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.
Hunter375,
Don't leave out the other part (in red) necessitating enacting a law in this state for CCW.
WooHoo...SHALL issue. [;)]
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Hunter375,
Don't leave out the other part (in red) necessitating enacting a law in this state for CCW.
WooHoo...SHALL issue. [;)]
I did not see the need for that part in my point, but so long as we are on the subject of GOOD gun laws, lets not leave out CRS 29-11.7-103;the state preemption law. City of Denver really hates this one. For all those who don't know, this law prohibits local governments from making ANY gun laws stricter than the states, which are more lenient than federal statutes. God, I love Colorado.
Liberal compassion inhibits progress.........think Republican and prosper!
2. Subject = unarmed and powerless person SUBJECT to laws to keep him under their control.
Next, Well-Regulated. This means being able to do whatever this adjective is describing with a good degree of proficiency, with all the right equipment, and with organization.
vs.
Federally Regulated. This means being unable to do a single thing without the approval of another body of government, like what we deal with right now.
The Regulators spoken of earlier in the post was charged with a duty. That duty was to ensure the survival of cattle or safety of the trains from being rounded up or robbed by cattle rustlers or train robbers. It was not to supply arms or wield them like badasses. Now, what tools would these people need to carry out their jobs? That's right. Having firearms put teeth in their mouth and enabled them to fulfill that duty.
Many of you are probably asking why I insist on making a point of this. Well here it is.
The ones suggesting that certain people should be armed (like police, law enforcement, military, and 'regulators') are actually giving place to those who believe ONLY these people should be armed. You're helping them in their ultimate mission, to end firearms ownership because you don't "need" them.
These people are nothing more than citizens. They are charged with a job that puts them in harm's way more often than the jobs many of us do, but that shouldn't matter. Statistics doesn't mean much to you when you are told your case is a rare one. They are just citizens. It is time YOU start acknowledging that fact.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
I've yet to see anyone make the argument that the 1st Amendment did not apply to individuals, or that it is outdated because the founders could not have forseen modern means of communication.
I'm wondering what these same people who think the 2nd Amendment is outdated must think of the Ten Commandments?
Protecting your right to protect yourself: Making Michigan SAFR.
What we tend to forget is if the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not infringed, 99.9% of these "felons" wouldn't live long enough to go to jail.[:)]
Welcome to the forum,Barbara..good to see a woman posting..specially one that is RIGHT !! [:D]
Only one tiny suggestion..feel free to ignore it.Perhaps you ought to think about taking your name off your profile..there are some sick individuals on this forum.By and large,a great bunch of people..but it only takes ONE to spoil your whole day...
'scuse me all to the deevil...[:D]..I didn't bother to run that site...till now !!
congratulations on what looks like a great organization...hope you don't take personally what I take pains to point out about the NRA...[:0]..as you will discover when you read some of the posts..
Well, I notice he didn't recommend you take your name out of your profile, so it could be. [:p]
I guess I should quit giving you all a hard time my first day in. I do appreciate the welcome from both of you, and look forward to gabbing with you. Thanks!
Really,most of the out-and-out skixoids and homocidal maniacs hang out over in General Dis... [:D][:0]
There will be more along here later,Barbara..to welcome you in.Visits here-abouts are somewhat scarce..."Gun Rights" ain't too sexy..nor popular..even on a 'gun forum'..
'ya gotta love it..,the very thing giving these guys the freedom to say and do all that they do..and most won't defend those rights...[:0]
LOL...I'm an old, grumpy, opinionated, set in my ways curmudgeon of the highest order, so taking my name out of the profile wouldn't matter...and suggesting that I do that would only make me leave it in.
Oh crap...forgot to add "stubborn" in the original self description! LOL
Glad to have you here Barbara...almost messed up and shortened it to 'BARB.'
John
The original point and click interface was made by Smith & Wesson
Something tells me that Billy the Kid and the other Regulators of Linclon County were not there to stop train robberies. After all they were hired guns whose purpose was to fight the regulators that worked for the other side.
Also, when in town the group of overly concerned citizens taking the bad guy out of jail to hang, or tar and feather, etc. were called vigilantes. But once they got on their horses and rode out of town these armed men were called Regulators. Regulated has nothing to do with organization it only means you have arm and know how to use it with some proficiency and the only equipment involved is the arm. If
one has a M-16 they are armed, but if they cannot repeatedly hit, lets say, a water mellon at 100 yards then they are not regulated. They are just armed.
Barbara,
Here is another welcome to the "outlands" of the GunBroker forums.
Hope you stick around.
I took a look at your web site. Looks like your group is trying to do what we should ALL be doing, (some of us are) which is getting people involved. If we could just get ALL gun owners to vote, what a difference we could make. [:0]
Just a question, when you endorse a candidate on that site, why don't you put the party affiliation by their name? I am not in the area, so I will not take the time to look up what party your endorsed candidates are, but my main question here is, have you endorsed any 3rd party candidates like the Constitutionalists or Libertarians or ?? Just wondering.
You seem to be "the" person on the forums over there.
I like your "Must be Unemployed" status. [;)] [:D]
I book-marked your "Open Secrets" site, to look into when time permits, and for future reference. Did not know that about the GOA. Thanks
In response to the original post, 2nd Amendment was intended to codify the rights of the people - individual citizens - to keep and bear arms. Not covered in the Constitution, but under the laws of the several colonies, was the requirement that all heads of household maintain adequate arms and ammunition for all able-bodied members of their household to serve in the militia as needed. Massachusetts actually required anyone NOT having the requisite amount of firearms to pay a tax so the town/county would stock and store weapons to equip those lacking.
The second amendment is in the Constitution so that we, the people, have the MEANS to correct any excesses the Government might get itself up to. This is specifically addressed in the Declaration of Independence, second sentence of the second paragraph. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=124
The intent was for everyone to own weapons suitable for military service. If you follow the intent of the founding fathers, we should all be Required to have full-auto m14 or m16's along with reasonable (200 min) rounds of ammunition for same.
As far as rocket launchers / grenades / etc etc; I would expect them to be restricted to those who have a secure storage facility - Gun Room with barred windows / reinforced door and walls. Just on the off-chance that the kids aren't responsible, you would want to limit their access to serious firepower.
Timely questions, as I spent several hours today at a meeting of our PAC committee making endorsements.
We deliberately don't put party affiliations next to the candidates because we decided from the first that we were going to be non-partisan. The majority of members are either libertarians or Republicans, but we even have a few Dems and we try to be as even handed as possible about it. Our endorsements mean the person has a good record on gun rights; you have to make your own decisions about other aspects of their beliefs, if that makes sense.
We would endorse third party candidates. Unfortunately, its harder to find information on them. We have one guy who we wanted to endorse but who hasn't returned our survey, which makes it tough. Also, the Secretary of State didn't have them listed on their website until quite recently.
We've decided we're definately on a learning curve here, but we're doing well and the endorsements we're going to make are good. We tried to be objective about. They had to have a certain score on their survey to even be eligible to get the endorsement and then had to show some evidence besides the survey to actually get the endorsement. If they had a good score, but nothing to back it up, we rated them as acceptable and let it go at that.
We have a whole list of things to do better next year, too. [:p]
Barbara: Just where did you read that the "GOA spends more on political lobbying than the NRA"? Was it in some anti-NRA publication perhaps? I have documentation that shows the NRA, via their Friends of the NRA charitiable group spent slightly over $100,000.00 in the Mid-west alone just in 2004.
Now overall $100,000.00 might not sound like much, but that is for one year in one section of the USA and for one specific purpose: donating money strictly raised by the charitible activities of solely the Friends of the NRA.
BTW I am a paid member of the GOA so I am not knocking them. Just don't want any unneeded negative p.r. for the NRA IF IT IS NOT WARRANTED.
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"
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/
quote:If gun rights groups have a substantial advantage in campaign contributions, they dominate gun control advocates in the area of lobbying. The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period. By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000.
The National Rifle Association has an additional advantage over all other groups in the debate. As a membership organization, the NRA can spend unlimited funds on communications to its 4 million members that identify pro-gun candidates. Those members also contribute millions of dollars in limited donations to the NRA's political action committee, which runs ads aimed at the general public that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. Since 1989, the NRA has spent more than $22 million on communications costs and independent expenditures, with more than $18 million spent in support of Republican candidates.
Barbara, I read the link and thank you for providing it. However, regarding something as contentious as statistics apparently showing the NRA to be outspent by the GOA, (with GOA having many fewer years in existance and with approximately 6 times fewer members) thereby making the NRA look "cheap", I will reserve any judgement on that subject until it matters to me and I will check directly at the source. for example, obtaining a copy directly from the NRA and GOA of their financial statement.
However, just comparing one catagory of large expenditures in this case gives a lop-sided example or comparsion of money spent for lobbying by the two organizations. To my knowledge, about the ONLY expenditures (other than operating expenses) the GOA expends is for lobbying. In contrast the NRA spends millions for other activites that help gun rights. Such as cash grants for private member owned gun ranges, maintaining a large and nice private NRA range for members in N.M., cash grants to the Boy Scouts of America for their shooting programs, and grants to different law enforcement agencies around the country for police equipment, etc.
So to compare only one single class of expenditures is not fair or reasonable. You could turn the tables and show how the GOA probably gives ZERO dollars donated to help establish and maintain private, member owned gun ranges. But that does not mean that GOA is not wisely using their funds provided by their members.
There is an old adage something about "If you want to advance your argument, argue the facts if they are on your side. If the facts AREN'T on your side, argue the statistics. To try and provide a fair and honest argument, I try to argue all important elements of the situation.
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;
Barbara posted some info I didn't know.....Hmmmmmmm..so it appears perhaps the NRA ought to go back to what they do best...? Teaching youngsters to shoot,Ranges,ect....and leave the Lobbying to people that haven't sold..errrr..that actually believe in the Second...errr..I mean....that actually will make a principled stand on the Second Amendment...?
See why I think people should use their real names? No one would post stuff if their mom would find out.
I get the feeling that I walked into an NRA/GOA dispute here and so I'm going to sit the rest of it out. I've been annoyed with the NRA a lot of times, but they are out there and I think we'd have less rights if they weren't. The GOA does an excellent job, themselves. I think the two groups work together more than we think..kind of bad cop/good cop thing. Either way, I'm glad someone is out there and I'm not going to give people on our side a hard time when there are so many on the other side to complain about.
Barbara;
I perhaps am the most vocal critic of NRA policies about gun control.
The argument has raged for a year or so on here..and there are some gentleman that present reasoned,coherant arguments in favor of the NRA.They have obliged me by allowing both sides to be presented..mostly absent name-calling,ugly innuendoes,or calls to meet at dawn,pistols drawn.....of course,now and again,idiots DO drop by....[:0]
My position is not popular...
I feel we have already lost enough rights..not just gun rights..that we as decent people ought not fight a corrupt Congress,Courts,or Media any longer..withdraw,marshall our strength....allow the Socialists to pass a complete ban on guns..(5 years,I think)...then come roaring out like an avenging lion....
quote:Originally posted by Highball
TR;
.....Hmmmmmmm..so it appears perhaps the NRA ought to go back to what they do best...? Teaching youngsters to shoot,Ranges,ect....and leave the Lobbying to people that haven't sold..errrr..that actually believe in the Second...errr..I mean....that actually will make a principled stand on the Second Amendment...?
Highball: it is all well and good to spend lots of money lobbying politicians in an effort to help them make good, fair and honest decisions. But it is also very, very important to spend money on introducing people who might otherwise remain a complete and total stranger to guns and the shooting sports all their life. This is one, of many, areas that the NRA does an outstanding job. I don't fault the GOA for not doing the same because I assume they don't have the money to do it.
The reason it is so vitally important to introduce the Boy Scouts, 4-H, Women to shooting, donate money to law enforcement is becaause many of those Boy Scouts and 4-H'ers are going to grow up to become lawyers, police and politicians. And by helping them become shooters as a youngster, you might just have helped gun rights by creating a type of person in future power who has come to believe as we here believe. And the money to the cops, as well as a good deed helping them buy needed equipment that the taxpayer won't/can't fund hopefully creates at least some LEO's who have some loyalty to the NRA and what it stands for.
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"
Barbara: You are not doing yourself justice if you drop negative information about the NRA (and the flip side is that information makes the GOA look good) and then just leave.
This is behavior I would expect from a stealth anti-gun person who recognized an unusual opportunity to "ride in", drop a load of negative statistcs which fans the debate about the NRA vs GOA, and then rides out again with the debate raging even higher than when you rode in. Please stay and present your case.
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"
Um, hello? I didn't drop any news. Someone followed me to a different website and read it there.
I don't have a "case," and I don't have an interest in arguing about it. I spend about 20 hours a week actually doing gun-rights related stuff, on top of a more than full time job, kids activities, etc, etc. I spent 8 hours yesterday doing it. If you think I'm an anti-gun type..have at it..a simple web search would prove otherwise, but I'm not here to defend myself. I came here kind of hoping to talk to like-minded folks and relax a bit, not be called names and then accused of stirring up trouble. Seems to be the trouble was stirred up long before I arrived. You all can work it out.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Highball
TR;
.....Hmmmmmmm..so it appears perhaps the NRA ought to go back to what they do best...? Teaching youngsters to shoot,Ranges,ect....and leave the Lobbying to people that haven't sold..errrr..that actually believe in the Second...errr..I mean....that actually will make a principled stand on the Second Amendment...?
Highball: it is all well and good to spend lots of money lobbying politicians in an effort to help them make good, fair and honest decisions. But it is also very, very important to spend money on introducing people who might otherwise remain a complete and total stranger to guns and the shooting sports all their life. This is one, of many, areas that the NRA does an outstanding job. I don't fault the GOA for not doing the same because I assume they don't have the money to do it.
The reason it is so vitally important to introduce the Boy Scouts, 4-H, Women to shooting, donate money to law enforcement is becaause many of those Boy Scouts and 4-H'ers are going to grow up to become lawyers, police and politicians. And by helping them become shooters as a youngster, you might just have helped gun rights by creating a type of person in future power who has come to believe as we here believe. And the money to the cops, as well as a good deed helping them buy needed equipment that the taxpayer won't/can't fund hopefully creates at least some LEO's who have some loyalty to the NRA and what it stands for.
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"
Careful where you r treading tr my friend.....In Germany their were still ranges also ....and the elite got to have firearms,and were taught to use them etc......so long as they towed along the Party line...IF THE NRA is representing ALL gunowners perhaps they should spend some on defending hunters rights as hunters as well as teaching the young to hunt safely,and while they are at that,lobbying in Washington to tell you WHAT you may or may not hunt with.....or defend yourself with,or target shoot with....With ALL the dollars they bring in each year it would seem that inso far as spending even With these programs they spend on that they should be able to OUTSPEND such an Insignificant Little un noted group as the GOA ???
quote:Originally posted by Barbara
By the way, the comment, or that posting weren't meant to bash the NRA. I'm pro-facts and in this case, they were outspent.
Making Michigan SAFR: www.firearmsalliance.org
Ah yes, but posting the information you are referring to was somewhat of a "bash" at the NRA.
Both the NRA and GOA are fighting for our gun rights and they each go about it in their own particular way which is their right. So why walk into a forum where you seem to have already recoginized an on-going friendly argument about the NRA vs GOA and post info making the NRA look like it did something wrong by allowing itself to be "out spent" on lobbying?
Please notice I am attempting to ask a honest and fair question in a friendly and objective manner. I attempted, and hope I succeeded, in not appearing flippant, rude, argumentative, confortational, etc.
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"
Longhunter: The only reason that lobbying presently does any good is because that lobbying is able to be presented to a large and sympathetic group. And that group is the legislators, law enforcement officials, newsmedia, etc. that for whatever reason have a lot of agreement with the lobbying message they are receiving from GOA, NRA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, etc. To not lose that sympathetic audience and sometime in the future find that ALL of the members of the groups I just mentioned (as compared to now being just part of those groups) will be totally unsympathetic to our cause and then we are lost.
We must keep showing that great middle of the road group, young and old, what we stand for and let them find that guns are fun and gun rights are truly a right of every American. Otherwise people who have first hand knowledge about the subject will become a very, very small minority and then again we are lost.
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 and I have never been real far away from each other my friend.......I was tryin to make the point about GOA as well...Remember when you thought they were to small to be effective?When no one had heard of em?They are hearing about em now,and perhaps this will help the NRA to help more where they should.GOA is becoming a force to be reckoned with...to the good of us all.......L.H.
Comments
Don't leave out the other part (in red) necessitating enacting a law in this state for CCW.
WooHoo...SHALL issue. [;)]
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Hunter375,
Don't leave out the other part (in red) necessitating enacting a law in this state for CCW.
WooHoo...SHALL issue. [;)]
1. Militia = armed citizenry.
vs.
2. Subject = unarmed and powerless person SUBJECT to laws to keep him under their control.
Next, Well-Regulated. This means being able to do whatever this adjective is describing with a good degree of proficiency, with all the right equipment, and with organization.
vs.
Federally Regulated. This means being unable to do a single thing without the approval of another body of government, like what we deal with right now.
The Regulators spoken of earlier in the post was charged with a duty. That duty was to ensure the survival of cattle or safety of the trains from being rounded up or robbed by cattle rustlers or train robbers. It was not to supply arms or wield them like badasses. Now, what tools would these people need to carry out their jobs? That's right. Having firearms put teeth in their mouth and enabled them to fulfill that duty.
Many of you are probably asking why I insist on making a point of this. Well here it is.
The ones suggesting that certain people should be armed (like police, law enforcement, military, and 'regulators') are actually giving place to those who believe ONLY these people should be armed. You're helping them in their ultimate mission, to end firearms ownership because you don't "need" them.
These people are nothing more than citizens. They are charged with a job that puts them in harm's way more often than the jobs many of us do, but that shouldn't matter. Statistics doesn't mean much to you when you are told your case is a rare one. They are just citizens. It is time YOU start acknowledging that fact.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
I'm wondering what these same people who think the 2nd Amendment is outdated must think of the Ten Commandments?
Protecting your right to protect yourself: Making Michigan SAFR.
81st FA BN WWII...Thanks Dad
U!S!A! ALL THE WAY!!
Only one tiny suggestion..feel free to ignore it.Perhaps you ought to think about taking your name off your profile..there are some sick individuals on this forum.By and large,a great bunch of people..but it only takes ONE to spoil your whole day...
I like to stand by what I say; it keeps me honest..and the weblink in my signature would sort of give it away anyway.
Thanks for the welcome. Looks like some interesting conversations.
Making Michigan SAFR: www.firearmsalliance.org
'scuse me all to the deevil...[:D]..I didn't bother to run that site...till now !!
congratulations on what looks like a great organization...hope you don't take personally what I take pains to point out about the NRA...[:0]..as you will discover when you read some of the posts..
Just read yesterday that GOA spends more on lobbying than the NRA does.
FWIW, I'm a GOA lifer but only an annual NRA member.
Making Michigan SAFR: www.firearmsalliance.org
Welcome to the group Barbara.
John
The original point and click interface was made by Smith & Wesson
I guess I should quit giving you all a hard time my first day in. I do appreciate the welcome from both of you, and look forward to gabbing with you. Thanks!
Making Michigan SAFR: www.firearmsalliance.org
Really,most of the out-and-out skixoids and homocidal maniacs hang out over in General Dis... [:D][:0]
There will be more along here later,Barbara..to welcome you in.Visits here-abouts are somewhat scarce..."Gun Rights" ain't too sexy..nor popular..even on a 'gun forum'..
'ya gotta love it..,the very thing giving these guys the freedom to say and do all that they do..and most won't defend those rights...[:0]
Oh crap...forgot to add "stubborn" in the original self description! LOL
Glad to have you here Barbara...almost messed up and shortened it to 'BARB.'
John
The original point and click interface was made by Smith & Wesson
Also, when in town the group of overly concerned citizens taking the bad guy out of jail to hang, or tar and feather, etc. were called vigilantes. But once they got on their horses and rode out of town these armed men were called Regulators. Regulated has nothing to do with organization it only means you have arm and know how to use it with some proficiency and the only equipment involved is the arm. If
one has a M-16 they are armed, but if they cannot repeatedly hit, lets say, a water mellon at 100 yards then they are not regulated. They are just armed.
Here is another welcome to the "outlands" of the GunBroker forums.
Hope you stick around.
I took a look at your web site. Looks like your group is trying to do what we should ALL be doing, (some of us are) which is getting people involved. If we could just get ALL gun owners to vote, what a difference we could make. [:0]
Just a question, when you endorse a candidate on that site, why don't you put the party affiliation by their name? I am not in the area, so I will not take the time to look up what party your endorsed candidates are, but my main question here is, have you endorsed any 3rd party candidates like the Constitutionalists or Libertarians or ?? Just wondering.
You seem to be "the" person on the forums over there.
I like your "Must be Unemployed" status. [;)] [:D]
I book-marked your "Open Secrets" site, to look into when time permits, and for future reference. Did not know that about the GOA. Thanks
The gene pool needs chlorine.
The second amendment is in the Constitution so that we, the people, have the MEANS to correct any excesses the Government might get itself up to. This is specifically addressed in the Declaration of Independence, second sentence of the second paragraph. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=124
The intent was for everyone to own weapons suitable for military service. If you follow the intent of the founding fathers, we should all be Required to have full-auto m14 or m16's along with reasonable (200 min) rounds of ammunition for same.
As far as rocket launchers / grenades / etc etc; I would expect them to be restricted to those who have a secure storage facility - Gun Room with barred windows / reinforced door and walls. Just on the off-chance that the kids aren't responsible, you would want to limit their access to serious firepower.
BTW - Welcome, Barbara!
Gun Control = FIRM GRIP!
Timely questions, as I spent several hours today at a meeting of our PAC committee making endorsements.
We deliberately don't put party affiliations next to the candidates because we decided from the first that we were going to be non-partisan. The majority of members are either libertarians or Republicans, but we even have a few Dems and we try to be as even handed as possible about it. Our endorsements mean the person has a good record on gun rights; you have to make your own decisions about other aspects of their beliefs, if that makes sense.
We would endorse third party candidates. Unfortunately, its harder to find information on them. We have one guy who we wanted to endorse but who hasn't returned our survey, which makes it tough. Also, the Secretary of State didn't have them listed on their website until quite recently.
We've decided we're definately on a learning curve here, but we're doing well and the endorsements we're going to make are good. We tried to be objective about. They had to have a certain score on their survey to even be eligible to get the endorsement and then had to show some evidence besides the survey to actually get the endorsement. If they had a good score, but nothing to back it up, we rated them as acceptable and let it go at that.
We have a whole list of things to do better next year, too. [:p]
Making Michigan SAFR: www.firearmsalliance.org
Now overall $100,000.00 might not sound like much, but that is for one year in one section of the USA and for one specific purpose: donating money strictly raised by the charitible activities of solely the Friends of the NRA.
BTW I am a paid member of the GOA so I am not knocking them. Just don't want any unneeded negative p.r. for the NRA IF IT IS NOT WARRANTED.
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:If gun rights groups have a substantial advantage in campaign contributions, they dominate gun control advocates in the area of lobbying. The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period. By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000.
The National Rifle Association has an additional advantage over all other groups in the debate. As a membership organization, the NRA can spend unlimited funds on communications to its 4 million members that identify pro-gun candidates. Those members also contribute millions of dollars in limited donations to the NRA's political action committee, which runs ads aimed at the general public that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. Since 1989, the NRA has spent more than $22 million on communications costs and independent expenditures, with more than $18 million spent in support of Republican candidates.
Making Michigan SAFR: www.firearmsalliance.org
Making Michigan SAFR: www.firearmsalliance.org
However, just comparing one catagory of large expenditures in this case gives a lop-sided example or comparsion of money spent for lobbying by the two organizations. To my knowledge, about the ONLY expenditures (other than operating expenses) the GOA expends is for lobbying. In contrast the NRA spends millions for other activites that help gun rights. Such as cash grants for private member owned gun ranges, maintaining a large and nice private NRA range for members in N.M., cash grants to the Boy Scouts of America for their shooting programs, and grants to different law enforcement agencies around the country for police equipment, etc.
So to compare only one single class of expenditures is not fair or reasonable. You could turn the tables and show how the GOA probably gives ZERO dollars donated to help establish and maintain private, member owned gun ranges. But that does not mean that GOA is not wisely using their funds provided by their members.
There is an old adage something about "If you want to advance your argument, argue the facts if they are on your side. If the facts AREN'T on your side, argue the statistics. To try and provide a fair and honest argument, I try to argue all important elements of the situation.
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"
Barbara posted some info I didn't know.....Hmmmmmmm..so it appears perhaps the NRA ought to go back to what they do best...? Teaching youngsters to shoot,Ranges,ect....and leave the Lobbying to people that haven't sold..errrr..that actually believe in the Second...errr..I mean....that actually will make a principled stand on the Second Amendment...?
I get the feeling that I walked into an NRA/GOA dispute here and so I'm going to sit the rest of it out. I've been annoyed with the NRA a lot of times, but they are out there and I think we'd have less rights if they weren't. The GOA does an excellent job, themselves. I think the two groups work together more than we think..kind of bad cop/good cop thing. Either way, I'm glad someone is out there and I'm not going to give people on our side a hard time when there are so many on the other side to complain about.
Well, off to work. You all have a good day.
Making Michigan SAFR: www.firearmsalliance.org
I perhaps am the most vocal critic of NRA policies about gun control.
The argument has raged for a year or so on here..and there are some gentleman that present reasoned,coherant arguments in favor of the NRA.They have obliged me by allowing both sides to be presented..mostly absent name-calling,ugly innuendoes,or calls to meet at dawn,pistols drawn.....of course,now and again,idiots DO drop by....[:0]
My position is not popular...
I feel we have already lost enough rights..not just gun rights..that we as decent people ought not fight a corrupt Congress,Courts,or Media any longer..withdraw,marshall our strength....allow the Socialists to pass a complete ban on guns..(5 years,I think)...then come roaring out like an avenging lion....
TR;
.....Hmmmmmmm..so it appears perhaps the NRA ought to go back to what they do best...? Teaching youngsters to shoot,Ranges,ect....and leave the Lobbying to people that haven't sold..errrr..that actually believe in the Second...errr..I mean....that actually will make a principled stand on the Second Amendment...?
Highball: it is all well and good to spend lots of money lobbying politicians in an effort to help them make good, fair and honest decisions. But it is also very, very important to spend money on introducing people who might otherwise remain a complete and total stranger to guns and the shooting sports all their life. This is one, of many, areas that the NRA does an outstanding job. I don't fault the GOA for not doing the same because I assume they don't have the money to do it.
The reason it is so vitally important to introduce the Boy Scouts, 4-H, Women to shooting, donate money to law enforcement is becaause many of those Boy Scouts and 4-H'ers are going to grow up to become lawyers, police and politicians. And by helping them become shooters as a youngster, you might just have helped gun rights by creating a type of person in future power who has come to believe as we here believe. And the money to the cops, as well as a good deed helping them buy needed equipment that the taxpayer won't/can't fund hopefully creates at least some LEO's who have some loyalty to the NRA and what it stands for.
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 is behavior I would expect from a stealth anti-gun person who recognized an unusual opportunity to "ride in", drop a load of negative statistcs which fans the debate about the NRA vs GOA, and then rides out again with the debate raging even higher than when you rode in. Please stay and present your case.
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 have a "case," and I don't have an interest in arguing about it. I spend about 20 hours a week actually doing gun-rights related stuff, on top of a more than full time job, kids activities, etc, etc. I spent 8 hours yesterday doing it. If you think I'm an anti-gun type..have at it..a simple web search would prove otherwise, but I'm not here to defend myself. I came here kind of hoping to talk to like-minded folks and relax a bit, not be called names and then accused of stirring up trouble. Seems to be the trouble was stirred up long before I arrived. You all can work it out.
Making Michigan SAFR: www.firearmsalliance.org
John
The original point and click interface was made by Smith & Wesson
quote:Originally posted by Highball
TR;
.....Hmmmmmmm..so it appears perhaps the NRA ought to go back to what they do best...? Teaching youngsters to shoot,Ranges,ect....and leave the Lobbying to people that haven't sold..errrr..that actually believe in the Second...errr..I mean....that actually will make a principled stand on the Second Amendment...?
Highball: it is all well and good to spend lots of money lobbying politicians in an effort to help them make good, fair and honest decisions. But it is also very, very important to spend money on introducing people who might otherwise remain a complete and total stranger to guns and the shooting sports all their life. This is one, of many, areas that the NRA does an outstanding job. I don't fault the GOA for not doing the same because I assume they don't have the money to do it.
The reason it is so vitally important to introduce the Boy Scouts, 4-H, Women to shooting, donate money to law enforcement is becaause many of those Boy Scouts and 4-H'ers are going to grow up to become lawyers, police and politicians. And by helping them become shooters as a youngster, you might just have helped gun rights by creating a type of person in future power who has come to believe as we here believe. And the money to the cops, as well as a good deed helping them buy needed equipment that the taxpayer won't/can't fund hopefully creates at least some LEO's who have some loyalty to the NRA and what it stands for.
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"
Careful where you r treading tr my friend.....In Germany their were still ranges also ....and the elite got to have firearms,and were taught to use them etc......so long as they towed along the Party line...IF THE NRA is representing ALL gunowners perhaps they should spend some on defending hunters rights as hunters as well as teaching the young to hunt safely,and while they are at that,lobbying in Washington to tell you WHAT you may or may not hunt with.....or defend yourself with,or target shoot with....With ALL the dollars they bring in each year it would seem that inso far as spending even With these programs they spend on that they should be able to OUTSPEND such an Insignificant Little un noted group as the GOA ???
By the way, the comment, or that posting weren't meant to bash the NRA. I'm pro-facts and in this case, they were outspent.
Making Michigan SAFR: www.firearmsalliance.org
Ah yes, but posting the information you are referring to was somewhat of a "bash" at the NRA.
Both the NRA and GOA are fighting for our gun rights and they each go about it in their own particular way which is their right. So why walk into a forum where you seem to have already recoginized an on-going friendly argument about the NRA vs GOA and post info making the NRA look like it did something wrong by allowing itself to be "out spent" on lobbying?
Please notice I am attempting to ask a honest and fair question in a friendly and objective manner. I attempted, and hope I succeeded, in not appearing flippant, rude, argumentative, confortational, etc.
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"
We must keep showing that great middle of the road group, young and old, what we stand for and let them find that guns are fun and gun rights are truly a right of every American. Otherwise people who have first hand knowledge about the subject will become a very, very small minority and then again we are lost.
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"