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.
WoundedWolf, you talk about the old days "when the NRA supported the gun owners." When was that? In 1934 when they supported the NFA? In 1968 when they supported the GCA? In 1986 when they supported the machine gun ban and the specialty handgun ammunition ban? How about when they supported George H.W. Bush after his "assault weapon" import ban? Maybe you are referring to the support the NRA gave George W. Bush right after he said he'd sign a new AW ban. As far as I'm concerned, the NRA has always been about hunters, and never about gun owners.
It's nice to see highball and tr getting along. Tr and highball have their differences when compromise is acceptable, as well as woundedwolf and others. Good to know all of you. [:)]
However, I still have to say that even though the NRA has such a small percentage of the gun owners as members, that doesn't change the fact that the NRA is afraid to win.
I have read up on the NRA saying that they oppose "concealed carry without permit." GOA says this method is the only acceptable method. If the NRA wants us to register and beg for approval under the best of circumstances, it makes me wonder whose side they are on. When the NRA supports even more gun bans because "hunters don't need steel handgun bullets" or something along those lines, they are just giving up at a slower pace. Anti-gunners are relentless. We need a group like GOA who is relentless also.
quote:Originally posted by dsmith
It's nice to see highball and tr getting along. Tr and highball have their differences when compromise is acceptable, as well as woundedwolf and others. Good to know all of you. [:)]
However, I still have to say that even though the NRA has such a small percentage of the gun owners as members, that doesn't change the fact that the NRA is afraid to win.
I have read up on the NRA saying that they oppose "concealed carry without permit." GOA says this method is the only acceptable method. If the NRA wants us to register and beg for approval under the best of circumstances, it makes me wonder whose side they are on. When the NRA supports even more gun bans because "hunters don't need steel handgun bullets" or something along those lines, they are just giving up at a slower pace. Anti-gunners are relentless. We need a group like GOA who is relentless also.
I will post this short to the point response NOT to bash the GOA, but to defend the NRA.
If the GOA is so "relentless" then just how the heck did we gunners end up suffering for 10 years under Prs. Clinton's 1994 so-called "assault weapons ban"?
And another question regarding the NRA vs GOA. The ONLY reason we gunners got rid of Clinton's assault weapons ban was becase at the time the ban was about to be passed into law no matter what, ONE of the pro-gun groups was smart enough to "compromise" and have the "sunset" clause inserted into that ban. And after the ten years passed, that "sunset" clause was the ONLY reason we gunners no longer have to suffer that ban. This is just one of MANY reasons why sometimes a compromise is the only reasonable action the NRA can take.
Now, who to give credit for being smart enough to have inserted that "sunset" clause into the assault weapons ban? Well I claim it was a smart move by the NRA. After all the GOA is a NO COMPROMISE organization, so obviosly they would not have compromised. So that leaves the NRA getting credit for riding us of the hated assault weapons ban.
As far as the NRA supporting Bush when he stated he would sign a renewal of that ban, I double dog dare ANYONE to show me proof on that wild claim.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
As far as the NRA supporting Bush when he stated he would sign a renewal of that ban, I double dog dare ANYONE to show me proof on that wild claim.
It is common knowledge that Bush said he would sign the renewal of the AWB, before it expired on September 13 2004. The NRA endorsed Bush for president on October 13 2004.
So, according to what dsmith said.......
quote:Maybe you are referring to the support the NRA gave George W. Bush right after he said he'd sign a new AW ban.
dsmith's statement sounds factual.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
3000 replies...? 'ya..but you see...THIS subject is vitally IMPORTANT...so most will not even read it, let alone reply to it...
It is common knowledge that Bush said he would sign the renewal of the AWB, before it expired on September 13 2004. The NRA endorsed Bush for president on October 13 2004.
It is possible that had the NRA not voiced support for Bush, Kerry would have won the election. If that had happened I think we all know that by now we either would have had the old AWB extended or have had a brand new one, as well as many other new gun laws, in its place. The NRA had no choice but to endorse Bush in order to try and avoid Kerry being president.
And I don't know what goes on behind closed doors in Washington. Back during the time period where we gunners were all worried about the AWB being extended, many of us here noticed and commented on how Bush did say that if the AWB reached his desk he would sign it. But that may have been a pretty clever way of trying to maintain much needed support from anti-gunners while still giving support to pro-gunners. How can Bush try and have it both ways you ask?
Easy. Even a lowly citizen like myself knew that the US House and Senate was controlled by the Republicians. From the information I had from various sources, I firmly believed that a renewal of the AWB would not make it out of the senate and house and to Bush's desk to be signed . Bush probably knew this also. So it would be easy, truthful and very clever for him to publically announce that if the AWB renewal made it to his desk he would sign it; while knowing that would never happen. That announcement would gain/maintain him a lot of support from legislators/citizens who wanted the AWB extended. And maintain support not just from the rabid anti-gunners who knew the AWB was a worthless piece of legislation that helped no one and only unfairly burdened lawful gun owners, but also maintain support from the vast majority of legislators and citizens who had been fooled by the lies told by the anti-gunners and thereby fooled the public at large into thinking the AWB actually protected them.
But by never actually having to be in the position of having to honor his "I'll sign the AWB" pledge, then the final outcome would also satisfy the pro-gun groups.
If you doubt the above, then remember the huge, loud howls of outrage that lasted for weeks from the anti-gun organizations (Brady Campaign, Sarah Brady), anti-gun legislators (Schumer, Feinstein, etc), and anti-gun media (my local K.C. Star, etc) claiming that if the AWB wasn't extended then thousands of innocent citizens and police would be gunned down in the streets by the flood of horrible "assault weapons" that would be unleashed on the streets if the AWB wasn't extended/renewed.
But in spite of all the above, the AWB DID EXPIRE. Doesn't that one fact speak loudly to any of you who are anxious to always discredit the NRA and Bush?
BTW, when voting I chose the "Lessor of Two Evils" and to avoid Kerry I voted for Bush. With the logic some here are using against the NRA and Bush, you could use that same logic and accuse me of supporting Bush AND THEREBY SUPPORTING the AWB renewal.
But most of you surely know that would be flawed thinking if you did think that way.
I saw the speech bush gave, where he said he would sign it. I believe it was A politcal ploy. I think he knew the republikans in congress would not send it to him.
You are trying hard to twist the statement made by dsmith.
He said that the NRA supported Bush AFTER he said he would sign a renewal.
Which the NRA did.
YOU are the ONLY one making the claim that the NRA backed Bush AND the AWB.
So, unless you provide your own proof, your staying.
See tr, that's how it works. Nice try on skipping out on us again, but pickenup is right, you're staying. As far as your latest comments, I really see you twisting and turning to defend the NRA in an onslaught of legitimate claims. What the boys are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the NRA offered their support for Bush after HE voiced HIS support of the assault weapons ban indicating that he would sign off on it's extension. This does not mean that they supported the ban only that they supported a candidate that did. This kind of implicates them in a default kind of way. But I never heard anyone say that the NRA was quoted as having support for the ban.
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Hey dsmith, just noticed that you are callin' me out. Be there in a sec...
But first, I think you guys against TR are the ones that are not facing the facts. OF COURSE THE NRA ENDORSED G.W. BUSH! What were they supposed to say, "Because Bush said he would sign an AWB renewal, we therefore cannot support any candidate in this race." If you think that is what they should have said then you are living in frickin' dreamland. The NRA is a political animal. In a hotly contested presidential election they are not going to just sit out on the sidelines. They had two choices, Bush or Kerry. You think they should have endorsed Kerry? Of course not, get back with reality folks.
Okay dsmith, if I hear you right then you are saying that the NRA was never intended to be behind gun owners, only hunters and sports shooters, right? Wrong.
As far as I know, the NRA has always considered the 2nd Amendment an individual right. In fact, they ask each new presidential administration to explain their view on the 2nd Amendment. They welcomed former AG Ashcroft's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right when he spoke for the Bush Administration in May of 2001. Remember, Ashcroft was the one who stood up AGAINST turning over federal gun sale records after 9/11. I'm sure all you naysayers would just say that we shouldn't have to fill out those forms to begin with. Well Alices, this ain't Wonderland. Go ahead and scream out against Bush, Republicans, and the NRA. Hope you will be happy with president Hilary.
TR, we better get our ammo cans full because logic and reason are flying out the window. These folk are gonna force a revolution either way and we will likely be the ones cleaning up the mess. It's a hell of a lot easier to tear something down than to build it back up.
-Wolf
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
WoundedWolf, I understand the two party system. I know that the NRA shouldn't have endorsed Kerry. I am not pushing for a revolution. What I am pushing for is responsibility. I know that the NRA would have supported Bush if he had signed the AW ban.
I think the majority of GOA members voted for Bush. I know I did. But I think a sizable percentage of them voted for the Consitution Party or the Libertarians. I know I wanted to vote for Peroutka. But I don't blame the GOA or its supporters for keeping Bush. I blame the NRA because they have willingly accepted -even encouraged- gun control in the past. The NFA of 1934. NRA supported. No contest. Simply losing ground. GCA of 1968. Less evil of the 2 possible GCAs. Endorsed by NRA to shut up opposition. FOPA of 1986. Repeal of parts of GCA. Further machine gun ban. Accepted by NRA. 1986 handgun ammo ban. Approved by NRA because they didn't want the hassles of defining rifle ammunition as "armor piercing." "Assault weapon" import ban of 1989. Signed into law by NRA supported G. H. W. Bush.
It is because of these and many other compromises that the NRA has become my single most reviled gun group. I had to turn down some of my friends who wanted me to go with them to an NRA banquet/fundraiser. I don't give my money to Smith & Wesson because they sold out the gun owners. For the same reason, I don't give my money to the NRA.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
Hey dsmith, just noticed that you are callin' me out. Be there in a sec...
But first, I think you guys against TR are the ones that are not facing the facts. OF COURSE THE NRA ENDORSED G.W. BUSH! What were they supposed to say, "Because Bush said he would sign an AWB renewal, we therefore cannot support any candidate in this race." If you think that is what they should have said then you are living in frickin' dreamland. The NRA is a political animal. In a hotly contested presidential election they are not going to just sit out on the sidelines. They had two choices, Bush or Kerry. You think they should have endorsed Kerry? Of course not, get back with reality folks.
Okay dsmith, if I hear you right then you are saying that the NRA was never intended to be behind gun owners, only hunters and sports shooters, right? Wrong.
As far as I know, the NRA has always considered the 2nd Amendment an individual right. In fact, they ask each new presidential administration to explain their view on the 2nd Amendment. They welcomed former AG Ashcroft's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right when he spoke for the Bush Administration in May of 2001. Remember, Ashcroft was the one who stood up AGAINST turning over federal gun sale records after 9/11. I'm sure all you naysayers would just say that we shouldn't have to fill out those forms to begin with. Well Alices, this ain't Wonderland. Go ahead and scream out against Bush, Republicans, and the NRA. Hope you will be happy with president Hilary.
TR, we better get our ammo cans full because logic and reason are flying out the window. These folk are gonna force a revolution either way and we will likely be the ones cleaning up the mess. It's a hell of a lot easier to tear something down than to build it back up.
-Wolf
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
quote:Originally posted by dsmith
WoundedWolf, I understand the two party system. I know that the NRA shouldn't have endorsed Kerry. I am not pushing for a revolution. What I am pushing for is responsibility. I know that the NRA would have supported Bush if he had signed the AW ban.
I think the majority of GOA members voted for Bush. I know I did. But I think a sizable percentage of them voted for the Consitution Party or the Libertarians. I know I wanted to vote for Peroutka. But I don't blame the GOA or its supporters for keeping Bush. I blame the NRA because they have willingly accepted -even encouraged- gun control in the past. The NFA of 1934. NRA supported. No contest. Simply losing ground. GCA of 1968. Less evil of the 2 possible GCAs. Endorsed by NRA to shut up opposition. FOPA of 1986. Repeal of parts of GCA. Further machine gun ban. Accepted by NRA. 1986 handgun ammo ban. Approved by NRA because they didn't want the hassles of defining rifle ammunition as "armor piercing." "Assault weapon" import ban of 1989. Signed into law by NRA supported G. H. W. Bush.
It is because of these and many other compromises that the NRA has become my single most reviled gun group. I had to turn down some of my friends who wanted me to go with them to an NRA banquet/fundraiser. I don't give my money to Smith & Wesson because they sold out the gun owners. For the same reason, I don't give my money to the NRA.
Although I consider you and many others here friends, that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out what I consider to be defects in your position.
I too disassociated myself from S&W a few years ago when they were owned by a British Company (I think I remember that correctly) and S&W did crawl for the Clinton administration and sell out gun rights. But for you to still reject S&W, one of the few large American gunmakers doesn't make sense to me in regards to the present. The S&W management that sold out gun owners to Clinton have long sold the company and departed. It has had new owners for a few years now and those new owners seem to be quite friendly to civilian gun owners and their rights. For example you can buy new 15+ round high capacity S&W factory mags whereas at least with some models Ruger will not sell high capacity mags to the public. And what about that new S&W politically incorrect .50 caliber handgun? When that came out the antigun crowd went into a frenzy. But the .50 cal did come on the market for the civilian buyers and is STILL on the market.
In regards to your lack of support for the NRA, why don't you make your seperation from the NRA complete and when the NRA has a success in saving or restoring your gun rights, why don't you(and all other NRA critics) just be true to your beliefs and personally refuse to ever enjoy or avail yourself of that particular right provided by the NRA and its members?
You can start with your right to own high capacity magazines that was restored by the Clinton's AWB experation. That experation didn't happen by itself. It only happened because back in 1994 some one/group "compromised" by insisting that, since the AWB passage could not be stopped, that the "automatic sunset clause" be added to the ban. That is the one and only reason I think we don't have the ban for now and for all eternity.
I feel the NRA gets credit for that since the GOA never will "compromise" as was done with the sunset clause. So if that is true then the NRA deserves credit for us having the right to now own high cap mags. And I bet you like that; but you don't like the NRA. But without the right to own high cap mags, if you ever do get one of those machine guns you want, it wouldn't do you much good if you only were allowed to use 10-round mags in a machine gun.
Bottom line, I wish all the NRA critics would loosen up and believe that ANY organization that is trying to help us that we should help them.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
But first, I think you guys against TR
WW,
Seem that you missed the point too.
The replies were a response to his statement, nothing more.
Fair enough, pickenup. Let me clarify then, how about "All of you that hold positions on this issue that are opposed to TR Fox's statements in this thread..."
That better?
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
Fair enough, pickenup. Let me clarify then, how about "All of you that hold positions on this issue that are opposed to TR Fox's statements in this thread..."
That better?
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
Smith&Wesson was owned by thomkins international. These folks are scum. They also bought out the company I worked for. Closed it down, took it to mexico. They did invest in S&W, and made it it's own company again.
Come on WW, I can't help but think that was at least partially aimed at me. Now you know me better than that, I don't WANT to go to war, I'm just prepared if we HAVE to go to war. My post was that clarifying what was meant by the others, I think. It was also to show support for tr fox to stick around and yes, tr, you may have your seat back. I would get the ammo cans out too boys, but not because some of us, you feel, are going to start a war but because it is inevitable. Those in power will not stop until they have complete power and the ability to run roughshod over the masses without fear of reprisal. Allot like 18th century England. I don't know how the NRA fits into this post but at least I mentioned them.[;)]
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Well, comengetit, to quote a phrase, "It ain't all about you." [;)]
Actually, comengetit, I think you have proven that there is still hope for working within the system, in light of your recent lobbying against the Patriot Act renewal. And you have also said that you have learned to direct your criticism of the NRA to the NRA itself, instead of just disenchanting fellow gun owners and potential pro-gun allies.
So, no, I was not targeting you. I think you have generally provided valuable opinions and insight, and I appreciate that. [8D]
-Wolf
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
Well, TR, you do make good points about the AWB ban expiring because of "compromise." I agree that the NRA may have done the right thing there if it was truly "hopeless." However, just look at all of the other "compromises" they made that have not been restored.
The reason I am still holding a grudge against S&W is simply that the new ownership has done nothing to make up for the previous owner's mistakes. They didn't publicly decry their previous owner's mistakes, issued no apology, gave no money to any pro-gun group (unless you count buying advertisements for their handguns in gun magazines), etc.
I would forgive the NRA of their past mistakes if they publically admitted to them or made some kind of attempt to fix them. Keep in mind that I like to know with absolute certainty that the groups I support are on my side. You can flip a coin to see if the NRA supports any particular law. I know the GOA opposes 'em all.
While you may argue that I should ignore the laws that the NRA helped repeal, maybe I should also be allowed to ignore the laws the NRA supported. But as you said, a machine gun isn't much good with a 10 round magazine. [:)]
TR Fox,
You repeatedly have made the "claim" that the NRA (by compromising) was responsible for the insertion of the "sunset" clause into the "94" ban. I recently read something that shines some light on this. Would you please provide some definitive proof that the NRA was responsible for the "sunset" of the ban?
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
TR Fox,
You repeatedly have made the "claim" that the NRA (by compromising) was responsible for the insertion of the "sunset" clause into the "94" ban. I recently read something that shines some light on this. Would you please provide some definitive proof that the NRA was responsible for the "sunset" of the ban?
The gene pool needs chlorine.
I think we all agree that the "sunset clause" insertion was and had to be a "compromise" when it was recognized that the AWB passage could not be stopped. That part I remember for sure although I don't have that information at hand.
In regards to if the NRA is responsible for that shrewd move, I also don't have the proof close at hand. If it mattered a lot I would spend a few hours and try to locate it. But by default I feel it had to be the NRA. Reason being that it is likely that only one of the few national pro-gun rights groups could have had that much control over the construction of the bill and the GOA is automatically ruled out because they never, ever compromise.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Almost EXACTLY the response I expected. [V]
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Then why the he!! did you even bother to ask? I am not going to document every opinion I give here on GB or anywhere else. And anyone who thinks that is required is an idiot.
Can't twist my works Fox, I never said that it was REQUIRED, so I guess I am NOT the idiot that you imply. Unlike YOU, I do not resort to ad hominem (personal) attacks if unable to give a dignified, intelligent response to a request. How sad, but I am getting used to it.
At least here, you admit that it is ONLY your OPINION, and NOT based on any FACTS at all.
Here is something for you to chew on.
quote: On March 2, 2004 (108th Congress, 2nd Session), Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) added a 10-year extension to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, Amendment 2637, to S.1805, the Senate's Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. While the amendment was agreed to by a vote of 52-47, S.1805 picked up several other amendments, and the National Rifle Association withdrew its support of the bill. The sponsor Larry Craig (R-ID) asked for a vote, and S.1805, with the Feinstein Assault Weapon Ban renewal amendment, was voted down 8-90.
Everyone knows that Feinstein wanted (wants) the renewal of the AWB to be PERMANENT. Here, SHE is the one that proposed a 10 year EXTENSION, rather than a "permanent" ban, hoping to gather enough support to get it passed.
Considering that they knew that the vote was going to be REAL close on the "original" AWB, (Which it was, squeaking by, on one of the narrowest votes to date) who is to say that it wasn't Feinstein herself (or one of her cronies) that added the sunset clause, to garner the needed support to pass the bill? This happens quite frequently in politics.
I freely admit that this is only a supposition, based on the FACT that she was later willing to compromise her stand on a permanent ban, to try to get a 10 year "extension" passed.
Comments
However, I still have to say that even though the NRA has such a small percentage of the gun owners as members, that doesn't change the fact that the NRA is afraid to win.
I have read up on the NRA saying that they oppose "concealed carry without permit." GOA says this method is the only acceptable method. If the NRA wants us to register and beg for approval under the best of circumstances, it makes me wonder whose side they are on. When the NRA supports even more gun bans because "hunters don't need steel handgun bullets" or something along those lines, they are just giving up at a slower pace. Anti-gunners are relentless. We need a group like GOA who is relentless also.
It's nice to see highball and tr getting along. Tr and highball have their differences when compromise is acceptable, as well as woundedwolf and others. Good to know all of you. [:)]
However, I still have to say that even though the NRA has such a small percentage of the gun owners as members, that doesn't change the fact that the NRA is afraid to win.
I have read up on the NRA saying that they oppose "concealed carry without permit." GOA says this method is the only acceptable method. If the NRA wants us to register and beg for approval under the best of circumstances, it makes me wonder whose side they are on. When the NRA supports even more gun bans because "hunters don't need steel handgun bullets" or something along those lines, they are just giving up at a slower pace. Anti-gunners are relentless. We need a group like GOA who is relentless also.
I will post this short to the point response NOT to bash the GOA, but to defend the NRA.
If the GOA is so "relentless" then just how the heck did we gunners end up suffering for 10 years under Prs. Clinton's 1994 so-called "assault weapons ban"?
And another question regarding the NRA vs GOA. The ONLY reason we gunners got rid of Clinton's assault weapons ban was becase at the time the ban was about to be passed into law no matter what, ONE of the pro-gun groups was smart enough to "compromise" and have the "sunset" clause inserted into that ban. And after the ten years passed, that "sunset" clause was the ONLY reason we gunners no longer have to suffer that ban. This is just one of MANY reasons why sometimes a compromise is the only reasonable action the NRA can take.
Now, who to give credit for being smart enough to have inserted that "sunset" clause into the assault weapons ban? Well I claim it was a smart move by the NRA. After all the GOA is a NO COMPROMISE organization, so obviosly they would not have compromised. So that leaves the NRA getting credit for riding us of the hated assault weapons ban.
As far as the NRA supporting Bush when he stated he would sign a renewal of that ban, I double dog dare ANYONE to show me proof on that wild claim.
As far as the NRA supporting Bush when he stated he would sign a renewal of that ban, I double dog dare ANYONE to show me proof on that wild claim.
It is common knowledge that Bush said he would sign the renewal of the AWB, before it expired on September 13 2004. The NRA endorsed Bush for president on October 13 2004.
So, according to what dsmith said.......
quote:Maybe you are referring to the support the NRA gave George W. Bush right after he said he'd sign a new AW ban.
dsmith's statement sounds factual.
What kind of "proof" would you require?
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Its a long way to go for that 3000+ sugar bear thread.[:D]
" Those who give up a little freedom for temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security "
- Benjamin Franklin
3000 replies...? 'ya..but you see...THIS subject is vitally IMPORTANT...so most will not even read it, let alone reply to it...
Heheheh... How very true.
quote:
It is common knowledge that Bush said he would sign the renewal of the AWB, before it expired on September 13 2004. The NRA endorsed Bush for president on October 13 2004.
It is possible that had the NRA not voiced support for Bush, Kerry would have won the election. If that had happened I think we all know that by now we either would have had the old AWB extended or have had a brand new one, as well as many other new gun laws, in its place. The NRA had no choice but to endorse Bush in order to try and avoid Kerry being president.
And I don't know what goes on behind closed doors in Washington. Back during the time period where we gunners were all worried about the AWB being extended, many of us here noticed and commented on how Bush did say that if the AWB reached his desk he would sign it. But that may have been a pretty clever way of trying to maintain much needed support from anti-gunners while still giving support to pro-gunners. How can Bush try and have it both ways you ask?
Easy. Even a lowly citizen like myself knew that the US House and Senate was controlled by the Republicians. From the information I had from various sources, I firmly believed that a renewal of the AWB would not make it out of the senate and house and to Bush's desk to be signed . Bush probably knew this also. So it would be easy, truthful and very clever for him to publically announce that if the AWB renewal made it to his desk he would sign it; while knowing that would never happen. That announcement would gain/maintain him a lot of support from legislators/citizens who wanted the AWB extended. And maintain support not just from the rabid anti-gunners who knew the AWB was a worthless piece of legislation that helped no one and only unfairly burdened lawful gun owners, but also maintain support from the vast majority of legislators and citizens who had been fooled by the lies told by the anti-gunners and thereby fooled the public at large into thinking the AWB actually protected them.
But by never actually having to be in the position of having to honor his "I'll sign the AWB" pledge, then the final outcome would also satisfy the pro-gun groups.
If you doubt the above, then remember the huge, loud howls of outrage that lasted for weeks from the anti-gun organizations (Brady Campaign, Sarah Brady), anti-gun legislators (Schumer, Feinstein, etc), and anti-gun media (my local K.C. Star, etc) claiming that if the AWB wasn't extended then thousands of innocent citizens and police would be gunned down in the streets by the flood of horrible "assault weapons" that would be unleashed on the streets if the AWB wasn't extended/renewed.
But in spite of all the above, the AWB DID EXPIRE. Doesn't that one fact speak loudly to any of you who are anxious to always discredit the NRA and Bush?
BTW, when voting I chose the "Lessor of Two Evils" and to avoid Kerry I voted for Bush. With the logic some here are using against the NRA and Bush, you could use that same logic and accuse me of supporting Bush AND THEREBY SUPPORTING the AWB renewal.
But most of you surely know that would be flawed thinking if you did think that way.
quote:
dsmith's statement sounds factual.
What kind of "proof" would you require?
A fair question.
I would like to see some verified comments by a few high ranking NRA leaders voicing support for Bush and support for the AWB renewal.
Here's your chance for anyone interested. If they can provide me the above proof, I promise to never, ever post here again.
www.templeofthesith.com Dark lord of the sith.
You are trying hard to twist the statement made by dsmith.
He said that the NRA supported Bush AFTER he said he would sign a renewal.
Which the NRA did.
YOU are the ONLY one making the claim that the NRA backed Bush AND the AWB.
So, unless you provide your own proof, your staying.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
www.templeofthesith.com Dark lord of the sith.
But first, I think you guys against TR are the ones that are not facing the facts. OF COURSE THE NRA ENDORSED G.W. BUSH! What were they supposed to say, "Because Bush said he would sign an AWB renewal, we therefore cannot support any candidate in this race." If you think that is what they should have said then you are living in frickin' dreamland. The NRA is a political animal. In a hotly contested presidential election they are not going to just sit out on the sidelines. They had two choices, Bush or Kerry. You think they should have endorsed Kerry? Of course not, get back with reality folks.
Okay dsmith, if I hear you right then you are saying that the NRA was never intended to be behind gun owners, only hunters and sports shooters, right? Wrong.
As far as I know, the NRA has always considered the 2nd Amendment an individual right. In fact, they ask each new presidential administration to explain their view on the 2nd Amendment. They welcomed former AG Ashcroft's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right when he spoke for the Bush Administration in May of 2001. Remember, Ashcroft was the one who stood up AGAINST turning over federal gun sale records after 9/11. I'm sure all you naysayers would just say that we shouldn't have to fill out those forms to begin with. Well Alices, this ain't Wonderland. Go ahead and scream out against Bush, Republicans, and the NRA. Hope you will be happy with president Hilary.
TR, we better get our ammo cans full because logic and reason are flying out the window. These folk are gonna force a revolution either way and we will likely be the ones cleaning up the mess. It's a hell of a lot easier to tear something down than to build it back up.
-Wolf
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
I think the majority of GOA members voted for Bush. I know I did. But I think a sizable percentage of them voted for the Consitution Party or the Libertarians. I know I wanted to vote for Peroutka. But I don't blame the GOA or its supporters for keeping Bush. I blame the NRA because they have willingly accepted -even encouraged- gun control in the past. The NFA of 1934. NRA supported. No contest. Simply losing ground. GCA of 1968. Less evil of the 2 possible GCAs. Endorsed by NRA to shut up opposition. FOPA of 1986. Repeal of parts of GCA. Further machine gun ban. Accepted by NRA. 1986 handgun ammo ban. Approved by NRA because they didn't want the hassles of defining rifle ammunition as "armor piercing." "Assault weapon" import ban of 1989. Signed into law by NRA supported G. H. W. Bush.
It is because of these and many other compromises that the NRA has become my single most reviled gun group. I had to turn down some of my friends who wanted me to go with them to an NRA banquet/fundraiser. I don't give my money to Smith & Wesson because they sold out the gun owners. For the same reason, I don't give my money to the NRA.
Hey dsmith, just noticed that you are callin' me out. Be there in a sec...
But first, I think you guys against TR are the ones that are not facing the facts. OF COURSE THE NRA ENDORSED G.W. BUSH! What were they supposed to say, "Because Bush said he would sign an AWB renewal, we therefore cannot support any candidate in this race." If you think that is what they should have said then you are living in frickin' dreamland. The NRA is a political animal. In a hotly contested presidential election they are not going to just sit out on the sidelines. They had two choices, Bush or Kerry. You think they should have endorsed Kerry? Of course not, get back with reality folks.
Okay dsmith, if I hear you right then you are saying that the NRA was never intended to be behind gun owners, only hunters and sports shooters, right? Wrong.
As far as I know, the NRA has always considered the 2nd Amendment an individual right. In fact, they ask each new presidential administration to explain their view on the 2nd Amendment. They welcomed former AG Ashcroft's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right when he spoke for the Bush Administration in May of 2001. Remember, Ashcroft was the one who stood up AGAINST turning over federal gun sale records after 9/11. I'm sure all you naysayers would just say that we shouldn't have to fill out those forms to begin with. Well Alices, this ain't Wonderland. Go ahead and scream out against Bush, Republicans, and the NRA. Hope you will be happy with president Hilary.
TR, we better get our ammo cans full because logic and reason are flying out the window. These folk are gonna force a revolution either way and we will likely be the ones cleaning up the mess. It's a hell of a lot easier to tear something down than to build it back up.
-Wolf
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
[;)]
WoundedWolf, I understand the two party system. I know that the NRA shouldn't have endorsed Kerry. I am not pushing for a revolution. What I am pushing for is responsibility. I know that the NRA would have supported Bush if he had signed the AW ban.
I think the majority of GOA members voted for Bush. I know I did. But I think a sizable percentage of them voted for the Consitution Party or the Libertarians. I know I wanted to vote for Peroutka. But I don't blame the GOA or its supporters for keeping Bush. I blame the NRA because they have willingly accepted -even encouraged- gun control in the past. The NFA of 1934. NRA supported. No contest. Simply losing ground. GCA of 1968. Less evil of the 2 possible GCAs. Endorsed by NRA to shut up opposition. FOPA of 1986. Repeal of parts of GCA. Further machine gun ban. Accepted by NRA. 1986 handgun ammo ban. Approved by NRA because they didn't want the hassles of defining rifle ammunition as "armor piercing." "Assault weapon" import ban of 1989. Signed into law by NRA supported G. H. W. Bush.
It is because of these and many other compromises that the NRA has become my single most reviled gun group. I had to turn down some of my friends who wanted me to go with them to an NRA banquet/fundraiser. I don't give my money to Smith & Wesson because they sold out the gun owners. For the same reason, I don't give my money to the NRA.
Although I consider you and many others here friends, that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out what I consider to be defects in your position.
I too disassociated myself from S&W a few years ago when they were owned by a British Company (I think I remember that correctly) and S&W did crawl for the Clinton administration and sell out gun rights. But for you to still reject S&W, one of the few large American gunmakers doesn't make sense to me in regards to the present. The S&W management that sold out gun owners to Clinton have long sold the company and departed. It has had new owners for a few years now and those new owners seem to be quite friendly to civilian gun owners and their rights. For example you can buy new 15+ round high capacity S&W factory mags whereas at least with some models Ruger will not sell high capacity mags to the public. And what about that new S&W politically incorrect .50 caliber handgun? When that came out the antigun crowd went into a frenzy. But the .50 cal did come on the market for the civilian buyers and is STILL on the market.
In regards to your lack of support for the NRA, why don't you make your seperation from the NRA complete and when the NRA has a success in saving or restoring your gun rights, why don't you(and all other NRA critics) just be true to your beliefs and personally refuse to ever enjoy or avail yourself of that particular right provided by the NRA and its members?
You can start with your right to own high capacity magazines that was restored by the Clinton's AWB experation. That experation didn't happen by itself. It only happened because back in 1994 some one/group "compromised" by insisting that, since the AWB passage could not be stopped, that the "automatic sunset clause" be added to the ban. That is the one and only reason I think we don't have the ban for now and for all eternity.
I feel the NRA gets credit for that since the GOA never will "compromise" as was done with the sunset clause. So if that is true then the NRA deserves credit for us having the right to now own high cap mags. And I bet you like that; but you don't like the NRA. But without the right to own high cap mags, if you ever do get one of those machine guns you want, it wouldn't do you much good if you only were allowed to use 10-round mags in a machine gun.
Bottom line, I wish all the NRA critics would loosen up and believe that ANY organization that is trying to help us that we should help them.
But first, I think you guys against TR
WW,
Seem that you missed the point too.
The replies were a response to his statement, nothing more.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
That better?
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
Fair enough, pickenup. Let me clarify then, how about "All of you that hold positions on this issue that are opposed to TR Fox's statements in this thread..."
That better?
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
I'm afraid that number would be many.
www.templeofthesith.com Dark lord of the sith.
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Actually, comengetit, I think you have proven that there is still hope for working within the system, in light of your recent lobbying against the Patriot Act renewal. And you have also said that you have learned to direct your criticism of the NRA to the NRA itself, instead of just disenchanting fellow gun owners and potential pro-gun allies.
So, no, I was not targeting you. I think you have generally provided valuable opinions and insight, and I appreciate that. [8D]
-Wolf
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
The reason I am still holding a grudge against S&W is simply that the new ownership has done nothing to make up for the previous owner's mistakes. They didn't publicly decry their previous owner's mistakes, issued no apology, gave no money to any pro-gun group (unless you count buying advertisements for their handguns in gun magazines), etc.
I would forgive the NRA of their past mistakes if they publically admitted to them or made some kind of attempt to fix them. Keep in mind that I like to know with absolute certainty that the groups I support are on my side. You can flip a coin to see if the NRA supports any particular law. I know the GOA opposes 'em all.
While you may argue that I should ignore the laws that the NRA helped repeal, maybe I should also be allowed to ignore the laws the NRA supported. But as you said, a machine gun isn't much good with a 10 round magazine. [:)]
You repeatedly have made the "claim" that the NRA (by compromising) was responsible for the insertion of the "sunset" clause into the "94" ban. I recently read something that shines some light on this. Would you please provide some definitive proof that the NRA was responsible for the "sunset" of the ban?
The gene pool needs chlorine.
TR Fox,
You repeatedly have made the "claim" that the NRA (by compromising) was responsible for the insertion of the "sunset" clause into the "94" ban. I recently read something that shines some light on this. Would you please provide some definitive proof that the NRA was responsible for the "sunset" of the ban?
The gene pool needs chlorine.
I think we all agree that the "sunset clause" insertion was and had to be a "compromise" when it was recognized that the AWB passage could not be stopped. That part I remember for sure although I don't have that information at hand.
In regards to if the NRA is responsible for that shrewd move, I also don't have the proof close at hand. If it mattered a lot I would spend a few hours and try to locate it. But by default I feel it had to be the NRA. Reason being that it is likely that only one of the few national pro-gun rights groups could have had that much control over the construction of the bill and the GOA is automatically ruled out because they never, ever compromise.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Almost EXACTLY the response I expected. [V]
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Then why the he!! did you even bother to ask? I am not going to document every opinion I give here on GB or anywhere else. And anyone who thinks that is required is an idiot.
At least here, you admit that it is ONLY your OPINION, and NOT based on any FACTS at all.
Here is something for you to chew on.
quote: On March 2, 2004 (108th Congress, 2nd Session), Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) added a 10-year extension to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, Amendment 2637, to S.1805, the Senate's Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. While the amendment was agreed to by a vote of 52-47, S.1805 picked up several other amendments, and the National Rifle Association withdrew its support of the bill. The sponsor Larry Craig (R-ID) asked for a vote, and S.1805, with the Feinstein Assault Weapon Ban renewal amendment, was voted down 8-90.
Everyone knows that Feinstein wanted (wants) the renewal of the AWB to be PERMANENT. Here, SHE is the one that proposed a 10 year EXTENSION, rather than a "permanent" ban, hoping to gather enough support to get it passed.
Considering that they knew that the vote was going to be REAL close on the "original" AWB, (Which it was, squeaking by, on one of the narrowest votes to date) who is to say that it wasn't Feinstein herself (or one of her cronies) that added the sunset clause, to garner the needed support to pass the bill? This happens quite frequently in politics.
I freely admit that this is only a supposition, based on the FACT that she was later willing to compromise her stand on a permanent ban, to try to get a 10 year "extension" passed.
The gene pool needs chlorine.