any abortion rights groups compromising on womens rights to an abortion even partial birth abortion yet i consistently hear the nra slowly compromising our rights away it is in effect surrendering to the enemy and letting him know your weaknesses. ww2 was started by the same failure to recognize the inevitability of the coming war so chamvberlain and other leaders in europe allowed the slow advance of germany until they no longer had any maneuvering room and then they fought with their backs to the wall. thats what the nra is doing, slowly backing us into a corner till we really have no choice but to fight(in court of course). at that time we will still have no idea as to whether the justices will be on our side or not but we will have no choice but to fight.
in the meantime the nra gets a high profile as being the voice of gunowners and you have no choice but to belong to the 100+ year old group if you value your right to keep and bear arms(yawn).
happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban
Personal likes and dislikes do not enter into the equasion.
Until the Second Amendment is changed by a vote of the people of the united states of America..that is the REAL law of the land..not some quagmire pushed on us by cowards in suits..and acceeded to by a weak,compliant populace....
I find no desire at all for a full auto in my gun case...the waste of ammo would kill my soul.But promoting my personal dislike into a ban is Un American....
By the way...just as in ANY OTHER gun..missuse would be a rapidly escalating scale of punishment..including hanging.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Decent men,different ideas.
Forgive me for being an 'attack dog'...?
At what point would you agree that we have 'lost it all.." ?
The tired old cannard the the NRA uses.." Without us,all your guns are gone"..is a crock of crap.
Your guns are gone the day the 3% of men in this country decide they have given up..and not one day before.The Fedgov hasn't moved on a total gun ban because of...I believe..the NRA has their finger on the pulse of gun owners..and there are still too many that WILL RESIST...
And for 35 years I have watched the NRA sell us out a little at a time..(This part I KNOW )
using the feedback from members to KNOW how much to take at a time...(This part is conjecture )....
I will think we have lost it all when the last citizen is forced to give up his last gun.
But until then it is a cheap and easy way to fight the fight by throwing a few dollars at the different pro-gun/pro-citizens rights groups to be counted on their membership lists which helps give that particular group some clout with the political critters that rule this country. Who knows, those groups might just save our mangy a$$es. It is worth a try.
One last chord on the NRA. The different private shooting ranges around the country (there aren't nearly enough of them) are IMHO one of the best ways to help gun/citizen rights. Reason being that gun owners generally seem to have a good and healthy suspision of government. And by such ranges existing, it allows gun owners to actually go and use, shoot their guns and to interact with other such people. The NRA is one of the very, very few sources that such ranges can go to to purchase the mandatory liability insurance. Plus the NRA oftentimes gives cash grants for such ranges to maintain and upgrade their facilities. Or, I believe, to even create such shooting ranges.
I am not knocking other pro-gun groups (you all already know my reluctance to do that) but can anyone tell me where any other groups do anything even close to what I have just described?
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Depending on them for gun defense hasn't worked well at all..I believe a full court press in defense of the Second,even going down to total defeat in the Congress..would ALWAYS be preferable to bartering it away...
People would either have to...shall we say.."Pi** or get off the pot"..and the real Americans would then be FORCED to stand up and be counted...
My friend,I have watched the erosion of ALL rights in this country for 40 years..and compromise is NEVER the best course for Rights...INDEED..once you compromise a RIGHT..you have lost it.
does the nra serve a purpose? yes.
am i better served in my beliefs by goa or jpfo? yes again,they more reflect my beliefs
if i happen to have a few extra dollars and i want to make sure my right to own a .270 hunting rifle with a 5 rd magazine is preserved i'll send it to the nra. thats what it really boils down to and i hope you understand and respect my position.
highball, amen to the second amendment= full auto weapons its the truth and from there i can decide whether i want to own one or not the same choice i have today with the semi. as a free man i shouldnt have to get permission to spend my hard earned dollars on a legal product
happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I don't like being peed on and told its "refreshing rain.."
Cannot make it any blunter..If We the Gun people of America lack the guts to make a fight of it...yes,even into the streets,if necessary..
Then we deserve being disarmed and treated as slaves.
Let us stop pretending that we are free....
When it comes to the topic of the NRA, there are some of us that will have to agree to disagree. While I think we all want basically the same thing. To dump ALL of the gun laws, and hold the criminals RESPONSIBLE for THEIR own actions. The manner in which we choose to go about fighting to defend our firearm "rights" may lead us down slightly different paths.
(In the following, when I use the word compromise, I use it loosely. In a true compromise, both parties give and take a little, to reach a mutual resolution. In the reference here, it is one party gives a little, to keep the other party from TAKING IT ALL. Not a good compromise in my opinion.)
One of the problems I see in the NRA is that citizens, as well as the politicians, see the NRA as the leading group that speaks for pro-gun people. Now if the NRA had a strict "no compromise" stance on gun issues, like some other gun advocate groups, this would be OK. (Now this is the important part, pay attention) But when the politicians see the "recognized" leader on gun issues, READY, WILLING, and ABLE to compromise our rights away, then we have already lost the battle, before it has even begun.
In case after case it can be shown that the NRA has sided with some of the gun-grabbers new laws, where they have endorsed candidates that have continually voted anti-gun, where they have compromised our rights to the tune of 20,000 federal gun laws, and many times that with local laws. Yes they stand up here and there, to do otherwise would surely be signing their own death warrant. But is appears to be mostly for show these days, as it does not seem to have any teeth in it.
We need a staunch, no compromise, group that is going to try to "rescind" the laws that are on the books now. Not a group that has for all intent and purpose, turned into politicians themselves. I will continue to support as many of the gun rights advocate groups as I can. (Yes, even the NRA "under protest" and Yes I do have a current NRA card) But I am hoping one of the other groups takes the lead away from the NRA, so then the NRA can get back to doing what they do best, teaching, training, and helping the citizens learn about, and provide a place for them to shoot, firearms. (among a few other things) Then "hopefully" the new leader would actually FIGHT for our rights.
Then again, maybe I have it * backward, and the majority of the NRA members, as well as the public at large WANT to disarm the citizens of this, the greatest country on earth. They want to be led down the primrose path by the elite. And we (the believers in the Constitution, and what it stands for) are in actuality only a very small percentage of the populous. Does anyone have any information or statistics on this?
dsmith,
Agreed, this discussion is somewhat different because it does involve the Class III firearms. But in the overall scope of the discussions concerning the NRA, it is just another log on an already roaring bonfire.
Oops, oh sheet, caught rambling again.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
I agree with your post that the second amendment says nothing about which types of guns yoy can own. No offense to anybody who doesn't support the big stuff (full autos, rocket launchers). However when we say that private citizens can't own machineguns, the question naturally arises: if we are not responsible enough to own machineguns, why are we responsible to own semi-auto look alikes? If there is a line to be drawn as far as freedom is concerned (which I don't think there is) the anti gun crowd would argue, what's wrong with adjusting the line?
Let's draw a parallel. Some gun owners agree with the High Capacity Magazine ban. They make arguments like they don't have any guns that can accept them or that they would only need one shot. If these people can live without their 18 round 9mm magazines, why would they allow you to have 10 round magazines? Why not 8? Why not the traditional 6?
A lot of people make the argument that they need their guns for hunting. I fully support hunters rights, don't get my wrong. However this argument implies that we are not responsible enough to own anything we don't take hunting (there goes a vast majority of my guns which are just my toys[V]). The antigunners will say that the hunters believe that crime would be worse if the private citizens had non-hunting rifles (which is not true). The general idea the left wingers will say is that hunters believe more guns equals more crime because of their lack of support for the semi or full auto crowd. This in tern will make the hunters look more selfish and unreasonable because they are fighting to keep rifles for no other purpose than amusing themselves by shooting wild animals. All gun owners must stick together. It strikes me as a bit hypocritical to have a hunter say that he can keep his hunting rifle because he has a valid sporting reason to use it, while at the same time saying a full or semi auto owner can't keep their gun because shooting paper targets isn't "sporting" enough for their tastes.
What I'm getting down to is that when you write a law that infringes on the right of a law abiding citizen to own a certain gun based on the potential of a crime, your laws have entered a gray area. You might have the level of gray where you can license a semi auto handgun with a 5 round magazine or less or you might have the gray area where you can license a vintage matchlock as long as you go through the paperwork and leave it in the police barracks when you are not "hunting". My point is that to politicians, we are in a gray area. They will continue to test our limits by making things more and more hopeless for us, because after all, to them whatever shade of gray we are at, it is still just a shade of gray. They will argue that as long as we can license the most primitive firearms, we are still free.
Since everyone on this topic seems to me to be a good, honest and sincere gunrights person, the fact that we still disagree about the NRA leads me to believe that, for the forseeable future, this is a friendly argument with no end.
But I will mention that you could trump any argument, reason or example mentioned on this thread by admitting that, no matter what, if 75% of the American people were dedicated gun owners, then gun owners would have no problems owning and using their guns. Of all the progun organizations I know of, only tdhe NRA spends a whole lot of time, money, talent and effort to keep the shooters we already have, the few places to shoot we have and help add more, AND TO INTRODUCE NEW PEOPLE TO THE HOBBY/SPORT.
As a way of trying to "win" this anti/pro NRA argument (he he, I just can't help myself but want to "win") I double-dog DARE any anti-NRA person on this board to tell me of JUST ONE other NATIONAL pro-gun organization that does what I just mentioned the NRA does. Just one organization.
Come on, I'm waiting.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Therein lies the NRA'S greatest strength..recruiting.
The only point I make is..as a Fighter for Gun Rights..they are a dismal failure...worse..they lull a lot of people to sleep..those who figure.."I sent in my 50 bucks..those guys know what they are doing..."[V]
Once again..a fighter driven to the mat..in a fight to the death..that doesn't get back up and get back into the fray..is gonna die without giving his all....
And the NRA has been on the canvas for a long time.Better to spit in the eye of the beast and be consumed..then to scratch the beast's back.
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
By explaination is not perfect and the NRA is not perfect and their process of "recruiting" is not perfect or selfless. But it is one of the best things we have working for us. I would ask everyone that if you can't stand to help the NRA (based on ethics or philosopy, etc) at least don't try to harm the NRA.
And yes I have carefully read the argument that having the NRA in existance gums things up for the other pro-gun organizations trying to do a better job than the NRA. And that argument may very well be true. But it doesn't matter to me because the big bottom line is that overall the NRA does more good than harm.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Upon sober reflection...I wonder if even that is a good thing...Because taking inexperienced people and convincing them that some organization is all that stands between them and instant disaster..sure promotes the organization..yes ?
And when that organization is greasing the skids towards a total ban on anything except double barrels..well,you can see the problem.
Now....IF SAID organization taught that the Second Amendment is a RIGHT..and to be defended by gunfire,if necessary..instantly it becomes a horse of a different colour..don't you think ?
Yet your NRA CONSTANTLY teaches that the only reason we have guns today.....is because they stand in the gap.And the moment they fail..the guns are gone.
Well,as you know..I feel they have failed since 1934,or there-abouts.
I wish to stop funding my own demise..get OUT of the crooked political areana..and allow a total gun ban to occur.At that defining moment....we will either win...or lose.
The decision will be carried by one factor...are there any Americans left in this country.
However the very words "I am an American" were the ones plastered on shops owned by Japanese Americans before comrade Roosevelt declared that all Japanese Americans must be sent to prison camps for the unforgivable crime of being Japanese... Tell that to the next person who tells you FDR was great.
Dsmith; Not aimed at you at all.
However...I believe that one either supports the Constitution and Bill of Rights..or one is something other then an American...
This country is lousy with people that have never read the documents...and there is another huge portion that don't give a damn for anything except their own personal gain.
Anyway, I think tr fox is a voice of reason here. The rest of you who say "Second Amendment = Full Auto Weapons" are totally marginalizing yourselves. Any of you who believe that "Mr. and Mrs. America" are gonna buy that are just kidding yourselves.
This is like fighting somebody over your wallet while you are standing on the deck of the sinking Titanic. It is going to take a huge shift in public perception before private citizens will ever own full-auto weapons again. In the meantime, we need to shelve that arguement and first focus on killing all of the pending anti-gun legislation. Then we need to get back all our semi-auto rifles, our hi-cap magazines, get rid of all this mandatory gun-lock crap, restrict the states' ability to require special licenses for handgun purchases, and force municipalites to become shall-issue for CCWs.
Highball, you are ready to break out the weapons and take this to the streets. I'm not there yet, and I am not looking forward to that day. It may be coming, but if it does then it shows a failure in our society and I will be very sad. We should be doing everything we can to prevent that day from coming.
The NRA does do a good job with recruiting. If we can get a gun into somebody's hand that has never held one, and make it a POSITIVE experience, then we have just saved someone from being brainwashed into our enemy by the liberals. But the quickest way to scare somebody off is to say "Second Amendment = Full-Auto". You will look like a lunatic and you will scare them straight into the arms of the gun-grabbers.
We are all gentlemen (and perhaps ladies, if any are participating), and I consider you all to be allies, but lets be realistic here folks.
-WW
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
i dont hear planed parenthood agreeing to any concessions, in fact when the vast majority of americans feel that partial birth abortion is murder and got laws passed against it, they went to court and argued that if you take anything away soon there will be no abortion.its unlikely but effective.
we need that kind of aggressiveness, we need leaders that understand that banningf the ugly gun is the first step to taking it all away. we need leaders that will not accept failure but will appeal continually. noone seems to be afraid of being assoociated with the abortion lobby and yet the right enshrined in our constitution is allowed to be restricted in the name of reasonableness and the best we can get believe that we cant argue for our rights because it might not go over well with middle america. i'll believe it when i hear the naacp leadership say it.
supposedly the party in power is the one thats on our side and believes in the right to keep and bear arms and if they go its all over for us. have they rolled back any laws on the federal level? have our republican house and senate leaders rolled back the assualt weapons ban? has the white house cacelled the import ban(passed by republicans)? no and they wont because they jbow we wont fight and if the incremental ban should happen to become permanent we will talk and turn to the nra to allow us to get a permit for something but we wont fight, not in court and not in the streets and that what makes us different than any other group fighting for rights , we will compromise till trheres nothing left and say thank you while we do it.
Because we are advocating for guns, gun rights, etc., we cannot hang out the second story window and loudly shout "I'm mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. I DEMAND my gun rights! Doing this will just make us look like people who cannot be trusted even with a knife.
Of all the groups that have protested, demonstrated, etc. I believe that we gun people are the only group that, if we get arrested while doing such activities to enforce our rights, this arrest record could prevent us from ever owning a gun again. And even worse, we could no long visibily associate with and help the gun-rights movement. If we did, the anti-gunners would point at us and loudly proclaim how the pro-gun crowd had a convicted criminal working on their side.
Guns by their very operation are loud and can quite easily be very dangerous if safety rules are ignored for even one second. And even to me, in the hands of a few of my gun friends guns can be a little "scary". Many otherwise intelligent citizens think that if all guns were outlawed, then somehow someway armed violent criminals would disappear over-night. Guns are very, very "special use" and can only be used in certain places and under certain conditions which has an automatic limiting factor on most citizens having a strong interest in owning and using guns. Bottom line is that when arguing FOR guns and gun rights, we ALREADY have an uphill fight from the starting line. The only smart argument to offer is the one we think will work best for us. Right now I don't think that claiming lobbying for gun rights means demanding the right for each and every gun owner to own a machine gun if he/she choses. Maybe that argument can come later after we start winning (instead of continuing to lose) the gun rights battle.
In regards to pro-anti NRA, there is a question I love to ask the liberal left-wing anti-gun crowd when I get a chance. I ask them if the violent criminals element were somehow allowed to decide if their intended victims were to be armed with a gun or not, how would they chose. If the liberal will admit the criminals probably would prefer their victims to be unarmed, then I point out that in this particular case the anti-gun rights liberal finds him/herself on the same side as the violent criminals.
So I would ask all the strongly anti-NRA people here a similar question: If Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein and Sarah Brady were allowed to vote would they vote to strengthen or weaken the NRA?
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Voice of reason indeed.I agree.That is why we have 22,000 gun laws..none of which blocks ONE criminal from getting a gun.You are dealing with reason..your enemies are killing you with emotions..
So keep right on with 'sweet reason'..as they along with the NRA take it away one step at a time.
Mr/MRS America ? I have another word for the sniveling buttheads that give the Socialists power in this country...and I don't give a ratsa** what their opinion is..if you must know.I also recognize that the shear weight of their deadening influnance has made it impossible to ever again enjoy freedom in this country.
Their.." Security over FREEDOM " Insanity..their lack of personal responsibility..their willingness to be led to slaughter by slimy,greedy politicians...
I do promise to stop bashing the NRA..as soon as folks stop pretending they are God's Gift to the Second Amendment.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I think that the best way to protect my rights is by sending emails and letters to my representatives using the GOA's prewritten stuff as a mold, voting for pro-gun people and letting them know I am no-compromise. I always sign with a disclaimer: I oppose all gun laws stopping law-abiding citizens from owning guns including the NFA, the GCA and the FOPA.
quote:Originally posted by 2gun
class 3 weapons are just a step down the road of banning weapons. they have become rich peoples toys since anything that can be acquired is pre 86,if you live in a place that allows them. a private citizen cant buy or make a new one say a g36 and until such unconstitutional laws are repealed this will be the case. this may well be the vision of the antigunners to create a ban that will be fine for those who own one already and will be a great investment but not allow new ones going forward.
i have a big problem with the notion that allowing full auto weapons will create more full auto crime. first there is so little ful auto crime that most of it is arrests for possesion in the usa, strangely in many other more restrictive countries there is higher full auto crime.second the argument doesnt hold water since there are plenty of right to carry states where crime hasnt increased, it has in fact decreased. it folows that law abiding gun owners would not generate an increase in crime with available full auto weapons.
the nra is an advocacy organization,that means they are supposed to advocate for gun rights. a political organization compromises to get its agenda passed. now ive never heard any abortion rights groups compromising on womens rights to an abortion even partial birth abortion yet i consistently hear the nra slowly compromising our rights away it is in effect surrendering to the enemy and letting him know your weaknesses. ww2 was started by the same failure to recognize the inevitability of the coming war so chamvberlain and other leaders in europe allowed the slow advance of germany until they no longer had any maneuvering room and then they fought with their backs to the wall. thats what the nra is doing, slowly backing us into a corner till we really have no choice but to fight(in court of course). at that time we will still have no idea as to whether the justices will be on our side or not but we will have no choice but to fight.
in the meantime the nra gets a high profile as being the voice of gunowners and you have no choice but to belong to the 100+ year old group if you value your right to keep and bear arms(yawn).
happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban
quote:As a way of trying to "win" this anti/pro NRA argument (he he, I just can't help myself but want to "win") I double-dog DARE any anti-NRA person on this board to tell me of JUST ONE other NATIONAL pro-gun organization that does what I just mentioned the NRA does. Just one organization.
I agree that this is a "friendly argument with no end." But
With your statement, you did not "win" anything. You changed the topic of discussion. Most everyone will concede the fact that the NRA is the best at recruiting people to the sport, etc. But the point of contention is, what are they doing (are they doing ENOUGH???) to protect our gun rights.
Just sitting around bored today,
and had to argue with somebody, about something, can you tell?
(wanted it to be a friend, to argue with, so I picked you) [;)] [}:)] [:D]
The gene pool needs chlorine.
As I have stated many times, if 75% of Americans were happy gun owners we would have very little to worry about in regards to overly restrictive gun laws.
balls in your court, friend pickenup. (figuratively speaking of course)
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I support the right of law abiding citizens to own full auto firearms. The NRA has opposed this right twice. They helped pass the FOPA of 1986, and as such no new machine guns can be licensed after that date. The one I want is now safely out of my reach ($15,000). If I continue to give money to this group I am being hypocritical. I support the right to own real assault rifles I can't be a member of a group who helped pass the ban.
I hear you,Note that I made a correction in my last post...should have said with whom you do NOT agree.....You and I agree that to give them money would be hypocritical.......L.H.
Probably more than any other organization the NRA introduces new people to the hobby/sport. For that reason alone people who hate the NRA but love guns should at least not dig a grave for it, but stand back and let it do the good that it does. If your house is on fire and a neighbor whom you often do agree with runs to help, I doubt that you will discourage him from helping. Even if he is of only modest help.
So leave that neighbor alone as he trys to help and leave the NRA alone as it trys to help. Save your anger and destructive words and actions for the true enemies of your guns. I read more disparaging comments here about the NRA here than I do about The Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc).
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"