In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Come Get It NRA Bashers!!!
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Heheheh... Calm down. I'm not mad at'cha. I've just got another one of my marvelous ideas that might make us all happy. For those of you who have indentified and harbor disagreement about particular NRA failures/mistakes, why not put that disagreement into the form of an online petition and instead of just spreading dissent with the NRA, instead encourage people to sign your online petition and when you get plenty of signers, forward it to some particular executive (or all the board of directors, etc) at the NRA headquarters.
That way maybe you could actually bring about constructive change within the NRA. Heck, if I agree with a particular petititon I'll sign it. If nothing else you could perhaps even post your particular complaint here on the Gunrights forum (if that's ok with Pickenup) as a topic and encourage everyone who agrees to post that agreement and then print a hardcopy and forward it to the NRA.
Or something like that. Better than arguing.
That way maybe you could actually bring about constructive change within the NRA. Heck, if I agree with a particular petititon I'll sign it. If nothing else you could perhaps even post your particular complaint here on the Gunrights forum (if that's ok with Pickenup) as a topic and encourage everyone who agrees to post that agreement and then print a hardcopy and forward it to the NRA.
Or something like that. Better than arguing.
Comments
Question;
1. Do you (as gun owners) want the NRA to go on the offence concerning our gun rights? To actively try to roll back some/ALL of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws, that are on the books today, rather than the semi-defensive position they seem to have assumed? Up to, and including, the laws they wrote, or helped get passed?
2. Do you want the NRA to take a firmer stand (less/no compromising) when it comes to future attacks on our rights?
3. Do you want the NRA to publish a financial accounting statement?
Good form, fox!!![^]
Thankya, thankya very much[8D]
Do you believe that restrictions on firearms could reduce crime, or would it be preferable to severely punish violent criminals?
How's the following for an NRA petition:
There is a large and growing segment of the NRA members and previous members who is growing tired of compromise. We'd very much prefer that the NRA follow the GOA's lead, and not give up ground in the name of staying ahead. Specifically, we call for the NRA to fiercely oppose the machine gun ban included in their 1986 FOPA, and be much more opposed to the 1968 GCA. No further compromises. We must take back lost ground. We must always remember that we can't preserve our right to keep and bear arms by compromising it away. I call for all supporters of gun rights -along with all who have left the NRA due to compromise- to sign this petition, so we can get a more accurate idea of the number of no-compromise gun owners there are, and to hopefully get the attention of the NRA leaders.
Geez, I sound like a lawyer! Defender, WHERE ARE YOU?!?
[;)]
In the case of gun rights I would be totally no compromise if:
*The 2nd amendment had been written in a stronger and better way in regards to describing our gun rights with no room for the anti-gunners to quibble.
*The majority of Americans were on our side as compared to neutral or actually against our gun rights.
*If sleazy politicians, judges, lawyers and anti-gun pressure groups were not able to corrupt, twist and even change the meaning of the printed words that are supposed to give us our rights.
Of course if all the above had happened, we wouldn't need this conversation.
Compromise is what has saved many a person from a more harsh outcome than they would have gotten had they not used "compromise" to deal with their situation.
Compromise is what you and your family do when disagreeing about planning a family vacation, when your and your boss are debating your pay raise, when you are held at gunpoint (you without your gun) and your choice is to hand over your wallet without being shot or being shot and robber taking your wallet, when you take most strong prescription meds you compromise by hopefully getting well even though the side effects of the meds might make you temporarily sick or even shorten your life.
Compromise (by SOMEBODY)is the only reason the AWB is not still alive and well and did sunset automatically. Because the compromising clause providing for the automatic sunset was inserted into the AWB when the pro-gunners saw they could not stop the ban.
I cannot demand that the NRA or anyone/anything else be forced to abandon the sometimes valuable tool of "compromise".
Compromise may work in some instances but not in others.
Appeasement equals defeat. Winston Churchill, speaking to the failing of compromise; Churchill said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile ---- hoping it will eat him last."
Just a thought.
Let's not make things even harder to debate than they already are by trying to mix the terms "compromise" and "appeasement".
This is the wrong question to be asking. This concedes that it is the job of the police to take care of us. Ask this question: "What do you believe would actually reduce crime, and why?"
Hell, someone might actually think something up that is the cutting edge of criminology, you never know.
But consider this: Banning firearms is victim disarmament, which gives criminals a gov't guarantee that they can attack at will virtually anyone they want, and not be assaulted back. They can rob, rape and kill at will. This creates an auspicious hunting ground, and attracts evildoers to a region with these types of restriction.
Prosecution, on the other hand, can be an expensive and drawn out complication of the legal system. Restrain them, and when they resturn to civilization, they are now generally stronger, meaner, and have had a lot of time to consider how they can be better at what they did, so as to not be caught. Their lives are screwed, because they have absolutely no hope of getting anything worthwhile, due to their police record, which will blacklist them, and they know it, and gravitate toward crime once more. Problem not solved.
Arm the populace, and there may never be a such thing as a repeat offender, because they were eliminated the first time they assaulted the wrong person.
Don't limit the creative process....
quote:Do you believe that restrictions on firearms could reduce crime, or would it be preferable to severely punish violent criminals?
This is the wrong question to be asking. This concedes that it is the job of the police to take care of us. Ask this question: "What do you believe would actually reduce crime, and why?"
Hell, someone might actually think something up that is the cutting edge of criminology, you never know.
But consider this: Banning firearms is victim disarmament, which gives criminals a gov't guarantee that they can attack at will virtually anyone they want, and not be assaulted back. They can rob, rape and kill at will. This creates an auspicious hunting ground, and attracts evildoers to a region with these types of restriction.
Prosecution, on the other hand, can be an expensive and drawn out complication of the legal system. Restrain them, and when they resturn to civilization, they are now generally stronger, meaner, and have had a lot of time to consider how they can be better at what they did, so as to not be caught. Their lives are screwed, because they have absolutely no hope of getting anything worthwhile, due to their police record, which will blacklist them, and they know it, and gravitate toward crime once more. Problem not solved.
Arm the populace, and there may never be a such thing as a repeat offender, because they were eliminated the first time they assaulted the wrong person.
Don't limit the creative process....
Dang, Gunphreak, your whole post is great thinking, but the part I put in red is truly excellent thinking.
This is why I cringe every time I hear the NRA or anyone else say, "let's enforce the laws on the books." I would rather they say, "Let's roll back these counterproductive laws, and rely more on the laws against killing, rape and robbery."
That would get things moving in the right direction...
quote:Dang, Gunphreak, your whole post is great thinking, but the part I put in red is truly excellent thinking.
This is why I cringe every time I hear the NRA or anyone else say, "let's enforce the laws on the books." I would rather they say, "Let's roll back these counterproductive laws, and rely more on the laws against killing, rape and robbery."
That would get things moving in the right direction...
Well, sure, you're right on that. But for all we know the NRA's stragety is to first improve things just by getting the anti-gunners to admit that they should be happy just to enforce the existing laws and that no additional laws are really needed.
Once that idea takes root, it would be much, much easier for the NRA to then start a campaign of "let's roll back the unneeded gun laws, etc.". Surely you can agree with that idea. And maybe that is the long-term plan of the NRA. There is no way to know. I hope the NRA is not stupid enough to reveal their stragety to the public.
Wayne probably got bumped up to a high priority target that night.[:D]
Here is one FACT that we DO know. It was the NRA's OWN "Project Exile" (enforce ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws) that had Clinton, as well as Handgun Control walking arm in arm, with the NRA.
Handgun Control and the NRA on the same side??? That should set off the warning bells. But sadly for "some" nothing will wake them up.
Here is another "for all we know"
The NRA may be WRITING more anti-gun/UN-constitutional legislation. Waiting only for the right person to sponsor it, and for enough supporters to get it passed. As the HISTORY of the NRA has PROVEN that they HAVE DONE.
My "for all we know" could be said, to be supported by historical facts. Is yours? Show me one (just one) MAJOR anti-gun law that has been repealed (not allowed to expire, or sunset, but repealed) by the actions of the NRA.
I see where you are going, and it seems a logical plan, however, the NRA has the opportunity, now to expose gun laws for the frauds that they are. As a matter of fact, they have been doing that lately. Have you had a chance to listen in on Wayne LaPierre's debate with one of PETA's higher ups? He handed that guy's @$$ to him and turned the whole debate into a "PETA members are terrorists" issue. They denied it, and Wayne puled out an arsenal of documents showing funding by PETA to known arsonists, terrorists and other fraudulent people, revealed a terrorist manual written by the PETA organization, and had that guy speechless.
Wayne probably got bumped up to a high priority target that night.[:D]
EXACTLY! And in so doing, Wayne and the NRA struck a major blow against those who would disarm us. Yet few here will even appreciate that. For example, see Pickenup's post.
For all we know???
Here is one FACT that we DO know. It was the NRA's OWN "Project Exile" (enforce ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws) that had Clinton, as well as Handgun Control walking arm in arm, with the NRA.
Handgun Control and the NRA on the same side??? That should set off the warning bells. But sadly for "some" nothing will wake them up.
Here is another "for all we know"
The NRA may be WRITING more anti-gun/UN-constitutional legislation. Waiting only for the right person to sponsor it, and for enough supporters to get it passed. As the HISTORY of the NRA has PROVEN that they HAVE DONE.
My "for all we know" could be said, to be supported by historical facts. Is yours? Show me one (just one) MAJOR anti-gun law that has been repealed (not allowed to expire, or sunset, but repealed) by the actions of the NRA.
My,my. Such anger. Not good for your health.
The NRA has not been expounded of anything, yet.
If memory serves me right, Project Exile was done during Bush's first term, and did not have the NRA and HCI tongue in cheek. There wasn't enough antigun language in it for HCI's liking, and yes, if it is just about enforcing existing laws without proposing new one HCI will throw a temper tantrum. I wish some of them would die of asphyxiation from holding their breath until they turned blue, though.
NRA... we hate compromise, but if you're gonna do it, follow up on it, and take more back, later, until we have it all the way it should be. We should not be in the damage control business, we need to be setting matters right.
My,my. Such anger. Not good for your health.
Anger? What anger?
I`m not surprised at your response at all. When presented with FACTS that you can't dispute, or a challenge you can't meet, you typically revert to personal retorts. No....nothing new here. Could it be, to find that anger that you speak of, a mirror may be of service?
*****
Project Exile was first tried in Richmond Virginia in 1997, two years before being implemented in Philadelphia in 1999.
Here is a "quote" from the NRA-ILA website.
Please, oh PLEASE enforce UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws.
quote:"For more than a decade, Wayne LaPierre has been urging, pleading, and yes, even begging, the federal government to fully enforce existing laws and prosecute armed criminals without delay, discussion or plea bargain," Heston said. "And they finally started doing that in Richmond and now, with this great effort in Philadelphia. And as it spreads, let no man mistake. It started with one single, lone voice in the wilderness -- the voice of ." Wayne LaPierre
Pickenup posted:
quote:
"For more than a decade, Wayne LaPierre has been urging, pleading, and yes, even begging, the federal government to fully enforce existing laws and prosecute armed criminals without delay, discussion or plea bargain," Heston said. "And they finally started doing that in Richmond and now, with this great effort in Philadelphia. And as it spreads, let no man mistake. It started with one single, lone voice in the wilderness -- the voice of ." Wayne LaPierre
My take on this is that the better a "citizen" the NRA can appear to be, to that great gun rights, undecided group of citizens, the more likely the NRA can get enough respect from that group and therefore be in a position to be more effective with that group in regards to when speaking out for gun rights.
Now Pickenup, you would like, for example, the words of LaPierre to be evidence that the NRA actively works against gun rights. But I choose to look below the surface of those comments and I therefore disagree with you.
First of all, it would do no good for the NRA or LaPierre to ask the government to NOT strictly enforce existing gun laws because the government is going to do whatever it damn well pleases in that regard. Plus such a stance would seem to put the NRA in the same camp as with the criminals. By asking for enforcement of existing gun laws, that has the effect of putting the NRA in the same camp as the lawful citizens. Plus such a request kinda puts the government on the spot because if they ignore LaPierre's idea, but still push for more and more guns laws, it will make the government look like hypocrits.
So LaPierre is giving nothing away by making his request and is in effect perhaps even laying the ground work to later take the position that no further gun laws are needed because it is now obvious that the present laws work just fine . If this is the case I myself consider this a slick, political chess type of move. Plus, it might set the stage to later come back and say that prosecution of armed criminals is going so well that we seem to have more gun laws than are needed so maybe it is time to roll some of them back.
I chose to think this way but I am sure you would rather think the worst about the NRA.
And in regards to the comment "prosecute armed criminals" would you rather he took the opposite side of that situation and instead requested that the authorities NOT "prosecute armed criminals"?
Armed criminals, and their repeat and continued gun crimes is one of the big reasons so many people are urging stronger and stronger gun laws. I personally WANT armed criminals prosecuted. Get them off the street and then there will be fewer gun crimes and hopefully less reason for the anti-gun groups.
Is this kind of what you mean? This is just a sample.
Question;
1. Do you (as gun owners) want the NRA to go on the offence concerning our gun rights? To actively try to roll back some/ALL of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws, that are on the books today, rather than the semi-defensive position they seem to have assumed? Up to, and including, the laws they wrote, or helped get passed?
2. Do you want the NRA to take a firmer stand (less/no compromising) when it comes to future attacks on our rights?
3. Do you want the NRA to publish a financial accounting statement?
What even happened to the idea of actually doing something other that all of us arguing among ourselves? If the NRA needs changing, our arguing here is not going to change it. You critics must actually contact the NRA with your complaints. Now Pickenup is the only critic who has actually offered an idea.(posted above). But no one has acted on it. I am not a critic so I am not going to act on it. But somebody should.
Otherwise I will begin to think that all you critics just like to criticize. And do nothing constructive other than criticize.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
What even happened to the idea of actually doing something other that all of us arguing among ourselves?
It was your idea. You run with it.
You critics must actually contact the NRA with your complaints.
I do.
Don't worry about my health, I'll be gone soon enough.
You go so far as to publicly admit that you HATE me, you also admit to posting purposely inflammatory posts aimed at me (which, you said, I answered with a "civilized demeanor")
then you say "I" have an anger problem??? (pickenup shakes his head in amazement)
I try to post facts. YOU, on the other hand, use words like ANGER, HATE, etc. Like I said, a mirror might be of service.
I hear this constantly from the gun grabbers, about the "powerful gun lobby" working "as one unified force", and for once, I wish they were right on the money.
Problem is, we are divided, and we are not one juggernaut unified force constantly tearing down their efforts to victimize the public.
You guys think about this a minute: hunters turn their back on paramilitary rifle owners, because they subscribed to the whole "sporting purposes" idea, paramilitary rifle owners (like me) have absolutely no use for those same hunters for that same reason, and finally, there are the fence sitters who realize gun laws are bad, but seem to believe some are necessary, and that CCW laws are a step in the right direction, and really, they may be the bait for something tragic.
If the NRA really wanted to do good things for the gun owning community, it would make a much better effort to unify its forces, and get them all; as many as possible; under one banner that realizes the guns that you concede today are the stepping stones to all the rest of them. I don't care what it is that you own; gun grabbers want them gone. They want them gone for one reason.
In order for democracy; their democracy, to work (to their benefit), there can be no trump cards. NONE!!! A gun in the hands of one man can hold sway to a hundred men without guns; historical fact. How can they trample your rights with you standing guard over them? They can't. Their only hope is to disarm you first, and overwhelm you next (not altogether original in concept, I might add).
Gun grabbers scream bloody murder whenever they want something and don't get it, just like a bunch of babies. Their goal is not some guns; it is all of them. If you allow AR-15's to be banned today, tomorrow it will be your shotguns. I guarantee that will be next.
So, maybe that should be the next step for the NRA. It publishes magazines and other things.. lots of different titles. It's time they draw upon the strength of all their members, and stop playing lip service to the gov't for "acceptable" conceded rights, and coddling to the LEO environment like they are super citizens and crapping on the average Joe Citizen, and group us all as important under a single, unified banner. Could a cop truly argue that other law abiders should be denied inalienable human rights? If they did, are they fit to serve these same people? Absolutely not!!!
So quit bickering. You guys make the gun grabbers laugh at us all, and that is meant to be demoralizing, and I hate to see it.
As I have pointed out..gun-owners defending gun laws are a MUCH bigger problem then ALL the Shumers in the world.
Why ? Because one invites them into your home..(so to speak..they become leaders of the NRA, for example)..and like a rattlesnake, when you least expect it...they strike you with a load of venom.
I will make peace with the compromisers when they admit they are driving our rights into the ground.No amount of sermonizing is changing that fact.
Either you BELIEVE in the Second Amendment...or one doesn't. We weaken our position EVERY TIME we allow a gun owner to sign on to a gun law...and don't call them out.
You see...that makes us ALL appear to be weak-kneed..squishey on the Constitution. I prefer to drive them out of cover...FORCE them to admit they support gun control.
Pickenup and tr, you two should really try to get along better. [:o)]
A lot of us here are professed fans of LEO special privileges and CCW laws, because they are viewed as "a step in the right direction", but how many of us would like this to be a non-issue? I, for one, would like to see all this run its course, so that there are no gun laws, and we rely upon the laws of rape murder and robbery, instead. It would make a whole lot more sense, now wouldn't it???
I have been soundly REJECTED at every attempt. I can not, and will not "lay down" when an action is taken against our gun rights. No matter WHO is taking this action.
Sugar coating anyone's (or any groups) actions, with "what ifs" or "for all we knows" doesn't cut it. These are being pulled out of .....uh.....thin air, and can be made to go either way. I prefer to go with facts, along with the history of actions, rather than these "blue sky" statements.
It doesn't matter which guns we are talking about, paramilitary firearms, hunting firearms, handguns, defensive weapons. If one can not get fellow "gun owners" to open their eyes enough to see that there is a problem with our "representatives" over our
BASIC
gun rights. A problem that we should ALL be working on trying to correct. What hope do we have, of convincing anti-gunners or fence sitters......of anything?
gunphreak,
I TOTALLY agree. Prosecuting the CRIMINAL for the CRIMES they commit, is what should be happening. Not punishing the legal citizen for owning (or wanting to own) a firearm.
To get back to the subject, my personal opinion is that if the authorities would do nothing more than enforce existing gun laws and prosecute armed criminals, that would be an improvement over what we gun owners are facing now.
What we are facing now is the many of the present gun laws (laws which I generally don't like either, but that alone will not make them go away) are not being enforced. Like prosecuting a criminal when he lies on a for 4473 in an attempt to buy a gun. Or when a gang banger, drive by shooter goes to court, the gun part of his crime is plea bargained away. Now, since so many of the existing gun laws AREN'T being enforced, that only adds fuel to the anti-gunners claim that we need more and more gun laws. So in my opinion, if the authorties started enforcing existing gun laws (hey, those laws are already there, I'm not asking for them to be created) then that might take a lot of wind out of the sails of the anti-gunners as far as them seeming to have good reason to demand more and more gun laws. BTW Pickenup, notice that word I used that you "hate" so much; "that might".
In regards to fully prosecuting armed criminals and maybe (o-o-h-h, there's a "maybe", Pickenup ain't gonna like that) helping to reduce gun crime, gun crime that now makes the average citizen THINK WE NEED MORE GUN LAWS, and maybe getting more violent criminals off the streets and away from my family, well, anyone who can't support that part of LaPierre's plan needs to see the Wizard of OZ and get a brain.
And once some sense and rational thinking was "perhaps" restored to the gun rights wars, "maybe" God Da*n it we could try rolling back as many of those unneeded gun laws as possible.
Of course, it is much easier to get mad at me and rant and rave here on this forum than to try and think things through.
On its face this seems good. Hey, it wouldn't get worse, right? Well, it could if those same enforcers decide to target us for one of 20,000 technicality laws that have nothing to do with malum in se violations, the ones that are wrong because they are evil.
I would just insist that those leos go after robbers, rapers and killers, and not harass the owner of a rifle that is double-firing because a part is worn down, or even a person who converted his rifle to fire full-auto, because the mere ownership of something that does not infringe on the rights of others should not constitute a crime.
quote:Now, since so many of the existing gun laws AREN'T being enforced, that only adds fuel to the anti-gunners claim that we need more and more gun laws.
Any time a gun is used, it is automatically stepped up in seriousness. Antigunners do not require fuel. They rely on emotions. Anytime they feel the system failed them, they whine for more laws because they believe the law will protect them, and of course, this is a delusion.
quote:So in my opinion, if the authorties started enforcing existing gun laws (hey, those laws are already there, I'm not asking for them to be created) then that might take a lot of wind out of the sails of the anti-gunners as far as them seeming to have good reason to demand more and more gun laws.
It won't. Every time something occurs outside the boundaries of the law, like the use of a paramilitary rifle to kill people, they are going to whine about there not being a law that bans them, and that being said, anti's do not require fuel; they'll find some on their own.
quote:In regards to fully prosecuting armed criminals and maybe (o-o-h-h, there's a "maybe", Pickenup ain't gonna like that) helping to reduce gun crime, gun crime that now makes the average citizen THINK WE NEED MORE GUN LAWS, and maybe getting more violent criminals off the streets and away from my family, well, anyone who can't support that part of LaPierre's plan needs to see the Wizard of OZ and get a brain.
That's because the word "counterproductive" or any of its derivatives, have not yet been used to describe gun laws.
Here's the difference:
They say "gun laws are necessary".
We say "gun laws don't work". Flaw in logic: If they don't work, at least they are not causing any damage, so it should not really matter if they are on the books or not.
I say "gun laws are racist, classist, elitist, and have created the atmosphere to which criminals thrive. I will not support these things."
See a difference? I just used a bunch of words they love throwing at us when we win the logic battle against them, and it is the God honest truth. Someone needs to suggest this to the NRA. They aren't listening to me.
quote:And once some sense and rational thinking was "perhaps" restored to the gun rights wars, "maybe" God Da*n it we could try rolling back as many of those unneeded gun laws as possible.
Change "unneeded" to "counterproductive", and you totally change the scope of the sentence. See a difference?
I'm sure, fox, that you want to be a good soldier in the gun rights war, and I'm just arming you properly for the fight. You do understand, right?
quote:To get back to the subject, my personal opinion is that if the authorities would do nothing more than enforce existing gun laws and prosecute armed criminals, that would be an improvement over what we gun owners are facing now.
On its face this seems good. Hey, it wouldn't get worse, right? Well, it could if those same enforcers decide to target us for one of 20,000 technicality laws that have nothing to do with malum in se violations, the ones that are wrong because they are evil.
I would just insist that those leos go after robbers, rapers and killers, and not harass the owner of a rifle that is double-firing because a part is worn down, or even a person who converted his rifle to fire full-auto, because the mere ownership of something that does not infringe on the rights of others should not constitute a crime.
quote:Now, since so many of the existing gun laws AREN'T being enforced, that only adds fuel to the anti-gunners claim that we need more and more gun laws.
Any time a gun is used, it is automatically stepped up in seriousness. Antigunners do not require fuel. They rely on emotions. Anytime they feel the system failed them, they whine for more laws because they believe the law will protect them, and of course, this is a delusion.
quote:So in my opinion, if the authorties started enforcing existing gun laws (hey, those laws are already there, I'm not asking for them to be created) then that might take a lot of wind out of the sails of the anti-gunners as far as them seeming to have good reason to demand more and more gun laws.
It won't. Every time something occurs outside the boundaries of the law, like the use of a paramilitary rifle to kill people, they are going to whine about there not being a law that bans them, and that being said, anti's do not require fuel; they'll find some on their own.
quote:In regards to fully prosecuting armed criminals and maybe (o-o-h-h, there's a "maybe", Pickenup ain't gonna like that) helping to reduce gun crime, gun crime that now makes the average citizen THINK WE NEED MORE GUN LAWS, and maybe getting more violent criminals off the streets and away from my family, well, anyone who can't support that part of LaPierre's plan needs to see the Wizard of OZ and get a brain.
That's because the word "counterproductive" or any of its derivatives, have not yet been used to describe gun laws.
Here's the difference:
They say "gun laws are necessary".
We say "gun laws don't work". Flaw in logic: If they don't work, at least they are not causing any damage, so it should not really matter if they are on the books or not.
I say "gun laws are racist, classist, elitist, and have created the atmosphere to which criminals thrive. I will not support these things."
See a difference? I just used a bunch of words they love throwing at us when we win the logic battle against them, and it is the God honest truth. Someone needs to suggest this to the NRA. They aren't listening to me.
quote:And once some sense and rational thinking was "perhaps" restored to the gun rights wars, "maybe" God Da*n it we could try rolling back as many of those unneeded gun laws as possible.
Change "unneeded" to "counterproductive", and you totally change the scope of the sentence. See a difference?
I'm sure, fox, that you want to be a good soldier in the gun rights war, and I'm just arming you properly for the fight. You do understand, right?
If I wanted to take the time I could minutely critique a lot of posts I have read. But I "understand" that you usually treat me with respect and courtesy. Thats good enough for me.
I know. And you do, just as I do. Sometimes, we look at each other like we just don't understand each other, although we do know where each other is coming from to some degree.
But you have to admit, by using a term like "flaw in logic", and then explain in a way that most people understand, it is a critique, that you can accept of at least note, but it isn't an attack, right?
You may also note that I will nail others equally, and it isn't just you... We need to be under a single banner.
We need to be under a single banner.
I like this part of gunphreak's last post the best. Instead of bickering in a website forum, why don't we unite and form our own organization in government to get OUR ball rolling? If the NRA doesn't support what we want them to support, then why should we support them? Let's make our own "NRA", take it to Washington and make some waves in government.
I'm sure that there's enough pro-gun people out there who share our views that we could make it work. This is, after all, the United States of America, where anyone with enough ambition and drive can achive anything regardless of the speed bumps in their road.
I'm sure that there's enough pro-gun people out there who share our views that we could make it work. This is, after all, the United States of America, where anyone with enough ambition and drive can achive anything regardless of the speed bumps in their road.
I don't honestly believe we need to do this. We have the NRA, but we have people who are not in step with gun rights, only their rights, so they are not interested in protecting other's rights. That needs to change. They also need to see that in every loss, there is not a silver lining, and beat the drums of war to the infringement of every single right in question. That can easily be done, so long as the troops understand fully what is at stake.
NRA files a court challenge to the Gay Bay gun ban, and I cringe, I admit it, but this very attitude is an example of not standing up for others' rights. As I have stated, before, San Francisco is liberal dominated, I say let it stand, and insist that any self-respecting person leave the area, and let the criminals prey on the liberal remnants long enough, and through attrition, it could be an awesome liberal slaughtering ground. Hey, if the truth won't change their minds, and make them fix the problem, then I say let them die. The Darwin Awards could then honor entire communities for their efforts at extricating weak links out of society, and without any help.
quote:I like this part of gunphreak's last post the best. Instead of bickering in a website forum, why don't we unite and form our own organization in government to get OUR ball rolling? If the NRA doesn't support what we want them to support, then why should we support them? Let's make our own "NRA", take it to Washington and make some waves in government.
I'm sure that there's enough pro-gun people out there who share our views that we could make it work. This is, after all, the United States of America, where anyone with enough ambition and drive can achive anything regardless of the speed bumps in their road.
I don't honestly believe we need to do this. We have the NRA, but we have people who are not in step with gun rights, only their rights, so they are not interested in protecting other's rights. That needs to change. They also need to see that in every loss, there is not a silver lining, and beat the drums of war to the infringement of every single right in question. That can easily be done, so long as the troops understand fully what is at stake.
NRA files a court challenge to the Gay Bay gun ban, and I cringe, I admit it, but this very attitude is an example of not standing up for others' rights. As I have stated, before, San Francisco is liberal dominated, I say let it stand, and insist that any self-respecting person leave the area, and let the criminals prey on the liberal remnants long enough, and through attrition, it could be an awesome liberal slaughtering ground. Hey, if the truth won't change their minds, and make them fix the problem, then I say let them die. The Darwin Awards could then honor entire communities for their efforts at extricating weak links out of society, and without any help.
If only it would work out that simply, logically and predictably.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
We need to be under a single banner.
I like this part of gunphreak's last post the best. Instead of bickering in a website forum, why don't we unite and form our own organization in government to get OUR ball rolling? If the NRA doesn't support what we want them to support, then why should we support them? Let's make our own "NRA", take it to Washington and make some waves in government.
I'm sure that there's enough pro-gun people out there who share our views that we could make it work. This is, after all, the United States of America, where anyone with enough ambition and drive can achive anything regardless of the speed bumps in their road.
I don't think any two people on this forum agree on anything. In fact, some people here will actually express anger at you if you present a position they don't like or if you present it in a way that ticks them off. So how do you think you can find enough people to actually form a new gun rights groups that would be worth a damn?
Besides, it is a whole he!! of a lot easier and cheaper to remodel an existing house than to plan and build a brand new one.