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.

C&P, Anti-NRA People! Take A Bite Out of This!

tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31118-2004Oct13.html

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"

Comments

  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Apparently you have to be registered to use that link.




    sorry all, but being a novice at this, if find you do have to be registered to use that link. But if interested it doesn't take long and you don't have to give out much personal info excpet your email address.

    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 foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Thursday, October 14, 2004; Page A31
    George Will, the Washington Post


    Billboards now seen in at least 10 key states show a prancing French poodle, its fur fancily clipped for show, wearing a pink ribbon and a blue Kerry-for-president sweater. The text says: "That dog don't hunt." And: "For 20 years John Kerry has voted against sportsmen's rights." As Election Day approaches, the National Rifle Association is clearing its throat, ready to roar.

    By now most of the persuading has been done and attention is turning to mobilization -- getting intense constituencies to the polls. Few are more intense than the NRA. If New England is Red Sox Nation, the NRA is a coast-to-coast nation within the nation.


    AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons), with nearly 36 million members, is the nation's third-largest organization (behind the Catholic Church and the American Automobile Association). The NRA has "only" 4 million adult members. Thirty states and the District of Columbia have smaller voting-age populations. And whereas slightly more than 50 percent of age-eligible Americans have voted in recent elections (51 percent voted in 2000), about 95 percent of NRA members vote. Liberals who lament voter apathy should be careful what they wish for.

    Each of the 4 million pays $35 in annual dues. Polls indicate that another 14 million Americans think that they are NRA members and an additional 28 million think they are affiliated in some way with the NRA because of their membership in one or more of the 35,000 shooting and hunting clubs.

    In the swing state of Wisconsin, which George W. Bush lost by 5,708 votes in 2000, but where he seems to be slightly ahead this year, there are, according to a Census Bureau survey, 591,000 hunters -- more than one-tenth of the population of about 5.5 million. In hotly contested Pennsylvania, there are 1.3 million hunters, about a million of whom take to the woods on opening day of deer season, when some schools and factories close.

    Bill Clinton believes that advocating gun control cost Democrats 20 of the 52 House seats they lost in the 1994 elections, which ended 40 years of Democratic control of the House. And appearing June 23 on "The Charlie Rose Show," he said this about the defeat of Al Gore in 2000:

    "The NRA beat him in Arkansas. The NRA and Ralph Nader stand right behind the Supreme Court in their ability to claim that they put George Bush in the White House. . . . If I had known how big the NRA problem was, could I have gone down there and spent three days calling people on the phone and hollering people in and talking to them and turned it? Probably. . . . I think the NRA had enough votes in New Hampshire, in Arkansas, maybe in Tennessee and in Missouri, to beat us. And they nearly whipped us in two or three other places."

    Labor unions have awakened to the NRA's power. For example, a flier published in Marseilles, Ill., by Local 393 of the Laborers' International Union of North America lists three Kerry virtues. The third is that he will "fix NAFTA" (the North American Free Trade Agreement). The second is that he "will continue to fight to protect overtime pay." But at the top of the list -- first things first -- is: "Supports protecting our right to own a gun."

    Nationwide in 2000, gun ownership was a countervailing pull against union membership as a determinant of political sympathies: Union households with guns split 48 percent for Bush and 48 percent for Gore. In 2000, 80 percent of Tennessee union households had at least one firearm. In West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Michigan, the percentages were 61, 60 and 55. Gore lost the first two states and might have lost the other two if he had not prudently stopped talking about gun control.

    Some liberals who are no more respectful of the First Amendment than they are of the Second viewed campaign finance reform as a way to inhibit the NRA from talking against gun control. Advocates of the McCain-Feingold bill for extending government regulation of political speech repeatedly mentioned the NRA as a group whose speech could be curtailed by complicating the process of financing political advocacy.

    There are 170,000 precincts in the United States and the NRA says it has election volunteer coordinators in every one. Even on Manhattan's Upper West Side? In West Hollywood? Yes.

    By Election Day the NRA will have sent out 15 million pieces of mail to susceptible men. And women. One in three women owns at least one gun. Hear them roar, in numbers too big to ignore.
    Edited by - tr fox on 10/16/2004 1:47:26 PM
    Go to Top of Page
    Topic

    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"
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It appears the NRA isn't constantly wrong. However I would like to remind you that the NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

    If they hadn't given their support to the gun grabbers, we might not have some of these unconstitutional laws.
  • calamitywoodcalamitywood Member Posts: 939 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    dsmith,
    someone always reminds TR of these facts everytime he makes a positive post in favor of the NRA. I for one am glad that the NRA is doing the good job that is today. I know these facts you have stated are true and I have no explanation for them nor do i understand why this happened. All I can do is try to move forward. I give careful thought to the posts on this subject made by members like Highball and Pickenup. Whenever they provide links to support their views I read them carefully. I guess what i'm trying to say here is that even though you are correct in your statement i am glad to see the information TR has provided and that the NRA is reaching out across this country promoting gun ownership and gun safety. JMHO
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    [:)]

    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 foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dsmith

    It appears the NRA isn't constantly wrong. However I would like to remind you that the NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.
    end of quote by DSmith

    I cannot explain, nor do I care to take time to research the issue to be able to explain, about the possible support of the 1934 National firearms Act. And even though I lived it in 1968, I don't understand all the facts behind what happened that year. All I need to know about that year is that for one of the few times in history a sitting US President was assassinated with a foreign rifle purchased with no restrictions through the US Mail. I strongly believe that because of all that, it was guaranteed that there were going to be some very, very strong gun control laws being imposed on us. Perhaps because of the way the NRA handled it we got the mildest laws possible.

    The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 was supposed to be just that; protection for firearm owners. Such as when travelling from state to state transporting their guns and not wanting to run afoul of each and every different city and state law. It is not the fault of the NRA that some of the states have twisted or broken the law themselves in order to still make it difficult and dangerous to transport firearms from state to state..
    end of quote by tr fox

    start of quote by DSmith

    If they hadn't given their support to the gun grabbers, we might not have some of these unconstitutional laws.

    ----end of quote by DSmith

    Or maybe we would have more or worse such laws.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'll phrase it like this:
    The NRA's past could become irrelevant. All they have to do is start opposing the laws they previously supported. Oppose the NFA, the GCA, and the anti-gun sections of the FOPA. However until they start opposing the requirements set up by their GCA (age limits, etc.) and the machine gun bans they supported, I will continue to believe they still support them.

    I naively joined the NRA because I wanted a true gun rights group. A gun rights group should simply ask: will this proposed legislation help or harm any law abiding citizen who wants to own a firearm? Not the question: Will this get us more donations and sympathy.

    Quite simply put, oppose all unconstitutional laws.

    Furthermore, if we are to believe that our rights are absolute and come from God, not the government, it is not our choice to compromise them away any more than it is somebody's ability to take them away. As a whole, the people have the rights. You shouldn't be able to take my rights away, just like the government shouldn't be able to take them away, just as I shouldn't be able to take your rights away.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    What they are tryin to say is to pick your battles......This battle is about the President...I would hate that you would even consider turning your back on Mr. Bush...or worse I guess vote for Kerry because of something the nRA did THEN.Lets get this battle outa the way,and perhaps then TR and others may thake they time to inform the NRA with some data about those of us whom have left the fold...One thing at time friend....They took our rights a piece at a time,we must work to get the back in the same way...Like it or not it is reality......I stand shoulder to shoulder wit you in the distaste for them,However I am shoulder to shoulder with ALL to preserve our rights and get those lost back...L.H.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I am afraid that in the case of the NRA, and probably other organizations as well, they cannot win with everyone. In Sunday's (10-17-04) KC Star newspaper in the sports section was a huge article about the NRA. The main theme was that many people have dropped out of the NRA because to them the NRA is too AGRESSIVE in protecting gun owners rights.

    Yet others say it is not agressive enough.

    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"
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Nope, they can't please all the people all the time.
    BUT........
    Having a law, that is already on the books "rescinded" would please me.


    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    If the NRA was to organize today and state their intentions as being what they are or seem to be I would sign up with them.

    It is an unnoticed fact of life that we gun people do NOT have enough friends. In the unlikely event we ever do have MORE friends than we want/need, then that will be the time to become very demanding and particular.

    But now is not the time.

    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"
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    TR;
    Take a short trip with me....
    Scenario;

    You are defending a camp,in the wilderness..surrounded by savages trying to tear down civilation,represented by you and your stout companions..You have limited people to trust and depend upon.

    Now,you find that some few members are,thru fear or..or whatever..are conspiring with above savages..to 'ease the transition' into the wonderful world of savageness....

    1. Do you continue to embrace those people..hoping to turn them around ?
    2.Do you 'out them'..right now ?

    Understand..what I laid out above is not too far off base..because those trying to take our arms ARE SAVAGES...seeking to throw civilization back a thousand years.They wish to be in TOTAL CONTROL of all of us..their word being life or death for the unwashed masses..that is us.....
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I do not believe the NRA is conspiring to give/take away our gun rights.

    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"
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    I wish,TR., you followed the debates 20 years ago,when Neal Knox tried to steer the NRA away from compromise.

    Neal was/is a hard liner...scared the 'old guard' to death.Just to bad that weakness won.I cannot buy off on the stand that 'death by a thousand cuts' is better somehow then one swift stroke by the sword..when I myself also posess a sword and know how to use it.

    I would at least prefer to force the enemy to use his sword...instead of beating mine one at a time into plowshares..

    That is where I am at..and have been for many years.

    I still recall the argument in Tulsa 10-12 years ago,with the NRA local field rep...His position was.." We gotta compromise.."
    Mine was...."MOLON LABE !!!"
    It was loud..and long.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have observed the NRA in action, lately.

    There are a few things they have done right. But the things they've done wrong make me ask one question.

    "Does gun control have to exist for the NRA to exist?"

    Let me rephrase this:

    "What good would the NRA be if they had nothing to fight?"

    Does this make sense, Fox? Are you getting my message, here?

    I am an NRA member. In hopes that my suggestions may one day be heard, this is the way I am going about it.

    But I have memberships elsewhere, as well.



    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."
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
    I have observed the NRA in action, lately.

    "Does gun control have to exist for the NRA to exist?"

    My answer: Does gun control have to exist for the other organizations you are a member of to exist?



    "What good would the NRA be if they had nothing to fight?"

    My answer: I assume the NRA would exist in a very reduced fashion if there was nothing to fight. Remember it has existed over one hundred years ago and in the beginning I believe there was very little gun control to have to fight against.

    But I have memberships elsewhere, as well.

    My answer: I also have memberships elsewhere but I see no need to expect near perfection out of ANY person or organization. If they are trying that is good enough for me. Unless we get to the point where we pro-gun people have more power and friends than we need. At that point I might get a little picky. But not until.


    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well??

    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."
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    ...uh..."well" what?

    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"
Sign In or Register to comment.