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.
dsmith, I gonna have to check out GOA. The comments on these threads have opened my eyes...that I need to do more than talk reasonably/rationally to anti-gunners (or those that are neutral) and join the NRA.
However, I still believe we should join the NRA. Yes, I see now where they have let us down, but they continue to fight the 'front line' political battles so that we can still own 'AR' type rifles.
If you can afford it, stay with the NRA. I'll be joining GOA with you.
Welcome easygo6! I'm so glad that my ideas have had some positive effect for an individual such as yourself. Try gunowners.org for the web site. I believe you can join by credit card, however I myself mailed in a check to join. I got a collection of newsletters when I joined, I believe that they were each about 6 pages long, and the information I got was very good. Thanks for joining!
I've already voiced my opinion on this before, so I should probably shut up, but anyway...
The liberal plan is to divide and conquor. I don't agree with everyting the NRA does, but I 100% agree with TR FOX that they do a great job of introducing new people to shooting. They don't scare new or curious shooters away by advocating that everyone should own a full-auto rifle. They organize shooting events, notify people of political issues, teach people how to be responsible. Hell, they even have the Eddie Eagle program for kids.
So before you say that the NRA doesn't represent you, realize that you are marginalizing yourself. The liberals will portray you as supporting a group "even more radical than the NRA". They will say that you are a lunatic fringe. I have to give credit to the NRA for keeping hunting, shooting sports, and firearms ownership in the mainstream. Unfortunately, the NRA is now being portrayed as an extreme lunatic fringe. The only way to combat this is to keep membership up. It is hard to portray a group as "fringe" if it has almost 4 million members. Otherwise, we are just playing into the divide and conquor plan.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
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 love this forrum board and have read this entire post, it took quite some time. At least all of you are passionate about our liberty and our constitutioal rights. I'm a proud nra member and i love the organization. I could never accomplish what it has done for gun owners. It is really refreshing to hear so many people adamant about the need to own firearms. I get so weary of the media telling the world how evil guns are. Hang in there guys.
Sherwin Wood
deputywood@sbcglobal.net
I will give the NRA this.....They Do perform a funtion for the shooting sports...Not ALL of them mind you....and I believe that the NRA WITHOUT a watch dog group such as the GOA is doomed....If the GOA and others do nothing more than open eyes at the NRA they will have served a VITAL purpose. That said HAVE ANY of YOU written the NRA and told them of the extremly HIGH numbers of discontented EX members out there??? If they woulkd hear us,,,Even a bit I am sure that most of us would find ourselves back among their ranks......And those numbers my friends ,I believe would be Staggering.....L.H.
Holy cow..... I thought only liberals formed a circular firing squad. The NRA is a very very effective lobbying tool in support of our gun rights. While most reasonable people will occasionally disagree over certain issues, by and large, the NRA speaks well for its members. I encourage everyone I know to join NRA and actively become involved in local, state, and federal elections.
Join NRA, the best and easiest way to support the 2nd amendment
NRA Recruiter: Your screen name hints that you might have some association with the NRA over and above what we regular members have. If that is the case, you probably should do a keyword search for both the gunrights and the general discussion GB.com forum and pull up the numerous topics and posts whereas the NRA receives some heavy, heavy criticism. I think you will be surprised.
Myself, 22 yearold daughter and 19 month old grandson are all members of the NRA. However, I know the NRA, as with most organizations, is far from perfect. But it is still worth our time, effort and money to support it; along with some of the other excellent progun organizations. I am unable to understand why so many of the progun people on this forum will spend so much time and effort trying to discredit the NRA. Even at its WORST the NRA is still a friend of the gunrights movement. I an disappointed that the ones here who so enthusiastly bash the NRA cannot spend that time talking positively about the pro-gun organizations they believe in and remain silent about what they perceive as the short-comings of the NRA. In doing this they might help the organizations they believe in while doing no harm to 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"
NRA Recruiter: If you want to try and counter some of the anti-NRA propaganda, you will need to be MUCH more specific than just a good old NRA cheer.
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 am new here, but will try and address the issues mentioned regarding the NRA after some research. I am really new to volunteering for the NRA, and work mostly helping in local and sometimes state level elections on the grassroots level. I'm really surprised at the negative impression some members here feel toward the NRA, but then again, this feeling is generated due to very strong pro-gun and pro-second amendment values, so I imagine it is similar to a family squabble, not a deep animosity.
Join NRA, the best and easiest way to support the 2nd amendment
Yes, NRARecruiter. You need hard facts to support your claims. I have made it clear that I don not plan to renew my NRA membership for the simple reason that I would like to own class III guns, and the NRA has opposed my right to license machine guns twice. They did it once in 1934 when the NRA president told congress that the NFA ban of machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns and silencers was not unconstitutional. He also said something to the affect that citizens should not have a "right to carry".
In 1986, the FOPA, which the NRA fully supported, said that no machine guns made after that date could be licensed to private citizens. Because of their actions, the MP5K that I want will now cost over $12,000.
As I said before, joining a group like this when I claim to be pro-machine gun is very hypocritical of me. The NRA brags to this day about the FOPA. They still strongly support their machine gun ban, and will get in the way of the GOA, SAF, or KABA opposing it.
However if they someday reversed their policy and opposed all gun control, and would as such let me (at least) register a post-86 machine gun, I would consider joining again.
Also, somebody mentioned sending the NRA letters about why we are not joining. I sent a few emails. The replies I got stated that the NFA and GCA required a license to conduct business with full autos and what that has to do with the NRA is beyond him. My first thought was: Didn't you read my message?! What it has to do with the NRA is the NRA supported these bans.
Sorry Nra_recruiter. I didn't see your post where you said you'd search for information about the NRA's record. My main problem comes from this text from the site keepandbeararms.com (and also from the fact that they supported the anti-machine gun FOPA):
NRA President's Testimony During Congressional Debate
of the National Firearms Act of 1934
Introduction by Angel Shamaya
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
Transcript from U.S. Government Printing Office
March 4, 2004
KeepAndBearArms.com -- Congressional hearings over the National Firearms Act of 1934 (H.R.9066) took place April 16 & 18 and May 14, 15, & 16 of 1934. Then-NRA President Karl T. Frederick testified on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA). His testimony is below and includes the text in full plus scanned images of each page.
Before you read the full transcript, your attention is drawn to a few of excerpts that might interest you as a friend of the original meaning, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment. Some NRA supporters are fond of saying that the NRA was not involved in gun-related legislative activities that far back. Somehow, they believe that repeating that myth often enough will make it true.
NRA President Frederick's testimony began by explaining that he had "been giving this subject of firearms regulations study and consideration over a period of 15 years" and that "the suggestions resulting from that study of mine...have resulted in the adoption in many States of regulatory provisions suggested by us." He later described his active role in helping pass D.C.'s then-recent, ultra-stringent gun controls. Having helped enact gun control legislation was a matter of pride for NRA's president -- as you shall see below. The D.C. gun controls of which he candidly boasted included the following provisions, among others:
prohibited carrying a concealed pistol without a license -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers
justification for getting licensed to carry a firearm if "applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property" -- and the license application process included a mugshot, treating lawful gun owners like common criminals
a two-day waiting period to purchase a handgun -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers -- even though violent stalkers don't tend to wait to attack
required thorough record-keeping by gun dealers, of all transactions and every buyer
required that the seller deliver all of a buyer's personal information to the police within hours of the transaction, including the make, model and serial number of the firearm
mandated that gun dealers be licensed at the discretion of the police
banned altering firearms' serial numbers or other identifying marks
The copy of the text of that law, which the NRA had helped enact, begins on page 45 below. Frederick described the law as "the uniform firearms act which we [the NRA] sponsored" -- and submitted the full copy to the congressmen debating the enactment of NFA'34. The Washington D.C. gun controls mentioned in brief above were approved on July 8, 1932 -- nearly two years before the NRA's President gave the following testimony.
Mr. Frederick's testimony before Congress included a variety of questions from the elected officials present that day. The following question was asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on Ways and Means:
"Mr. DICKINSON. I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?"
Notice that Rep. Dickinson used the phrase "right of a person," as opposed to "right of a State." In 1934, it was commonly understood that the Second Amendment's right of the people meant just that: people. Person is the singular of people. The congressman's question was a natural one to ask.
Here is how the NRA's president responded:
"Mr. FREDERICK. I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought." [emphasis added]
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a virtual ban on machineguns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and sound suppressors -- a ban for commoners, that is. It ultimately placed a $200 transfer tax on these products (with the usual exception for law enforcement officers, of course). Only the well-to-do could afford that kind of money -- especially for shotguns that were going for five or ten dollars and sound suppressors that were even cheaper. At that time, you could get a brand new, high quality machinegun for around a hundred bucks and a worn one for cheaper. Tripling the price overnight put these already-expensive weapons out of reach for the average Depression Era gun owner.
A decade and a half devoted to the study of (and methodical, proud implementation of) gun control regulation, yet the NRA President had not given any serious thought to how the Second Amendment rights of NRA members and gun owners at large might be affected by a machinegun and short-barreled shotgun ban -- even though he knew he'd be testifying before Congress on the proposed legislation. Furthermore, as his testimony shows, he also believed that the States could ban firearms without violating the Second Amendment.
Before you dig in to the full transcript, here's another statement the NRA's President made that day:
MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" [emphasis added]
You'll find that section of his testimony on page 59, below.
But before you read on, take a moment and replace the words "weapons" and "guns" with "Bible" and "religious materials" in the above quote and see how it sounds. To save you the time in transposing the words yourself, here is the same quote with the words replaced as suggested:
"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying Bibles. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of religious materials. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"
Religious texts are covered by the First Amendment. Firearms are covered by the Second Amendment. The analogy seems quite fair.
NOTE OF HISTORICAL INTEREST: As a matter of purely historical interest, Frederick's testimony took place on April 18, 1934 -- the exact same day Adolf Hitler named J von Ribbentrop as Germany's "Ambassador for Disarmament." See: http://www.hiphistory.com/e/1934/apr18.65305.html and http://www.hiphistory.com/d/apr18.html. That's not to suggest a relationship between the two events, of course -- that would be silly. But history buffs might find it rather intriguing. NFA'34 is the foundation for all federal gun control and has been used in courts to justify many state gun controls -- and gun control is clearly about disarmament. Odd timing. Almost as odd as the fact that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 was copied from the Nazi Firearms Act of 1938. But coincidences happen, and this is surely just another weird one.
Finally, if you've been misled to believe that the Second Amendment was not intended to protect the weapons affected by the National Firearms Act of 1934, do yourself a big favor and read: U.S. v. Miller and Short-Barreled Shotguns by Brian Puckett. If the U.S. Supreme Court ever decides to give a fair hearing to the Second Amendment grievances the people have been trying to bring in court, Puckett's article will be highly useful as evidence to undo the damage the oft-misapplied Miller case has wrought on gun rights. Miller challenged NFA'34 up to the Supreme Court, resulting in a truly bizarre ruling that has been used to abuse gun owners ever since.
I am especially concerned about this fact. The term "machine gun" was originally meant to mean a gun that could fire 12 full auto shots without reloading. The president of NRA said it should be anything that can fire more than one shot. If this weren't the case, it would be a full auto with a magazine of less than 12 rounds.
dsmith: I can see you are extremely resentful towards the NRA. And in a fair and honest manner you provide evidence and documentation of why you feel the way you do. Your way of presenting your case is the way all debates should be framed, rather than someone just offering vague generalities and grips. And if I studied your evidence very, very hard and tried to put myself into your shoes I might start to share your anger at the NRA. But that is a luxury I, and thousands of other NRA members, do not have the luxury to do. We progun people are spread too thin, have too little political power or wealth and not enough friends or supporters. If we are to survive we can only choose to fight the big and popular battles.
Only a small fraction of American gun owners belong to any progun group. And an even smaller fraction actually does anything for gun rights other that mail a yearly membership check to the NRA, GOA, etc. Maybe if we progun people ever get active as a group and finally gain some real power that we should have had a long time ago, maybe then we can start to examine, unravel and correct the mistakes and shortcomings you have so carefully documented. But until then we all need to stick together the best we can and we cannot afford to harm or reject any people or organizations, llike the NRA, that do more good for us than harm.
JMHO
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"
Thanks TR, for at least trying to see my point of view. I would gladly take the NRA back if I was convinced it would fight for *all* gun owners. However it appears that they are "going to the center" because they don't want to be labeled "fanatics". I don't want the to try and be politically correct. I want them to do the job they should have done back in the '30s.
They seem they can get more support by talking about "shotguns and rifles" with a few handguns and possibly "semi auto assault look alikes" thrown, but never will they advocate anything more powerful. They even seem to be shy about the "assault weapons". What we need is a no compromise group instead of a "centrist" group.
we need each and every group that even hints at wanting to help us. We progun people do not have an excess of friends.
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"
As WoundedWolf said what is the litmus test. I don't support the NRA because I can find better help with the GOA who supports machine guns that the NRA opposes.
You are at least partially on my side. However you frequently admit the NRA is not perfect. What if instead of just opposing machine guns, the NRA opposed all handguns? Would you still think they are just an imperfect gun group who deserves our help? What is they opposed all semi auto rifles? What if the only guns they supported were bolt action rifles? What about match locks?
What if the Brady Campaign claimed to be a "flawed pro-gun group"? What if they admitted they made some mistakes and supported the bans of all handguns, but said they were on your side as far as single shot shotguns go?
Again, I can see that you are on my side at least some of the way, so I'm sorry if I offended you, but it just seems that we draw the line at different areas, and that you are willing to put up with more flaws in your gun groups.
The discussion about the NRA can be summed up thusely;
Nothing in the Constitution gives federal authorities the power to regulate Soverign Citizens private ownership of Firarms.
ANYBODY that aids and abets them doing so is helping to destroy that document..and take freedom away from Citizens.
NO GROUP actively working with fedgov officials to limit the Second Amendment is entitiled to call themselves " Second Amendment Defenders"....Sorry.
I don't NEED such a flawed organization "Defending" my rights..they have amply demonstrated that they DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A RIGHT IS...or they have sold out.
dsmith: generally I am on your side all the way when it comes to gun rights. We only differ in that I desperately want all the allies and partial allies that indicate they will give us more help than harm. The situation for American gun rights is becoming more and more desperate and we cannot afford to destroy any group who is more overall help than harm. We just plain can't afford it.
And besides, sooner or later ALL pro-gun organizations, even the GOA will for whatever reason do something that will make you question if their commitment and goals are the same as yours. I guarantee it. And what will you do then? Will you then abandon the GOA as well as the NRA? If so pretty soon you will run out of pro-gun organizations that offer to help you.
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:However you frequently admit the NRA is not perfect. What if instead of just opposing machine guns, the NRA opposed all handguns? Would you still think they are just an imperfect gun group who deserves our help? What is they opposed all semi auto rifles? What if the only guns they supported were bolt action rifles? What about match locks?
Dsmith, I know you intended this for TR Fox, but I thought I would voice my opinion...
I support any group that advocates firearms ownership and works to keep firearms in the mainstream of our society. This includes CAS, black powder shooting, and hell, even the Olympic Biathalon. These groups all suffer under the same gun laws that we all do.
Whether it is an old cowboy that has to lock up his Colt Single Action Army just because he is driving to End of the Trail in California (California law is that ALL handguns must be boxed and locked when transported), or an Olympic athlete that is hassled all the way across the world for transporting a .22 rifle, just so he/she can represent their country at the Olympics, these folks at least understand what we all go through as gun owners. Sure, I know shotgunners that look at me like I'm a lunatic when I say I'm a handgun enthusiast, but I don't know of anyone that is a member of CAS, Ducks Unlimited, or the NRA that is also supporting the Brady Campaign. Some folks may not stand up and shout with you on the Capitol for you right to own a machine gun, but that doesn't mean they are fighting against you either.
The NRA didn't introduce these laws and they had no power to pass them either. It was all in the hands of the politicians. Make no mistake about who the real enemy is, even if you don't consider the NRA to be your ally. I doubt if the then president of the NRA could have said anything in 1934 that would have swayed the politicians into not passing the National Firearms Act. If the NRA had that little power then, I can only imagine how insignificantly most politicians treat it now days, especially with the Media demonizing it every day.
Even with that said, the NRA has a massive amount more lobbying power than any other gun-rights organization like. I'm not saying that GOA isn't worth while, but don't kid yourself about GOA replacing the NRA as the lead Second Amendment lobbying organization. As a gun owner, I never heard of GOA until about 2 months ago. I remember first hearing about the NRA when I was a child.
A gun-owner is a gun-owner, in my opinion. I will stand beside anyone who encourages gun ownership. If the day comes that the last law to be repealed is the one that gives us all access to full-auto machine guns, then I will probably not be standing beside you anymore, DSmith. I will not oppose your right to own a machine gun, but I will have long been satisfied by the time we reach that point. Good luck to you.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
I've been an NRA member for 23 years. For the size of the organization, I began to see a disproportionate INeffectiveness some years ago. Things continued to go generally in the wrong direction, NRA or no NRA. And I saw - and continue to see - my money wasted on things like stupid questionnaires asking me if I'm hostile to gun ownership. The incessant fund-raising would be more tolerable if the NRA would stop using oblique insults and a presumption of a low IQ on the part of thier membership - AND if the NRA used the money aggressively in our behalf. But it doesn't. It finally occurred that if the NRA succeded in getting the anti-gun laws repealed even halfway back to 1934, then 3/4 of the fat-salaried jobs on Waples Mill road would disappear. So, I joined JPFO. That org doesn't produce film telling thier members what the members already know: It produces film telling the general public what the public really needs to know. JPFO's CEO is concerned with repeals, not deals. I still belong to the NRA, believing it can still serve as a gutted flagship which will nonetheless draw fire while GOA, JPFO and others mount the meaningful counterattack.
mgx.....How very well put...I had not looked at it quite that way.I will ask AGAIN. Has anyone even bothered to ask the NRA about all those that have quit the cause with them? If so how bout an answer.....A quote for you all.......
"Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve"
Longhunter: I just plain don't want to get up the time and effort to question the NRA. I already know enough about them to know that I will stick with them, GOA, 2nd Amendment Foundatation, and soon I will become a yearly member of the JFPFO. As long as ANY pro-gun group is working for gun rights and not obviously screwing us, I will stick with them.
Reason being that I don't have a whole he!! of a lot of other choices. If there were numerous progun groups out there believe me I would probably be more picky than anyone here in who I supported. But if there are only a few doctors in the whole country and you are sick you cannot be very picky about which doctor you see. Just a fact of life.
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:The NRA didn't introduce these laws and they had no power to pass them either.
I'm afraid I need to recant part of this statement. After doing some research on the links and info that Dsmith provided, I have to say that it is pretty obvious that Karl T. Frederick did have a pretty active role in defining and drafting the Washington DC Uniform Firearms Act, which were then adopted by several other states and localities. Since he was the NRA President at the time, I guess it would be fair to say that the NRA had a role in introducing those laws.
However, I don't see his direct role in drafting the National Firearms Act of 1934, in fact he says in his testimony that the first time he saw the draft of the NFA was that very morning that he was testifying. He declines to answer several of the questions posed to him out of mere ignorance at the time of the text of the actual document.
For those who want more research, here is an article from American Rifleman written by Frederick in 1930:
I haven't read through all of it, but it helps in trying to figure out where this man was coming from. I still need to research the later alleged connections to gun regulation that many of you say existed, such as in 1968.
In the meantime, here are some anti-NRA websites I found. I think somebody on one of these threads was asking about unhappy ex-NRA members. Here you go:
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
In my case I care not if a temporary leader of the NRA made a mistake or two OVER 60 YEARS AGO! I only care that for the 30 years I have been involved it has done enough to suit me. As another poster mentioned, you people who want to see the NRA suffer should instead be happy to see the NRA continue to exist if only to bet the target for the anti-gun groups and legislators WHILE THE GROUPS YOU SUPPORT SUPPOSELY DO THE REAL WORK.
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"
Read a bit about what the precious NRA thinks about the Second Amendment....this is a long read,but well worth it for the inside information about real world NRA activities....
Highball: The Leroy Pyle link is quite interresting. Thank you for exposing me to that. I read the whole thing. The San Jose Police Chief Joe McNamara was also chief here in K.C. MO for a few years and he got the job even though he was only a N.Y. City Police Sargent. I was close enough to the situation that I know that McNamara was a left wing liberal who pplace govt/poliice rights over that of the citizens. However, I still support the NRA. While Pyle seems very creditable and is generous in offering different ways of proving his allegations, I can still find many reasons for not abandoning the NRA. I know you will think that I am thinking foolishly so I will try and list some rations reasons for feeling as I do:
#1 To most of the anti-gun people in THE WHOLE WORLD the NRA is the biggest, oldest and most successful Pro-gun group ever. We cannot afford to lose that, real or just perceived, image.
#2 As honest as Pyle is trying to be, I cannot forget that his views HAVE to be shaped to some degree by having his employment, income and and dignitity adversely affected by actions of the NRA.
#3 All the while that the NRA was mistreating Pyle and the progun efforts in the area that Pyle worked in, I believe thousands of other NRA members and NRA staff werre still doing some excellent work overall for the pro-gun rights movement.
#4 If we were in a combat situation, and I believe we are regarding the war between the pro and anti gunners, in a war you would not quickly and easily trash any of your defensive tools such as one of your guns that you had come to mistrust, as long as you were still capable of carrying that particular firearm. So many of you mistrust the NRA, but all it takes to let the NRA continue doing whatever good they do (and I don't think anyone here will claim the NRA does NO good) is to leave it alone if you don't want to pay the measly $35.00 per year membership dues and instead concencrate your time, money and efforts on helping the pro-gun groups you do believe in. But you had best not be too critical of those groups you believe in becasue sooner or later they will accidently make a move or decision in which you disagre with and then you will have to leave then in search of another and a "perfect" progun group. And there are not many to chose from.
JMHO.
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"
TR;
I make no apology for promoting.." My Way ".
My Way is simple.
Withdraw from the crooked,slimy path of politics.
Allow the Socialists to enact a complete,total ban on firarms.
Find out for once and all if there are any..or enough..Americans left in this country to bring back freedom.
Our Founders left us clear guideposts..we ignore them at our own peril.
Tr fox, you make good points..but I made them about the NRA 20 years ago...and I just cannot excuse deception and treachery any more.My Rights and Freedom is too precious to allow double-dealing backstabbers the latitude of pretending to uphold them...I WILL speak out against them at every turn...and that includes politicians,the NRA,the neighbor down the street.
Highball; I'm not mad atcha for your true and honest feelings.
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"
This discussion helps onlookers know both sides of the story...and will allow them to make their own decision on the matter.
I would buy the coffee anytime for honorable men such as several that post in this particular forum..honorable men with a difference of opinion.Men mightily worried about the future of freedom in this country...and how best to gain it back.
Gotta say TR,While I do understand your position,I hope you understand mine/ours. It seems to some of us that we are trying to guard a henhouse and have left the fox(no slight to you my friend)to guard it.And while keeping the other predators at bay,he is slowly devouring the very thing/things that he has been put there to protect. Seems that under that guise we would lose them anyway.Today or tommorow,maybe next week....next year...Its true that if the NRA folded and GOA took over that they would eventually become the big fat money machine etc. of the NRA.Still in the intrim it would seem that some serious strides would be made forward in the meantime.
Perhaps a better solution to all this would be for the NRA members to also be GOA members ,That way both organizations would have a lot of clout. Simply put ,they all know how lazy etc folks are today...most are comfortable with payin their dues once a year and letting that foz continue....to the demise of all eventually.You do not seem worried by the fact that the NRA did something 60 years ago...Rember my friend that those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it.I respect you ,and all on here for their beliefs even if I do not agree with them.....But we must ALL find a way to fight together or we will surely lose.....L.H.
longhunter: I totally, totally agree with the last sentence of you post. All of us here need to at least take credit for the fact that we see some of the problems, are worried about it and are trying our best to help. The great majority of people sit on their hands and talk about the weather, sports, their vacation plans, etc. all the while more important things (our American way of life and citizens rights) go down the toilet.
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"
TR, you say that you're not concerned with mistakes the president of NRA made 60 years ago. They made the same mistake when they supported the worse machine gun ban in 1986, and they are still proud of that one.
While the NRA makes the argument that the 1986 law does more good than harm, I point you to the new Firearm Manufacturer's Protection Act. It would protect the gun makers (good), but renew the assault ban (very very bad).
Back to the FOPA of 1986. Repeal some of GCA '68 (Good). Prevent legal registration of all machine guns made after that date (very very bad).
While the NRA makes the argument that the 1986 law does more good than harm, I point you to the new Firearm Manufacturer's Protection Act. It would protect the gun makers (good), but renew the assault ban (very very bad).
All the progun grooups were in favvor of the "Firearms Manufacturer's Protection Act" as it wasa first offered which was without the AWB renewal. After the anti-gunner legislators added the AWB amendment, all the progun groups urged their legislator supporters to kill the entire bill so as to avoid the AWB renewal.
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:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by dsmith
[
While the NRA makes the argument that the 1986 law does more good than harm, I point you to the new Firearm Manufacturer's Protection Act. It would protect the gun makers (good), but renew the assault ban (very very bad).
All the progun grooups were in favvor of the "Firearms Manufacturer's Protection Act" as it wasa first offered which was without the AWB renewal. After the anti-gunner legislators added the AWB amendment, all the progun groups urged their legislator supporters to kill the entire bill so as to avoid the AWB renewal.
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"
TR, you are right. However I was trying to make a comparison between the FOPA of '86 which the NRA supported even though its anti machine gun amendments were bad and the Gun Makers Protection Act which all gun groups eventually opposed. I was trying to say that the NRA should have ditched the FOPA of '86 once the anti gun amendments got tacked onto it. Instead they passed it, and to this day brag about it. I feel that every time they talk about their great FOPA, they are just rubbing it in my face, smiling their hostile little smiles and knowing it will cost me at least $4,600 to get a "pre-ban" Uzi Full Auto.
dsmith: hang with us the best you can and when we get the issues resolved that threaten to take ALL our guns away, maybe we can concentrate on getting you your full auto firearms.
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"
dsmith.......Lets face it my friend,the likelyhood of getting that turned back is allmost non-existant. I would have to agree with fox on this one(How about that!)in that we must at least slow/stop the momentum that the anti crowd has managed to build first and foremost.I understand your position completly.The reallity of modern thinking amoungst the sheeple is that they would never allow those arms back out there ,unless we show them that they have nothing to fear. One step at a time friend,We are on YOUR side.And while I wish for the No Compromise thing...it ain't gionna happen today or tommorow......L.H.
Comments
However, I still believe we should join the NRA. Yes, I see now where they have let us down, but they continue to fight the 'front line' political battles so that we can still own 'AR' type rifles.
If you can afford it, stay with the NRA. I'll be joining GOA with you.
Brad
SEMPER FI
The liberal plan is to divide and conquor. I don't agree with everyting the NRA does, but I 100% agree with TR FOX that they do a great job of introducing new people to shooting. They don't scare new or curious shooters away by advocating that everyone should own a full-auto rifle. They organize shooting events, notify people of political issues, teach people how to be responsible. Hell, they even have the Eddie Eagle program for kids.
So before you say that the NRA doesn't represent you, realize that you are marginalizing yourself. The liberals will portray you as supporting a group "even more radical than the NRA". They will say that you are a lunatic fringe. I have to give credit to the NRA for keeping hunting, shooting sports, and firearms ownership in the mainstream. Unfortunately, the NRA is now being portrayed as an extreme lunatic fringe. The only way to combat this is to keep membership up. It is hard to portray a group as "fringe" if it has almost 4 million members. Otherwise, we are just playing into the divide and conquor plan.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
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"
Sherwin Wood
deputywood@sbcglobal.net
Join NRA, the best and easiest way to support the 2nd amendment
Myself, 22 yearold daughter and 19 month old grandson are all members of the NRA. However, I know the NRA, as with most organizations, is far from perfect. But it is still worth our time, effort and money to support it; along with some of the other excellent progun organizations. I am unable to understand why so many of the progun people on this forum will spend so much time and effort trying to discredit the NRA. Even at its WORST the NRA is still a friend of the gunrights movement. I an disappointed that the ones here who so enthusiastly bash the NRA cannot spend that time talking positively about the pro-gun organizations they believe in and remain silent about what they perceive as the short-comings of the NRA. In doing this they might help the organizations they believe in while doing no harm to 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"
Never the less, JOIN NRA too!!!!!
Join NRA, the best and easiest way to support the 2nd amendment
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"
Join NRA, the best and easiest way to support the 2nd amendment
Join NRA, one of the best ways to support the 2nd amendment
In 1986, the FOPA, which the NRA fully supported, said that no machine guns made after that date could be licensed to private citizens. Because of their actions, the MP5K that I want will now cost over $12,000.
As I said before, joining a group like this when I claim to be pro-machine gun is very hypocritical of me. The NRA brags to this day about the FOPA. They still strongly support their machine gun ban, and will get in the way of the GOA, SAF, or KABA opposing it.
However if they someday reversed their policy and opposed all gun control, and would as such let me (at least) register a post-86 machine gun, I would consider joining again.
Also, somebody mentioned sending the NRA letters about why we are not joining. I sent a few emails. The replies I got stated that the NFA and GCA required a license to conduct business with full autos and what that has to do with the NRA is beyond him. My first thought was: Didn't you read my message?! What it has to do with the NRA is the NRA supported these bans.
NRA President's Testimony During Congressional Debate
of the National Firearms Act of 1934
Introduction by Angel Shamaya
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
Transcript from U.S. Government Printing Office
March 4, 2004
KeepAndBearArms.com -- Congressional hearings over the National Firearms Act of 1934 (H.R.9066) took place April 16 & 18 and May 14, 15, & 16 of 1934. Then-NRA President Karl T. Frederick testified on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA). His testimony is below and includes the text in full plus scanned images of each page.
Before you read the full transcript, your attention is drawn to a few of excerpts that might interest you as a friend of the original meaning, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment. Some NRA supporters are fond of saying that the NRA was not involved in gun-related legislative activities that far back. Somehow, they believe that repeating that myth often enough will make it true.
NRA President Frederick's testimony began by explaining that he had "been giving this subject of firearms regulations study and consideration over a period of 15 years" and that "the suggestions resulting from that study of mine...have resulted in the adoption in many States of regulatory provisions suggested by us." He later described his active role in helping pass D.C.'s then-recent, ultra-stringent gun controls. Having helped enact gun control legislation was a matter of pride for NRA's president -- as you shall see below. The D.C. gun controls of which he candidly boasted included the following provisions, among others:
prohibited carrying a concealed pistol without a license -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers
justification for getting licensed to carry a firearm if "applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property" -- and the license application process included a mugshot, treating lawful gun owners like common criminals
a two-day waiting period to purchase a handgun -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers -- even though violent stalkers don't tend to wait to attack
required thorough record-keeping by gun dealers, of all transactions and every buyer
required that the seller deliver all of a buyer's personal information to the police within hours of the transaction, including the make, model and serial number of the firearm
mandated that gun dealers be licensed at the discretion of the police
banned altering firearms' serial numbers or other identifying marks
The copy of the text of that law, which the NRA had helped enact, begins on page 45 below. Frederick described the law as "the uniform firearms act which we [the NRA] sponsored" -- and submitted the full copy to the congressmen debating the enactment of NFA'34. The Washington D.C. gun controls mentioned in brief above were approved on July 8, 1932 -- nearly two years before the NRA's President gave the following testimony.
Mr. Frederick's testimony before Congress included a variety of questions from the elected officials present that day. The following question was asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on Ways and Means:
"Mr. DICKINSON. I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?"
Notice that Rep. Dickinson used the phrase "right of a person," as opposed to "right of a State." In 1934, it was commonly understood that the Second Amendment's right of the people meant just that: people. Person is the singular of people. The congressman's question was a natural one to ask.
Here is how the NRA's president responded:
"Mr. FREDERICK. I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought." [emphasis added]
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a virtual ban on machineguns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and sound suppressors -- a ban for commoners, that is. It ultimately placed a $200 transfer tax on these products (with the usual exception for law enforcement officers, of course). Only the well-to-do could afford that kind of money -- especially for shotguns that were going for five or ten dollars and sound suppressors that were even cheaper. At that time, you could get a brand new, high quality machinegun for around a hundred bucks and a worn one for cheaper. Tripling the price overnight put these already-expensive weapons out of reach for the average Depression Era gun owner.
A decade and a half devoted to the study of (and methodical, proud implementation of) gun control regulation, yet the NRA President had not given any serious thought to how the Second Amendment rights of NRA members and gun owners at large might be affected by a machinegun and short-barreled shotgun ban -- even though he knew he'd be testifying before Congress on the proposed legislation. Furthermore, as his testimony shows, he also believed that the States could ban firearms without violating the Second Amendment.
Before you dig in to the full transcript, here's another statement the NRA's President made that day:
MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" [emphasis added]
You'll find that section of his testimony on page 59, below.
But before you read on, take a moment and replace the words "weapons" and "guns" with "Bible" and "religious materials" in the above quote and see how it sounds. To save you the time in transposing the words yourself, here is the same quote with the words replaced as suggested:
"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying Bibles. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of religious materials. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"
Religious texts are covered by the First Amendment. Firearms are covered by the Second Amendment. The analogy seems quite fair.
NOTE OF HISTORICAL INTEREST: As a matter of purely historical interest, Frederick's testimony took place on April 18, 1934 -- the exact same day Adolf Hitler named J von Ribbentrop as Germany's "Ambassador for Disarmament." See: http://www.hiphistory.com/e/1934/apr18.65305.html and http://www.hiphistory.com/d/apr18.html. That's not to suggest a relationship between the two events, of course -- that would be silly. But history buffs might find it rather intriguing. NFA'34 is the foundation for all federal gun control and has been used in courts to justify many state gun controls -- and gun control is clearly about disarmament. Odd timing. Almost as odd as the fact that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 was copied from the Nazi Firearms Act of 1938. But coincidences happen, and this is surely just another weird one.
Finally, if you've been misled to believe that the Second Amendment was not intended to protect the weapons affected by the National Firearms Act of 1934, do yourself a big favor and read: U.S. v. Miller and Short-Barreled Shotguns by Brian Puckett. If the U.S. Supreme Court ever decides to give a fair hearing to the Second Amendment grievances the people have been trying to bring in court, Puckett's article will be highly useful as evidence to undo the damage the oft-misapplied Miller case has wrought on gun rights. Miller challenged NFA'34 up to the Supreme Court, resulting in a truly bizarre ruling that has been used to abuse gun owners ever since.
--AS
I am especially concerned about this fact. The term "machine gun" was originally meant to mean a gun that could fire 12 full auto shots without reloading. The president of NRA said it should be anything that can fire more than one shot. If this weren't the case, it would be a full auto with a magazine of less than 12 rounds.
Only a small fraction of American gun owners belong to any progun group. And an even smaller fraction actually does anything for gun rights other that mail a yearly membership check to the NRA, GOA, etc. Maybe if we progun people ever get active as a group and finally gain some real power that we should have had a long time ago, maybe then we can start to examine, unravel and correct the mistakes and shortcomings you have so carefully documented. But until then we all need to stick together the best we can and we cannot afford to harm or reject any people or organizations, llike the NRA, that do more good for us than harm.
JMHO
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"
They seem they can get more support by talking about "shotguns and rifles" with a few handguns and possibly "semi auto assault look alikes" thrown, but never will they advocate anything more powerful. They even seem to be shy about the "assault weapons". What we need is a no compromise group instead of a "centrist" group.
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"
You are at least partially on my side. However you frequently admit the NRA is not perfect. What if instead of just opposing machine guns, the NRA opposed all handguns? Would you still think they are just an imperfect gun group who deserves our help? What is they opposed all semi auto rifles? What if the only guns they supported were bolt action rifles? What about match locks?
What if the Brady Campaign claimed to be a "flawed pro-gun group"? What if they admitted they made some mistakes and supported the bans of all handguns, but said they were on your side as far as single shot shotguns go?
Again, I can see that you are on my side at least some of the way, so I'm sorry if I offended you, but it just seems that we draw the line at different areas, and that you are willing to put up with more flaws in your gun groups.
Nothing in the Constitution gives federal authorities the power to regulate Soverign Citizens private ownership of Firarms.
ANYBODY that aids and abets them doing so is helping to destroy that document..and take freedom away from Citizens.
NO GROUP actively working with fedgov officials to limit the Second Amendment is entitiled to call themselves " Second Amendment Defenders"....Sorry.
I don't NEED such a flawed organization "Defending" my rights..they have amply demonstrated that they DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A RIGHT IS...or they have sold out.
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
And besides, sooner or later ALL pro-gun organizations, even the GOA will for whatever reason do something that will make you question if their commitment and goals are the same as yours. I guarantee it. And what will you do then? Will you then abandon the GOA as well as the NRA? If so pretty soon you will run out of pro-gun organizations that offer to help you.
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"
Dsmith, I know you intended this for TR Fox, but I thought I would voice my opinion...
I support any group that advocates firearms ownership and works to keep firearms in the mainstream of our society. This includes CAS, black powder shooting, and hell, even the Olympic Biathalon. These groups all suffer under the same gun laws that we all do.
Whether it is an old cowboy that has to lock up his Colt Single Action Army just because he is driving to End of the Trail in California (California law is that ALL handguns must be boxed and locked when transported), or an Olympic athlete that is hassled all the way across the world for transporting a .22 rifle, just so he/she can represent their country at the Olympics, these folks at least understand what we all go through as gun owners. Sure, I know shotgunners that look at me like I'm a lunatic when I say I'm a handgun enthusiast, but I don't know of anyone that is a member of CAS, Ducks Unlimited, or the NRA that is also supporting the Brady Campaign. Some folks may not stand up and shout with you on the Capitol for you right to own a machine gun, but that doesn't mean they are fighting against you either.
The NRA didn't introduce these laws and they had no power to pass them either. It was all in the hands of the politicians. Make no mistake about who the real enemy is, even if you don't consider the NRA to be your ally. I doubt if the then president of the NRA could have said anything in 1934 that would have swayed the politicians into not passing the National Firearms Act. If the NRA had that little power then, I can only imagine how insignificantly most politicians treat it now days, especially with the Media demonizing it every day.
Even with that said, the NRA has a massive amount more lobbying power than any other gun-rights organization like. I'm not saying that GOA isn't worth while, but don't kid yourself about GOA replacing the NRA as the lead Second Amendment lobbying organization. As a gun owner, I never heard of GOA until about 2 months ago. I remember first hearing about the NRA when I was a child.
A gun-owner is a gun-owner, in my opinion. I will stand beside anyone who encourages gun ownership. If the day comes that the last law to be repealed is the one that gives us all access to full-auto machine guns, then I will probably not be standing beside you anymore, DSmith. I will not oppose your right to own a machine gun, but I will have long been satisfied by the time we reach that point. Good luck to you.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
"Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve"
Bejamin Franklin
Longhunter: I just plain don't want to get up the time and effort to question the NRA. I already know enough about them to know that I will stick with them, GOA, 2nd Amendment Foundatation, and soon I will become a yearly member of the JFPFO. As long as ANY pro-gun group is working for gun rights and not obviously screwing us, I will stick with them.
Reason being that I don't have a whole he!! of a lot of other choices. If there were numerous progun groups out there believe me I would probably be more picky than anyone here in who I supported. But if there are only a few doctors in the whole country and you are sick you cannot be very picky about which doctor you see. Just a fact of life.
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"
For the NRA many years ago to have said..." MOLON LABE"....
Then to consort with the enemy of all that is good and just...
I'm afraid I need to recant part of this statement. After doing some research on the links and info that Dsmith provided, I have to say that it is pretty obvious that Karl T. Frederick did have a pretty active role in defining and drafting the Washington DC Uniform Firearms Act, which were then adopted by several other states and localities. Since he was the NRA President at the time, I guess it would be fair to say that the NRA had a role in introducing those laws.
However, I don't see his direct role in drafting the National Firearms Act of 1934, in fact he says in his testimony that the first time he saw the draft of the NFA was that very morning that he was testifying. He declines to answer several of the questions posed to him out of mere ignorance at the time of the text of the actual document.
For those who want more research, here is an article from American Rifleman written by Frederick in 1930:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Frederick1.html
I haven't read through all of it, but it helps in trying to figure out where this man was coming from. I still need to research the later alleged connections to gun regulation that many of you say existed, such as in 1968.
In the meantime, here are some anti-NRA websites I found. I think somebody on one of these threads was asking about unhappy ex-NRA members. Here you go:
http://www.seark.net/~jlove/chesley_nra.htm
http://www.nrawol.com/
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
In my case I care not if a temporary leader of the NRA made a mistake or two OVER 60 YEARS AGO! I only care that for the 30 years I have been involved it has done enough to suit me. As another poster mentioned, you people who want to see the NRA suffer should instead be happy to see the NRA continue to exist if only to bet the target for the anti-gun groups and legislators WHILE THE GROUPS YOU SUPPORT SUPPOSELY DO THE REAL WORK.
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"
Read a bit about what the precious NRA thinks about the Second Amendment....this is a long read,but well worth it for the inside information about real world NRA activities....
#1 To most of the anti-gun people in THE WHOLE WORLD the NRA is the biggest, oldest and most successful Pro-gun group ever. We cannot afford to lose that, real or just perceived, image.
#2 As honest as Pyle is trying to be, I cannot forget that his views HAVE to be shaped to some degree by having his employment, income and and dignitity adversely affected by actions of the NRA.
#3 All the while that the NRA was mistreating Pyle and the progun efforts in the area that Pyle worked in, I believe thousands of other NRA members and NRA staff werre still doing some excellent work overall for the pro-gun rights movement.
#4 If we were in a combat situation, and I believe we are regarding the war between the pro and anti gunners, in a war you would not quickly and easily trash any of your defensive tools such as one of your guns that you had come to mistrust, as long as you were still capable of carrying that particular firearm. So many of you mistrust the NRA, but all it takes to let the NRA continue doing whatever good they do (and I don't think anyone here will claim the NRA does NO good) is to leave it alone if you don't want to pay the measly $35.00 per year membership dues and instead concencrate your time, money and efforts on helping the pro-gun groups you do believe in. But you had best not be too critical of those groups you believe in becasue sooner or later they will accidently make a move or decision in which you disagre with and then you will have to leave then in search of another and a "perfect" progun group. And there are not many to chose from.
JMHO.
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 make no apology for promoting.." My Way ".
My Way is simple.
Withdraw from the crooked,slimy path of politics.
Allow the Socialists to enact a complete,total ban on firarms.
Find out for once and all if there are any..or enough..Americans left in this country to bring back freedom.
Our Founders left us clear guideposts..we ignore them at our own peril.
Tr fox, you make good points..but I made them about the NRA 20 years ago...and I just cannot excuse deception and treachery any more.My Rights and Freedom is too precious to allow double-dealing backstabbers the latitude of pretending to uphold them...I WILL speak out against them at every turn...and that includes politicians,the NRA,the neighbor down the street.
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"
This discussion helps onlookers know both sides of the story...and will allow them to make their own decision on the matter.
I would buy the coffee anytime for honorable men such as several that post in this particular forum..honorable men with a difference of opinion.Men mightily worried about the future of freedom in this country...and how best to gain it back.
Perhaps a better solution to all this would be for the NRA members to also be GOA members ,That way both organizations would have a lot of clout. Simply put ,they all know how lazy etc folks are today...most are comfortable with payin their dues once a year and letting that foz continue....to the demise of all eventually.You do not seem worried by the fact that the NRA did something 60 years ago...Rember my friend that those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it.I respect you ,and all on here for their beliefs even if I do not agree with them.....But we must ALL find a way to fight together or we will surely lose.....L.H.
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"
While the NRA makes the argument that the 1986 law does more good than harm, I point you to the new Firearm Manufacturer's Protection Act. It would protect the gun makers (good), but renew the assault ban (very very bad).
Back to the FOPA of 1986. Repeal some of GCA '68 (Good). Prevent legal registration of all machine guns made after that date (very very bad).
[
While the NRA makes the argument that the 1986 law does more good than harm, I point you to the new Firearm Manufacturer's Protection Act. It would protect the gun makers (good), but renew the assault ban (very very bad).
All the progun grooups were in favvor of the "Firearms Manufacturer's Protection Act" as it wasa first offered which was without the AWB renewal. After the anti-gunner legislators added the AWB amendment, all the progun groups urged their legislator supporters to kill the entire bill so as to avoid the AWB renewal.
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:Originally posted by dsmith
[
While the NRA makes the argument that the 1986 law does more good than harm, I point you to the new Firearm Manufacturer's Protection Act. It would protect the gun makers (good), but renew the assault ban (very very bad).
All the progun grooups were in favvor of the "Firearms Manufacturer's Protection Act" as it wasa first offered which was without the AWB renewal. After the anti-gunner legislators added the AWB amendment, all the progun groups urged their legislator supporters to kill the entire bill so as to avoid the AWB renewal.
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"
TR, you are right. However I was trying to make a comparison between the FOPA of '86 which the NRA supported even though its anti machine gun amendments were bad and the Gun Makers Protection Act which all gun groups eventually opposed. I was trying to say that the NRA should have ditched the FOPA of '86 once the anti gun amendments got tacked onto it. Instead they passed it, and to this day brag about it. I feel that every time they talk about their great FOPA, they are just rubbing it in my face, smiling their hostile little smiles and knowing it will cost me at least $4,600 to get a "pre-ban" Uzi Full Auto.
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"