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.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
A challenge: Tell us what PRO-GUN legislation Bush has introduced, supported, signed into law, glanced at, or vaguely even endorsed via proxy?
quote:I see a lot of this from the less educated forum members...I confer the Double-Duh Award for Appalling Stupidity to Highball for that one. DUH! DUH!
Wow, I think the above quote speaks for itself, tallcharlie. Are you bi-polar?
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005 by President Bush and became Public Law 109-92.
A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004, after being combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.
1. Pro-gun legislation passed and signed into law.
2. Anti-gun legislation defeated.
3. Does that count?
quote:Originally posted by Highball
You well educated, college trained folks...are amusing.
Able to throw words about..able to make make black into white at will.Occasionally, someone might hand you a fact that makes you stop and rethink your beliefs and opinions. If you then change your mind, is that necessarily a bad thing?quote:I have no intension of debating you on the minutia of this or that law. I operate out of a simple fact. That which makes goverment bigger and more powerful is evil. I don't expect big brother to like that..and I don't expect them to ignore that position in the populace much longer.I agree with your sentiments about government power and intrusiveness 100%. Your presumptions otherwise are simply wrong.quote:The line between freedom and slavery grows more visible every day. Folks like you have staked your honor, your futures, on big brother. We indeed have nothing in common.
It is not freedom or slavery, my friend. The choice is between freedom or tyranny, and that is much worse.
In the antibellum South, slaves had the hope of manumission, and once they became freedmen, they could partake of freedom the likes of which we cannot imagine. That was true both North and South.
Abraham Lincoln, in total disregard of the Constitution, waged war on several states because they no longer wanted to be a part of the great experiment. From that point forward, there was no freedom in America. For while we can voice our opinions (within limits), worship as we want (so long as it does not offend the ACLU and our neighborhood atheist), write a letter criticizing a politician (as long as it is not within 30 days of an election), or educate our children in a church-owned school (so long as we still pay our taxes to support the horrible public schools) - while we can do all this - we can't say, "We've had enough. We're leaving."
We cannot voluntarily leave the Union we voluntarily joined.
(Imagine if the Rotary made it official policy to beat-up and kill members who quit coming to the meetings!)
Because if we do try to leave, the Union will come and kill us. We are not slaves to the Union because we can never hope to be free of that Union. It will kill us if we try to get away, just as surely as Saddam Hussein killed Kurds for trying to break away, or Hitler killed union members for disagreeing with him, or Russia killed Chezchnyans.
Highball, I thought about your post for several hours before replying. I need to point out that your presumptuous statement that you could tell me what I was thinking was totally wrong.
You confused my support of an administration that strives to operate within the limits of the Constitution with some kind of Big Brother worship. It just isn't so. My political beliefs are somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan.
Here are a few of my mantras:
It should be mandatory that every chld is taught to shoot a gun (shotgun, rifle, revolver, and semi-auto pistol) in elementary school at government expense. The kids need to know the gun laws, too, by the time they get out of high school.
There should be a national, right-to-carry law that allows anyone, anywhere to carry a concealed weapon.
Let everybody carry a gun. Everybody. Burials in Potter's field are cheaper than Circuit Court trials, and the lawsuits will keep the lawyers just as busy.
California needs to secede from the Union, and take their screwy politics with them. I'd go fight for them if they promised to stay gone. Massachussetts, too. Those ungrateful Yankees need to take a look at their own barn for a change. It's full of crap: Kennedy, Kerry, Barney Frank.
Gays have a place in our society, but it is not teaching our children their abnormal philosophies. No gay teachers, no gay scout leaders, no gay preachers, no gay little league coaches. Period.
No earmarked items in the budget or any other appropriations bill. Kill pork before it makes it to the barrel.
Put a constitutional cap on the federal budget, as a percent of the GDP, except in time of DECLARED war.
We need a Constitutional amendment that clearly states that the rights, privileges, and benefits (including welfare supported by Federa funds) of the Constitution are reserved exclusively for citizens and legal aliens while in the USA. It should also state that Constitutional protections do not apply to illegal aliens and prisoners of war.
Now tell me again how you "know" what I'm thinking.
Wow, This has led into one h_ll of a debate! [}:)]I'm not sure that the original topic has been covered but there certainly are some political issues at bay!It's simple to see that everyone in this forum are Gun owners and do not relish the thought of gun bans or government control of weapons. From a Political point , Is there any Politician we can trust? I doubt it! But the good thing is , We all have a right to vote for those who will protect the laws we all believe in. Hopefully gun laws aren't the only issues that sway our votes. Being aware of legislature that is designed to take away our rights and those that propose them are issues that need accute attention , and some individuals such as(tallcharlie) are more capable and savy the political delemas that oppose us.I may not see everything from his point of view , But He can articulate in detail what his political views are. Give him credit for what he Knows! And maybe Highball is not as educated as tallcharlie but he has the Cahones to say whats on his mind ,He may be a guy I'd like to have in a foxhole for backup . I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all believe in the same issues, but are individuals when it come to opinions .Working together keeps the gun in our hands!
quote by tallcharlie
It should be mandatory that every chld is taught to shoot a gun (shotgun, rifle, revolver, and semi-auto pistol) in elementary school at government expense. The kids need to know the gun laws, too, by the time they get out of high school.
There should be a national, right-to-carry law that allows anyone, anywhere to carry a concealed weapon.
Let everybody carry a gun. Everybody. Burials in Potter's field are cheaper than Circuit Court trials, and the lawsuits will keep the lawyers just as busy.
California needs to secede from the Union, and take their screwy politics with them. I'd go fight for them if they promised to stay gone. Massachussetts, too. Those ungrateful Yankees need to take a look at their own barn for a change. It's full of crap: Kennedy, Kerry, Barney Frank.
Gays have a place in our society, but it is not teaching our children their abnormal philosophies. No gay teachers, no gay scout leaders, no gay preachers, no gay little league coaches. Period.
_______________________________________________________________
biglou250,
First, welcome to the "Gun Rights" forum.
Second, when I read the following statement, well........
please explain.
quote:Originally posted by biglou250
Gun laws must be enforced to ensure that we keep our 2nd amendment right.
To ALL, watch the name calling/personal attacks. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
biglou250,
First, welcome to the "Gun Rights" forum.
Second, when I read the following statement, well........
please explain.
quote:Originally posted by biglou250
Gun laws must be enforced to ensure that we keep our 2nd amendment right.
What I mean by that is that the gun laws that stand today should be enforced before further gun bans should be set in place. Politicians see gun ban as a easy a way out to lower gun violence across America and they think its the answer to all their problems. They need to work on finding out where the criminals are getting their weapons from before the infringe on gun owners rights.
I don't think the gangsters are having problems finding guns and think they are the main reason for the gun violence and think the BATF or local enforcement should be going after them instead of you and me. Gun owning is a right but it also is a privilege, if you take advantage of that right and kill someone or involved in illegal activity your right should be no longer. Enforce current laws before setting new ones.
Tallcharlie;
Your defense of the administration led me to believe..erroneously..certain things typical of Bushbots. My apologies.
Conversely, what seems my 'defense' of the she-demon..is in reality a reaction to slimy politicians of EVERY stripe..and the wish for a speedy resolution to the problems besetting this fair country.
The REAL threat..for the ignorant out there..ISN'T a desert rat 'doing us in'...no..the only REAl danger to America is indeed tyranny..the home-grown kind.
The answer to that threat is to allow them their head..give them PLENTY of rope..so that their sold-out souls are FINALLY visible to every couch-sitting, beer guzzling, fat-assed fanny kisser in the country....
All that being said..I could find only a couple points of disagreement in your dissertation.
quote:
The kids need to know the gun laws, too, by the time they get out of high school. Ya....but were freedom to ring again...this part of the class would be brief."Missuse a gun...face the conseqences".
quote:There should be a national, right-to-carry law that allows anyone, anywhere to carry a concealed weapon.Registration of armed citizens is what the Beast is driving towards..why should we as gun-owners make their job easier ?
Better by far swift, sure justice for those misusing firearms. We speak now of a time when freedom is once again restored to this land...for if we know not where we PREFER to be...how can we know how to get there ?
As many of you old timers on here know well...
I am given to attacking in a rather nasty way...purposely.
The men amoung us..the only ones I wish to speak to..will often react savagely to the baiting. After a period of time, thought kicks in..and properous discussions ensue.
The psychotic and the kids continue to spew their vitrolic out upon the airwaves..and are ignored.
I appreciate the kind words...but remember that I bring the attacks upon myself..and have none save myself to blame.
quote:Why are you guys so faithful to a woman that wants to take away your 2nd amendment rights?
Big Lou, I have never once endorsed Hilary Clinton and have absolutely no faith or admiration in her. I have never voted for a Clinton and have no plans of doing so in the future.
quote:The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005 by President Bush and became Public Law 109-92.
Tallcharlie, I STRONGLY disagree with your take on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was in fact yet another NRA compromise of our gun rights. If you would like more detail then please read my comments that I wrote at the time on this issue:
Tallcharlie, I also apologize for the "bi-polar" comment, as it was inappropriate. I do find your approach contradictory however. You chastize people for being uneducated in their responses, yet dive head first into the mud a few short sentences later. It does seem hypocritical to me.
I otherwise enjoyed and agreed with most of your response. I especially took the following comment to heart:
quote:Abraham Lincoln, in total disregard of the Constitution, waged war on several states because they no longer wanted to be a part of the great experiment. From that point forward, there was no freedom in America.
I too have come to the same conclusion. The Civil War, it seems, freed our nation from the bondage of slavery, only to deliver it to the shackles of government tyranny.
biglou250,
Thank you for your explanation. That is about what I thought, just wanted to make sure. Your new here, and I understand (although I can't agree) with what your saying. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, keep in mind though, that opinions have been known to be changed. (Including my own [;)])
About your statement, it sounds kind of like what the NRA came up with, by way of their very own "Project Exile." If you are not familiar with it, it was a controversial federal program started by the NRA in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. Basically saying to enforce EXISTING gun laws to the MAX, instead of creating new laws. Sound familiar?
Now to get a real feel for this new program, one has to look at who supported it, and who opposed it. In SUPPORT, was former president Clinton, and "Handgun Control" along with other well known ANTI-gun people/organizations, etc. Can you imagine Clinton and Handgun Control agreeing with ANY "pro-gun" organization??? Well, they did this time.
Those opposing Project Exile was a coalition consisting of EVERY OTHER pro-gun rights group in the U.S. except the NRA. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Angel Shamaya of KeepAndBearArms.com, and "former" NRA director Russ Howard. Other prominent opponents who were members of this anti-Exile coalition included Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne. A "Project Exile Condemnation Petition" was launched by Brian Puckett of GunTruths.com.
One of the main reasons given, for opposing Project Exile, was that existing gun laws are UNconstitutional violations of the 2nd amendment. (there were other reasons)
Many........no.....I'll go so far as to say MOST of the gun owners, that post on these forums, make the claim that they are totally pro-gun. In reality, MOST are in some way ANTI-GUN. Whether it concerns the machine gun laws, background checks, concealed carry issues, etc. Most are in support of at least "some" of the UNconstitutional laws on the books today. There are a select few that actually believe in what the constitution said. "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." One either believes in the constitution.......or not.
quote:There are a select few that actually believe in what the constitution said. "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." One either believes in the constitution.......or not.
THAT is the REAL " Band of Brothers"..an unbroken line back into the dark ages...the primal cry to be free of useless rules, regulations, and laws put into place to ensure that those with a lust for power are protected and allowed to advance their personal agenda to control ever other individual o the face of the earth.
The Founders broke that chain..with blood.
We have allowed and encourged that chain to be forged back about out necks.
Every man agreeing with gun laws that contravene the Constitution is strengthing that chain...because firearms are Liberty's Teeth.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was sponsored by a politician, reviewed by politicians, debated by politicians, passed by the vote of politicians, and signed into law by a politician.
It does not have to be perfect. In fact, when you consider its fundamental contamination by politics, it is a wonder it was even conceived.
However, someone wrote that Bush had never signed a pro-gun law. Despite its imperfections, this act is pro-gun, thus disproving the first assertion.
Someone also charged that Bush had done nothing to protect us from bad gun laws. The defeat of the attempt to amend the bill with a continuation of the assault weapons lookalike ban disproves that assertion.
Quotations from other administration officials do not prove the mindset or policies of the President any more than a Wal-Mart store manager's remarks represent the views and policies of the entire corporation.
Concerning your posting from last year:
The gun lock amendment makes little difference. When I sell a handgun, I furnish a gun lock and charge the buyer $5.00 for it (locks cost me about $5.50). Then I offer to buy back the lock. So far, none of the locks have made it out of the front door. In fact, I only have three of them, and they have been sufficient to cover the sales of at least 125 used pistols and revolvers. What matters is that the receipt shows that a gun lock was furnished thus proving compliance with the law and protecting my butt under the provisions of this very pro-gun law.
As far as the AP ammuntion goes, the example of brandishing or threatening is so far out in left field that it amounts to virtually nothing. Let's face it, if a prosecuting attorney is looking to be re-elected, he'll charge anybody with anything if he thinks it will get him a headline. And there are so many federal laws already that everyone in America could be charged with something under a federal statute.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
biglou250,
Thank you for your explanation. That is about what I thought, just wanted to make sure. Your new here, and I understand (although I can't agree) with what your saying. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, keep in mind though, that opinions have been known to be changed. (Including my own [;)])
About your statement, it sounds kind of like what the NRA came up with, by way of their very own "Project Exile." If you are not familiar with it, it was a controversial federal program started by the NRA in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. Basically saying to enforce EXISTING gun laws to the MAX, instead of creating new laws. Sound familiar?
Now to get a real feel for this new program, one has to look at who supported it, and who opposed it. In SUPPORT, was former president Clinton, and "Handgun Control" along with other well known ANTI-gun people/organizations, etc. Can you imagine Clinton and Handgun Control agreeing with ANY "pro-gun" organization??? Well, they did this time.
Those opposing Project Exile was a coalition consisting of EVERY OTHER pro-gun rights group in the U.S. except the NRA. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Angel Shamaya of KeepAndBearArms.com, and "former" NRA director Russ Howard. Other prominent opponents who were members of this anti-Exile coalition included Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne. A "Project Exile Condemnation Petition" was launched by Brian Puckett of GunTruths.com.
One of the main reasons given, for opposing Project Exile, was that existing gun laws are UNconstitutional violations of the 2nd amendment. (there were other reasons)
Many........no.....I'll go so far as to say MOST of the gun owners, that post on these forums, make the claim that they are totally pro-gun. In reality, MOST are in some way ANTI-GUN. Whether it concerns the machine gun laws, background checks, concealed carry issues, etc. Most are in support of at least "some" of the UNconstitutional laws on the books today. There are a select few that actually believe in what the constitution said. "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." One either believes in the constitution.......or not.
pickenup, I'm am most grateful you brought this to my attention. My opinion has changed enlight to the NRA program that you brought up that I wasn't aware of. I do totally believe that any gun rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The government should not be able to tell you and me what we can and cannot own. I live in a Illinois where you already have to register you guns and have a FOID card to buy them. The demo's have already taken advantage of my 2nd amendment rights and are now pushing for an Assault weapons ban at the state level. We have no concealed carry and are starting to look like bababooeyty California. Thank you very much for the info pickenup.
quote:"Keep up the good work boys. Owning a gun is every good citizens God given right. Don't let 'em take that away from you. Vote for the gun TODAY!!!" [}:)]
Sorry, pic was too big.
The first item of business..allow the enemy to define terms...and the war is lost without firing a single shot.
The day you got a concealed Carry..you gave up your God-Given Rights...and substituted "Permission to Carry" at that moment.
You ADMITTED to goverment...and the empty suits therein..that you HAVE NO GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO CARRY...only GOVERMENT PERMISSION to carry a gun.
Fight hard, gun-owners....fight to give your rights away to goverment..and pretend you are winning victories. After a few more such victories... the gun ban will happen without a whimper from the populace.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
"Right to Carry"...indeed.
The first item of business..allow the enemy to define terms...and the war is lost without firing a single shot.They have already done that, and the war continues.quote:
The day you got a concealed Carry..you gave up your God-Given Rights...and substituted "Permission to Carry" at that moment.As more and more people own and carry guns for their personal protection, the rightness, if you would, of the practice is seen. Example: the major networks coined the term Gunshine State in their effort to discredit and defeat Florida's must-issue CCW laws back in the 80s. The law passed, barely. Within a year, the crime rates in Florida had plummeted, and most Floridians came to understand and appreciate the undeniable value of concealed weapons. Today, you would be hard-put to pass an anti-gun law in Florida.
The important thing is to educate the unbelievers. While highball may be morally right, he is ignoring the 80% of the population who think guns are bad because that's what they've been told on TV. Convince that 80% otherwise, and bad gun laws will wither and die. Ignore that 80%, and the opposite happens.
CCW laws, besides reducing crime, saving lives, and giving people more freedom, are great pro-gun PR and serve to educate the know-nothing 80%. When crime drops 15% in a state immediately after a CCW right-to-carry law is passed, the message is unmistakable, even to liberal anti-gunners like my cousin in New Jersey!quote:
You ADMITTED to goverment...and the empty suits therein..that you HAVE NO GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO CARRY...only GOVERMENT PERMISSION to carry a gun.NO! You've forced the government to admit, recognize, codify, and formalize your right to keep and bear. You've made it ten times harder for an irresponsible politician to infringe that right in the future.quote:
Fight hard, gun-owners....fight to give your rights away to goverment..and pretend you are winning victories. After a few more such victories... the gun ban will happen without a whimper from the populace.Twenty years ago, new anti-gun bills were a dime a dozen in every statehouse. Now they are damned hard to find in the states that have CCW, and are getting rarer even in the Peoples' Republics of CA, IL, WI, NJ, and MA.
It was head-in-the-sand beliefs like highball's that let the anti-gun campaign get off to such a good start in 1963. We did not believe that our 2nd Amendment rights were seriously in jeopardy.
Well, now we've seen what these people want to do, and can never go back to those days of blind confidence in our rights.
The longest journey begins with the first step. Highball would never take that step if it was up to him.
I say, resist, resist everywhere, promote every pro-gun law. Fight every anti-gun law. Grab every crumb you can and deny everything to the anti-gunners. Vote a one-issue ticket and make sure you call your politicians and tell them that.
After this last election in Tennessee, I made a person-to-person call to Harold Ford, the defeated Democratic senatorial candidate and told him that I and every one of my shooting buddies, and everyone who came to any one of the dozens of gun shows in Tennessee in 2006, and their families and friends, knew of his liberal, anti-gun record and had voted against him for that reason alone.
His reply was, "Thank you for that information. [Click]"
Betcha he'll remember it the next time he runs for office.
quote:However, someone wrote that Bush had never signed a pro-gun law.
That was me.
quote:Despite its imperfections, this act is pro-gun, thus disproving the first assertion.
Wrong, the pro-gun legislation was H.R. 800, which was completely ignored by the Bush Administration and the NRA in favor of the compromise S.B. 397. There was plenty of support for H.R. 800, it would have passed, but the NRA and the liberal Republicans jammed S.B. 397 through Congress. A screwjob if there ever was one.
quote:Someone also charged that Bush had done nothing to protect us from bad gun laws. The defeat of the attempt to amend the bill with a continuation of the assault weapons lookalike ban disproves that assertion.
I don't recall Bush being elected to Congress. As President, he had NOTHING to do with the defeat of the first bill in 2004. He made DIRECT QUOTES saying that he supported the renewal of the AWB and would SIGN IT IF IT CAME TO HIS DESK!!!
quote:Quotations from other administration officials do not prove the mindset or policies of the President any more than a Wal-Mart store manager's remarks represent the views and policies of the entire corporation.
So your saying Bush isn't a liberal, he just fills his cabinet with them? You don't seem to recall his initial opposition to arming pilots in November 2001. It wasn't until May 2002 that he reversed himself after polls showed that voters OVERWHELMINGLY supported arming pilots.
quote:Concerning your posting from last year:
The gun lock amendment makes little difference...As far as the AP ammuntion goes, the example of brandishing or threatening is so far out in left field that it amounts to virtually nothing...And there are so many federal laws already that everyone in America could be charged with something under a federal statute.
Tallcharlie, face it, you are a gun rights compromiser. You rationalize your support for more gun restrictions by telling yourself, "Well, they will probably never actually ENFORCE the law, so what's the harm?"
Every gun law passed in this nation is another incremental step toward gun confiscation. Every time we compromise like the NRA and say, "Well, it could have been worse, we should be happy with what we have," we are telling the anti-gunners to keep going, just wait a couple more years and enough people will swallow their bitter pill. I reassert, George W. Bush is NOT pro-2nd Amendment. He is an NRA-style pro-gunner that will support any gun law that the NRA rubber stamps and doesn't tick off the gun manufacturers. You think Ruger cares that it now has to up their prices for the latest required safety feature or for putting another lock in the box? Heck no! They are making more money off of every inane requirement that is thrown at them! Follow the money! Politicians and gun manufacturers could care less about our Constitutional Rights!
Okay, the law wasn't pro-gun enough, so in your opinion, it wasn't pro-gun at all.
Bush is responsible for every damned thing that goes wrong, but he's not responsible for something that goes right. So he should not get any credit for the defeat of the amended bill. Okay. That's a double standard, but okay, if you want it that way.
If you insist that every law passed be crystal clear and unadulterated, good luck.
If I want to be thankful for any pro-gun legislation passes, even the ones you think are not 100% perfect, I believe I'll see a lot more bills passed than you will because you will see none.
Welcome aboard the intellectual " Sweet Voice of Reason" train..typified by tallcharlie...that has brought us 20,000+++ gun laws.
Americans will have to make a decision one of these fine days...continue listening to that sweet voice...or draw that line in the sand.
The Founders pointed the way.
No amount of 'reason' can change the facts. You take a Right...and make it into a privilege..eagerly...you point out to our masters that we the people no longer have a spine.
"Head in the sand"...? Indeed. The NRA and people like charlie have had their head in the sand for...HE admitted, not I...40 years. I was standing in the breech in 1968...screaming to high heaven. Tallcharlie and his ilk were going hunting...and mostly still are, peaceable convinced that we are gaining ground..as we give away yet more rights.
Woundedwold,
About the two versions of the Protection bill. The House version was introduced the day before the Senate version.
Originally, both versions were nearly the same.
The usual way for bills to get through Congress is for one house or the other to introduce a bill, vote on it, and pass it to the other house.
The amendments were added to the Senate version after the House had passed on their version.
I do not believe there was any option as to which bill to push. It was either pass the Senate version, as amended, or start all over again. So your assertion: quote:Wrong, the pro-gun legislation was H.R. 800, which was completely ignored by the Bush Administration and the NRA in favor of the compromise S.B. 397. There was plenty of support for H.R. 800, it would have passed, but the NRA and the liberal Republicans jammed S.B. 397 through Congress. A screwjob if there ever was one.Overlooks the fact that Congress works somewhat differently.
Agreed with WoundedWolf. The NRA is a bunch of spineless wimps. I'm glad I found the GOA, so I can support a real pro-gun group. BTW, didn't WoundedWolf used to support the NRA?
I still send them my $25 every year, dsmith. Why? Well, I've given many explanations here before. Here are a few...
1. I support their education and training programs. I especially support their non-profit wing, the NRA Foundation.
2. I support their organized shooting events.
3. I like their magazines. Once you skip all the "Rah Rah, we are great!" articles, the technical articles and product reviews are very good.
4. You tell a Liberal that you are a member of GOA and they typically respond, "Who? Wha? Huh?". But you say the letters N-R-A and you will no doubt evoke a response.
5. I have come to terms with the fact that the NRA is a gun industry lobbying organization, not a gun rights lobbying organization.
6. I am a NRA member for many of the same reasons I am a Republican; I still have a hope (perhaps false) that I can evoke some change in policy and direction from within.
I currently provide financial support to both the NRA and GOA.
I am reminded of when I attended a U2 concert when I was still in high school....always love the Music of U@ hated Bono's sudo political motives....At the end of the concert prior to the encore they showed a video....it was Charelton Heston giving a press conference I believe after teh assault weapons ban was instituted and he said "Here is my Creedo...there are no good guns...there are no bad guns....a gun in the hands of a bad person is a bad thing...a gun in the hands of a good person is no threat to anyone, except bad people" then the video panned out to show a little black girl running into a living room and finding a loaded handgun tucked in the seat cushions of a couch....while the video repeated the line "except bad people, except bad people"........Bono then proclaimed the end for the need for guns and started quoteing how a family member will shoot you dead before an intruder, and ya da da da da da whatever....but then I thought to myself...what a glorious contradiction......while attempting to point out a flaw in Charelton Heston's creedo, they merely portrayed it perfectly........What kind of a responsible Gun owner tucks a Gun in a seat cushion and further more what kind of responsible Gun owner with kids does not educate them about guns? A bad Person....a bad person is exactly what Charelton Heston was referring to....bad=irresponsible........a gun control law only hurts law abiding gun owners.....its jsut like drugs.....cocaine is illegal but I cna go to several bars and clubs here in Milwaukee or take a drive to chicago and get all the coke I want with just a few conversations......and despite DEA and all teh drug enforcement programs......You cna get your hands on any illegal substance if you want....take away my guns...watch the drug dealer and the gang banger get happier than hell...they now have an open lease to do whatever they want and a new income potential while us law abiding gun owners do nothing and can't do a thing......But wait maybe Bono and Dianne Feinstien will ride in with the power of truth Law and motivation to deter crime.....
A true story: Several years ago in Nashville, while Bill Clinton was president, a carload of gangbangers decided to shoot up the house occupied by a rival gang. Apparently, the other gang was cutting into their crack cocaine sales, and they wished to put paid to the competition.
So they loaded up their nine mils, took a couple of tokes, and went to visit the opposition party. In due time, they pulled up in front of the house, stuck their heads out of various car doors and windows, and opened fire in the best tradition of several black rappers.
There was a problem: they had the right address, but they were on the wrong street.
The house they were shooting at was not occupied by other drug-dealing gangbangers, it was owned and occupied by a black Vietnam War veteran who was also the proud owner of a Chinese SKS rifle (complete with an evil spike bayonet).
By the time the police were summoned and worked up enough courage to arrive, four of the five hoodlums were no longer of this world, and the fifth was shortly scheduled to join his brethern.
Oh, their old Buick was also hors de combat with at least two rounds having passed squarely through the engine block.
After chatting with the local NRA attorney, the Nashville district attorney found it in his heart to rule the event as justifiable homicide, aka self-defense, and return the vet's rifle without bringing charges.
The SKS is one of the weapons that California has banned and the Assault Weapons ban People would like to ban nationwide. Yet here we have a valid expample of an SKS making a positive contribution to the lives of the owner, his neighbors, and the entire city of Nashville. His expenditure of about five dollars worth of ammunition also saved the city and state many thousands of dollars that would otherwise have been spent on police investigations, criminal trials, incarcerations, motor vehicle enforcement, and drug rehabilitation programs.
What a bargain! What a triumph for justice! How can anyone, Democrat or Republican, not realize what a beneficial and righteous thing it would be to arm everyone with a semi-automatic rifle?
[:D]
Tallcharlie, I completely agree. I have been thinking about the obligation of the 2nd Amendment a lot lately. It really requires all of us to keep a combat arm in our home available for defense against enemies, foreign or domestic, should we, the Militia, ever be called upon.
I suddenly realized the other day that I really don't own a legitimate combat firearm. I own several semi-auto pistols, a lever action carbine, and a bolt action rifle, but I don't own a decent combat caliber semi-auto rifle. So I am going to make it a point to purchase a reliable combat rifle in the very near future. The SKS is very high on my list.
I like you WW. You have an eye on the prize, and that is commendable.
I would like to point out to you that the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in Poland during Nazi occupation was started with a handful of Jews and 8 handguns. They managed to stay the occupying forces until reinforcements had to be called in to drastically outnumber them, and it pulled resources the Nazis needed in other parts of the country to bring down the uprising.
I don't know what good your semiauto pistols would do today, but never underestimate the power of the handgun.
In the meantime, an SKS is nice, sure, but I might suggest you get something a little higher in capacity (aftermarket hi-caps for SKS' suck) like a CAR-15, AK-47 or FAL (three choices of calibers, right there). You won't be disappointed.
First, I must confess that I have not read each and every post and am not sure what has folks up in such a dander. But, I will say this, when TallCharlie listed what he believes, I had to say amen.
quote:Originally posted by dsmith
Agreed with WoundedWolf. The NRA is a bunch of spineless wimps. I'm glad I found the GOA, so I can support a real pro-gun group. BTW, didn't WoundedWolf used to support the NRA?
The NRA does some good for every gun owner. The only part of this fact that is debatable is just how much good does it do. A few extremists will say the NRA does zero good. A reasonable person will admit that the NRA does at the very, very least, some good for gun owners and gun rights.
So after all agreeing that the NRA does some good, we can then note that the NRA does some good for people like dsmith and does it for free since dsmith pays no money to the NRA.
If this is true, it is a mistake for dsmith to publically critize the NRA and discourage present members from continuing and discourage future members from supporting. Reason being that with the NRA still functioning, dsmith is getting some free help.
quote:If this is true, it is a mistake for dsmith to publically critize the NRA and discourage present members from continuing and discourage future members from supporting. Reason being that with the NRA still functioning, dsmith is getting some free help.
TR, I think your heart is in the right place, but I don't quite agree with you. I think that the anti-NRA folks have some legitimate grievances. I have listed many that I personally have in this very thread. I have no problem with public criticism of the NRA concerning its activities and policies. This may be one of the few ways to actually evoke change from them since they place a very high value on their public image. In fact, board member Ted Nugent has spoken about his disappointment with the NRA's actions on certain occassions. I think it is refreshing for the general public to hear that the NRA is not pro-gun ENOUGH! Lord knows they regularly get the opposing arguement from the media, politicians, and anti-gun activists.
I choose to remain a dues paying NRA member so that I may instigate change in a positive and constructive way. However, I have no hesitation calling a spade a spade when the NRA slips up.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
quote:If this is true, it is a mistake for dsmith to publically critize the NRA and discourage present members from continuing and discourage future members from supporting. Reason being that with the NRA still functioning, dsmith is getting some free help.
TR, I think your heart is in the right place, but I don't quite agree with you. I think that the anti-NRA folks have some legitimate grievances. I have listed many that I personally have in this very thread. I have no problem with public criticism of the NRA concerning its activities and policies. This may be one of the few ways to actually evoke change from them since they place a very high value on their public image. In fact, board member Ted Nugent has spoken about his disappointment with the NRA's actions on certain occassions. I think it is refreshing for the general public to hear that the NRA is not pro-gun ENOUGH! Lord knows they regularly get the opposing arguement from the media, politicians, and anti-gun activists.
I choose to remain a dues paying NRA member so that I may instigate change in a positive and constructive way. However, I have no hesitation calling a spade a spade when the NRA slips up.
-Wolf
If we gunners were fighting on a level playing field and we possessed stength that fairly evenly matched our opponents, I would agree with you, dsmith, pickitup, highbail (hehe, friendly joke there) and many others. If we were in a fair fight, gun rights vs no gun rights, then we gunners could and should criticize, not only our enemies/opponents, but even our friends/allies when they screw up.
However, you and every thinking gun owner knows we are fighting from a position of weakness. We are fighting well funded, organized, rabid and powerful foes. We gunners are not only weakly fighting a fight to the "death" but a fight to a sudden death.
Therefore we cannot afford the luxury of widespread and public criticism or other harm to any of the very few and very weak allies we gunners have. To willingly try and harm organizations such as the NRA will in fact have the effect of further weakening, by public criticism and/or angrily witholding our support and encouraging others to copy us, already weak organizations.
If anyone wishes to publically urge other gunners to take hurtful action towards the NRA (or GOA, SAF, etc) you are doing little good and instead are probably doing a lot of harm. AT THE VERY LEAST your public criticism is creating a comfortable environment for the majority of gun owners who don't do one damn thing to help and protect our gun rights. You all know about the great majority of gun owners who do nothing but buy guns, ammo, join gun clubs, go shooting and otherwise enjoy their gun rights. But you also know this great majority does absoutely nothing else in regards to protecting or expanding gun rights.
And many such do-nothing people are smug and proud of their lack of helping. I have gotten in many an argument about this on the general discussion forum. Many of the do-nothings are proud of being "smart enough" that they don't spend any time, money or effort to help organizations such as the NRA. They laugh at me for being an idiot by my helping the NRA.
When such do nothing people read public criticism of the NRA, from their fellow gunners, it makes them feel oh-so-good about their cheap lack of support.
If anyone hates the NRA, then pour that hate into giving more time, money and effort to a pro-gun rights organization that you LIKE. Or start your own organization. Or join the NRA and reform it from within.
The above is constructive actions to take regarding your dislike of the NRA. To publically critize the NRA is destructive.
Tne above post by TR is precisly why I would like to see the lobbying arm of the NRA/GOA/ whatever disbanded.
Comfortable with 20,000 ++++ gun laws, the NRA members continue to proclaim 'we must stop gun laws'...until the next one that the leaders of the NRA support..."Because we will get a worse one, if we don't support this one".....
People supporting gun laws OUGHT to be disarmed...and they ought to be forced to get out of the face of people that love freedom.
TR, I do recognize that the NRA does some good, but also a lot of harm. It's true that I may be accepting some free support as far as handgun owning goes, but I am also forced to accept some all too costly "support" from the NRA's beloved FOPA, which ensures that good automatic weapons cost tens of thousands of dollars, and new ones can't legally be made for the average sheeple.
I may be getting "free" handgun support, but I am also getting "free" opposition.
quote:Originally posted by dsmith
TR, I do recognize that the NRA does some good, but also a lot of harm. It's true that I may be accepting some free support as far as handgun owning goes, but I am also forced to accept some all too costly "support" from the NRA's beloved FOPA, which ensures that good automatic weapons cost tens of thousands of dollars, and new ones can't legally be made for the average sheeple.
I may be getting "free" handgun support, but I am also getting "free" opposition.
Here you are admitting that the NRA does some good for you. But in almost all your public criticism of the NRA, you make it seem as if the NRA does absolutely no good whatsoever. I seem a conflict in logic there.
I never said the NRA was 100% wrong. I simply said that they sell out way too much. So, I am getting the handgun support for free, but paying all too much for the loss of rights they gave me. Sound fair?
Comments
A challenge: Tell us what PRO-GUN legislation Bush has introduced, supported, signed into law, glanced at, or vaguely even endorsed via proxy?
quote:I see a lot of this from the less educated forum members...I confer the Double-Duh Award for Appalling Stupidity to Highball for that one. DUH! DUH!
Wow, I think the above quote speaks for itself, tallcharlie. Are you bi-polar?
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005 by President Bush and became Public Law 109-92.
A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004, after being combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.
1. Pro-gun legislation passed and signed into law.
2. Anti-gun legislation defeated.
3. Does that count?
Duh, duh, duh! Now ask me if I'm tripolar.[:D]
You well educated, college trained folks...are amusing.
Able to throw words about..able to make make black into white at will.Occasionally, someone might hand you a fact that makes you stop and rethink your beliefs and opinions. If you then change your mind, is that necessarily a bad thing?quote:I have no intension of debating you on the minutia of this or that law. I operate out of a simple fact. That which makes goverment bigger and more powerful is evil. I don't expect big brother to like that..and I don't expect them to ignore that position in the populace much longer.I agree with your sentiments about government power and intrusiveness 100%. Your presumptions otherwise are simply wrong.quote:The line between freedom and slavery grows more visible every day. Folks like you have staked your honor, your futures, on big brother. We indeed have nothing in common.
It is not freedom or slavery, my friend. The choice is between freedom or tyranny, and that is much worse.
In the antibellum South, slaves had the hope of manumission, and once they became freedmen, they could partake of freedom the likes of which we cannot imagine. That was true both North and South.
Abraham Lincoln, in total disregard of the Constitution, waged war on several states because they no longer wanted to be a part of the great experiment. From that point forward, there was no freedom in America. For while we can voice our opinions (within limits), worship as we want (so long as it does not offend the ACLU and our neighborhood atheist), write a letter criticizing a politician (as long as it is not within 30 days of an election), or educate our children in a church-owned school (so long as we still pay our taxes to support the horrible public schools) - while we can do all this - we can't say, "We've had enough. We're leaving."
We cannot voluntarily leave the Union we voluntarily joined.
(Imagine if the Rotary made it official policy to beat-up and kill members who quit coming to the meetings!)
Because if we do try to leave, the Union will come and kill us. We are not slaves to the Union because we can never hope to be free of that Union. It will kill us if we try to get away, just as surely as Saddam Hussein killed Kurds for trying to break away, or Hitler killed union members for disagreeing with him, or Russia killed Chezchnyans.
Highball, I thought about your post for several hours before replying. I need to point out that your presumptuous statement that you could tell me what I was thinking was totally wrong.
You confused my support of an administration that strives to operate within the limits of the Constitution with some kind of Big Brother worship. It just isn't so. My political beliefs are somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan.
Here are a few of my mantras:
It should be mandatory that every chld is taught to shoot a gun (shotgun, rifle, revolver, and semi-auto pistol) in elementary school at government expense. The kids need to know the gun laws, too, by the time they get out of high school.
There should be a national, right-to-carry law that allows anyone, anywhere to carry a concealed weapon.
Let everybody carry a gun. Everybody. Burials in Potter's field are cheaper than Circuit Court trials, and the lawsuits will keep the lawyers just as busy.
California needs to secede from the Union, and take their screwy politics with them. I'd go fight for them if they promised to stay gone. Massachussetts, too. Those ungrateful Yankees need to take a look at their own barn for a change. It's full of crap: Kennedy, Kerry, Barney Frank.
Gays have a place in our society, but it is not teaching our children their abnormal philosophies. No gay teachers, no gay scout leaders, no gay preachers, no gay little league coaches. Period.
No earmarked items in the budget or any other appropriations bill. Kill pork before it makes it to the barrel.
Put a constitutional cap on the federal budget, as a percent of the GDP, except in time of DECLARED war.
We need a Constitutional amendment that clearly states that the rights, privileges, and benefits (including welfare supported by Federa funds) of the Constitution are reserved exclusively for citizens and legal aliens while in the USA. It should also state that Constitutional protections do not apply to illegal aliens and prisoners of war.
Now tell me again how you "know" what I'm thinking.
It should be mandatory that every chld is taught to shoot a gun (shotgun, rifle, revolver, and semi-auto pistol) in elementary school at government expense. The kids need to know the gun laws, too, by the time they get out of high school.
There should be a national, right-to-carry law that allows anyone, anywhere to carry a concealed weapon.
Let everybody carry a gun. Everybody. Burials in Potter's field are cheaper than Circuit Court trials, and the lawsuits will keep the lawyers just as busy.
California needs to secede from the Union, and take their screwy politics with them. I'd go fight for them if they promised to stay gone. Massachussetts, too. Those ungrateful Yankees need to take a look at their own barn for a change. It's full of crap: Kennedy, Kerry, Barney Frank.
Gays have a place in our society, but it is not teaching our children their abnormal philosophies. No gay teachers, no gay scout leaders, no gay preachers, no gay little league coaches. Period.
_______________________________________________________________
I couldn't agree with you more.[:D]
First, welcome to the "Gun Rights" forum.
Second, when I read the following statement, well........
please explain.
quote:Originally posted by biglou250
Gun laws must be enforced to ensure that we keep our 2nd amendment right.
To ALL, watch the name calling/personal attacks. [;)]
biglou250,
First, welcome to the "Gun Rights" forum.
Second, when I read the following statement, well........
please explain.
quote:Originally posted by biglou250
Gun laws must be enforced to ensure that we keep our 2nd amendment right.
What I mean by that is that the gun laws that stand today should be enforced before further gun bans should be set in place. Politicians see gun ban as a easy a way out to lower gun violence across America and they think its the answer to all their problems. They need to work on finding out where the criminals are getting their weapons from before the infringe on gun owners rights.
I don't think the gangsters are having problems finding guns and think they are the main reason for the gun violence and think the BATF or local enforcement should be going after them instead of you and me. Gun owning is a right but it also is a privilege, if you take advantage of that right and kill someone or involved in illegal activity your right should be no longer. Enforce current laws before setting new ones.
I hope that explains what I meant.
Your defense of the administration led me to believe..erroneously..certain things typical of Bushbots. My apologies.
Conversely, what seems my 'defense' of the she-demon..is in reality a reaction to slimy politicians of EVERY stripe..and the wish for a speedy resolution to the problems besetting this fair country.
The REAL threat..for the ignorant out there..ISN'T a desert rat 'doing us in'...no..the only REAl danger to America is indeed tyranny..the home-grown kind.
The answer to that threat is to allow them their head..give them PLENTY of rope..so that their sold-out souls are FINALLY visible to every couch-sitting, beer guzzling, fat-assed fanny kisser in the country....
All that being said..I could find only a couple points of disagreement in your dissertation.
quote:
The kids need to know the gun laws, too, by the time they get out of high school. Ya....but were freedom to ring again...this part of the class would be brief."Missuse a gun...face the conseqences".
quote:There should be a national, right-to-carry law that allows anyone, anywhere to carry a concealed weapon.Registration of armed citizens is what the Beast is driving towards..why should we as gun-owners make their job easier ?
Better by far swift, sure justice for those misusing firearms. We speak now of a time when freedom is once again restored to this land...for if we know not where we PREFER to be...how can we know how to get there ?
I am given to attacking in a rather nasty way...purposely.
The men amoung us..the only ones I wish to speak to..will often react savagely to the baiting. After a period of time, thought kicks in..and properous discussions ensue.
The psychotic and the kids continue to spew their vitrolic out upon the airwaves..and are ignored.
I appreciate the kind words...but remember that I bring the attacks upon myself..and have none save myself to blame.
Givem hell!
As long as Highball and WoundedWolf are posting, there is no need for me to uselessly stroke keys.
Big Lou, I have never once endorsed Hilary Clinton and have absolutely no faith or admiration in her. I have never voted for a Clinton and have no plans of doing so in the future.
quote:The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005 by President Bush and became Public Law 109-92.
Tallcharlie, I STRONGLY disagree with your take on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was in fact yet another NRA compromise of our gun rights. If you would like more detail then please read my comments that I wrote at the time on this issue:
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=165141
Tallcharlie, I also apologize for the "bi-polar" comment, as it was inappropriate. I do find your approach contradictory however. You chastize people for being uneducated in their responses, yet dive head first into the mud a few short sentences later. It does seem hypocritical to me.
I otherwise enjoyed and agreed with most of your response. I especially took the following comment to heart:
quote:Abraham Lincoln, in total disregard of the Constitution, waged war on several states because they no longer wanted to be a part of the great experiment. From that point forward, there was no freedom in America.
I too have come to the same conclusion. The Civil War, it seems, freed our nation from the bondage of slavery, only to deliver it to the shackles of government tyranny.
-Wolf
Thank you for your explanation. That is about what I thought, just wanted to make sure. Your new here, and I understand (although I can't agree) with what your saying. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, keep in mind though, that opinions have been known to be changed. (Including my own [;)])
About your statement, it sounds kind of like what the NRA came up with, by way of their very own "Project Exile." If you are not familiar with it, it was a controversial federal program started by the NRA in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. Basically saying to enforce EXISTING gun laws to the MAX, instead of creating new laws. Sound familiar?
Now to get a real feel for this new program, one has to look at who supported it, and who opposed it. In SUPPORT, was former president Clinton, and "Handgun Control" along with other well known ANTI-gun people/organizations, etc. Can you imagine Clinton and Handgun Control agreeing with ANY "pro-gun" organization??? Well, they did this time.
Those opposing Project Exile was a coalition consisting of EVERY OTHER pro-gun rights group in the U.S. except the NRA. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Angel Shamaya of KeepAndBearArms.com, and "former" NRA director Russ Howard. Other prominent opponents who were members of this anti-Exile coalition included Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne. A "Project Exile Condemnation Petition" was launched by Brian Puckett of GunTruths.com.
One of the main reasons given, for opposing Project Exile, was that existing gun laws are UNconstitutional violations of the 2nd amendment. (there were other reasons)
Many........no.....I'll go so far as to say MOST of the gun owners, that post on these forums, make the claim that they are totally pro-gun. In reality, MOST are in some way ANTI-GUN. Whether it concerns the machine gun laws, background checks, concealed carry issues, etc. Most are in support of at least "some" of the UNconstitutional laws on the books today. There are a select few that actually believe in what the constitution said. "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." One either believes in the constitution.......or not.
THAT is the REAL " Band of Brothers"..an unbroken line back into the dark ages...the primal cry to be free of useless rules, regulations, and laws put into place to ensure that those with a lust for power are protected and allowed to advance their personal agenda to control ever other individual o the face of the earth.
The Founders broke that chain..with blood.
We have allowed and encourged that chain to be forged back about out necks.
Every man agreeing with gun laws that contravene the Constitution is strengthing that chain...because firearms are Liberty's Teeth.
It does not have to be perfect. In fact, when you consider its fundamental contamination by politics, it is a wonder it was even conceived.
However, someone wrote that Bush had never signed a pro-gun law. Despite its imperfections, this act is pro-gun, thus disproving the first assertion.
Someone also charged that Bush had done nothing to protect us from bad gun laws. The defeat of the attempt to amend the bill with a continuation of the assault weapons lookalike ban disproves that assertion.
Quotations from other administration officials do not prove the mindset or policies of the President any more than a Wal-Mart store manager's remarks represent the views and policies of the entire corporation.
Concerning your posting from last year:
The gun lock amendment makes little difference. When I sell a handgun, I furnish a gun lock and charge the buyer $5.00 for it (locks cost me about $5.50). Then I offer to buy back the lock. So far, none of the locks have made it out of the front door. In fact, I only have three of them, and they have been sufficient to cover the sales of at least 125 used pistols and revolvers. What matters is that the receipt shows that a gun lock was furnished thus proving compliance with the law and protecting my butt under the provisions of this very pro-gun law.
As far as the AP ammuntion goes, the example of brandishing or threatening is so far out in left field that it amounts to virtually nothing. Let's face it, if a prosecuting attorney is looking to be re-elected, he'll charge anybody with anything if he thinks it will get him a headline. And there are so many federal laws already that everyone in America could be charged with something under a federal statute.
biglou250,
Thank you for your explanation. That is about what I thought, just wanted to make sure. Your new here, and I understand (although I can't agree) with what your saying. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, keep in mind though, that opinions have been known to be changed. (Including my own [;)])
About your statement, it sounds kind of like what the NRA came up with, by way of their very own "Project Exile." If you are not familiar with it, it was a controversial federal program started by the NRA in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. Basically saying to enforce EXISTING gun laws to the MAX, instead of creating new laws. Sound familiar?
Now to get a real feel for this new program, one has to look at who supported it, and who opposed it. In SUPPORT, was former president Clinton, and "Handgun Control" along with other well known ANTI-gun people/organizations, etc. Can you imagine Clinton and Handgun Control agreeing with ANY "pro-gun" organization??? Well, they did this time.
Those opposing Project Exile was a coalition consisting of EVERY OTHER pro-gun rights group in the U.S. except the NRA. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Angel Shamaya of KeepAndBearArms.com, and "former" NRA director Russ Howard. Other prominent opponents who were members of this anti-Exile coalition included Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne. A "Project Exile Condemnation Petition" was launched by Brian Puckett of GunTruths.com.
One of the main reasons given, for opposing Project Exile, was that existing gun laws are UNconstitutional violations of the 2nd amendment. (there were other reasons)
Many........no.....I'll go so far as to say MOST of the gun owners, that post on these forums, make the claim that they are totally pro-gun. In reality, MOST are in some way ANTI-GUN. Whether it concerns the machine gun laws, background checks, concealed carry issues, etc. Most are in support of at least "some" of the UNconstitutional laws on the books today. There are a select few that actually believe in what the constitution said. "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." One either believes in the constitution.......or not.
pickenup, I'm am most grateful you brought this to my attention. My opinion has changed enlight to the NRA program that you brought up that I wasn't aware of. I do totally believe that any gun rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The government should not be able to tell you and me what we can and cannot own. I live in a Illinois where you already have to register you guns and have a FOID card to buy them. The demo's have already taken advantage of my 2nd amendment rights and are now pushing for an Assault weapons ban at the state level. We have no concealed carry and are starting to look like bababooeyty California. Thank you very much for the info pickenup.
Sorry, pic was too big.
The first item of business..allow the enemy to define terms...and the war is lost without firing a single shot.
The day you got a concealed Carry..you gave up your God-Given Rights...and substituted "Permission to Carry" at that moment.
You ADMITTED to goverment...and the empty suits therein..that you HAVE NO GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO CARRY...only GOVERMENT PERMISSION to carry a gun.
Fight hard, gun-owners....fight to give your rights away to goverment..and pretend you are winning victories. After a few more such victories... the gun ban will happen without a whimper from the populace.
"Right to Carry"...indeed.
The first item of business..allow the enemy to define terms...and the war is lost without firing a single shot.They have already done that, and the war continues.quote:
The day you got a concealed Carry..you gave up your God-Given Rights...and substituted "Permission to Carry" at that moment.As more and more people own and carry guns for their personal protection, the rightness, if you would, of the practice is seen. Example: the major networks coined the term Gunshine State in their effort to discredit and defeat Florida's must-issue CCW laws back in the 80s. The law passed, barely. Within a year, the crime rates in Florida had plummeted, and most Floridians came to understand and appreciate the undeniable value of concealed weapons. Today, you would be hard-put to pass an anti-gun law in Florida.
The important thing is to educate the unbelievers. While highball may be morally right, he is ignoring the 80% of the population who think guns are bad because that's what they've been told on TV. Convince that 80% otherwise, and bad gun laws will wither and die. Ignore that 80%, and the opposite happens.
CCW laws, besides reducing crime, saving lives, and giving people more freedom, are great pro-gun PR and serve to educate the know-nothing 80%. When crime drops 15% in a state immediately after a CCW right-to-carry law is passed, the message is unmistakable, even to liberal anti-gunners like my cousin in New Jersey!quote:
You ADMITTED to goverment...and the empty suits therein..that you HAVE NO GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO CARRY...only GOVERMENT PERMISSION to carry a gun.NO! You've forced the government to admit, recognize, codify, and formalize your right to keep and bear. You've made it ten times harder for an irresponsible politician to infringe that right in the future.quote:
Fight hard, gun-owners....fight to give your rights away to goverment..and pretend you are winning victories. After a few more such victories... the gun ban will happen without a whimper from the populace.Twenty years ago, new anti-gun bills were a dime a dozen in every statehouse. Now they are damned hard to find in the states that have CCW, and are getting rarer even in the Peoples' Republics of CA, IL, WI, NJ, and MA.
It was head-in-the-sand beliefs like highball's that let the anti-gun campaign get off to such a good start in 1963. We did not believe that our 2nd Amendment rights were seriously in jeopardy.
Well, now we've seen what these people want to do, and can never go back to those days of blind confidence in our rights.
The longest journey begins with the first step. Highball would never take that step if it was up to him.
I say, resist, resist everywhere, promote every pro-gun law. Fight every anti-gun law. Grab every crumb you can and deny everything to the anti-gunners. Vote a one-issue ticket and make sure you call your politicians and tell them that.
After this last election in Tennessee, I made a person-to-person call to Harold Ford, the defeated Democratic senatorial candidate and told him that I and every one of my shooting buddies, and everyone who came to any one of the dozens of gun shows in Tennessee in 2006, and their families and friends, knew of his liberal, anti-gun record and had voted against him for that reason alone.
His reply was, "Thank you for that information. [Click]"
Betcha he'll remember it the next time he runs for office.
quote:However, someone wrote that Bush had never signed a pro-gun law.
That was me.
quote:Despite its imperfections, this act is pro-gun, thus disproving the first assertion.
Wrong, the pro-gun legislation was H.R. 800, which was completely ignored by the Bush Administration and the NRA in favor of the compromise S.B. 397. There was plenty of support for H.R. 800, it would have passed, but the NRA and the liberal Republicans jammed S.B. 397 through Congress. A screwjob if there ever was one.
quote:Someone also charged that Bush had done nothing to protect us from bad gun laws. The defeat of the attempt to amend the bill with a continuation of the assault weapons lookalike ban disproves that assertion.
I don't recall Bush being elected to Congress. As President, he had NOTHING to do with the defeat of the first bill in 2004. He made DIRECT QUOTES saying that he supported the renewal of the AWB and would SIGN IT IF IT CAME TO HIS DESK!!!
quote:Quotations from other administration officials do not prove the mindset or policies of the President any more than a Wal-Mart store manager's remarks represent the views and policies of the entire corporation.
So your saying Bush isn't a liberal, he just fills his cabinet with them? You don't seem to recall his initial opposition to arming pilots in November 2001. It wasn't until May 2002 that he reversed himself after polls showed that voters OVERWHELMINGLY supported arming pilots.
quote:Concerning your posting from last year:
The gun lock amendment makes little difference...As far as the AP ammuntion goes, the example of brandishing or threatening is so far out in left field that it amounts to virtually nothing...And there are so many federal laws already that everyone in America could be charged with something under a federal statute.
Tallcharlie, face it, you are a gun rights compromiser. You rationalize your support for more gun restrictions by telling yourself, "Well, they will probably never actually ENFORCE the law, so what's the harm?"
Every gun law passed in this nation is another incremental step toward gun confiscation. Every time we compromise like the NRA and say, "Well, it could have been worse, we should be happy with what we have," we are telling the anti-gunners to keep going, just wait a couple more years and enough people will swallow their bitter pill. I reassert, George W. Bush is NOT pro-2nd Amendment. He is an NRA-style pro-gunner that will support any gun law that the NRA rubber stamps and doesn't tick off the gun manufacturers. You think Ruger cares that it now has to up their prices for the latest required safety feature or for putting another lock in the box? Heck no! They are making more money off of every inane requirement that is thrown at them! Follow the money! Politicians and gun manufacturers could care less about our Constitutional Rights!
Bush is responsible for every damned thing that goes wrong, but he's not responsible for something that goes right. So he should not get any credit for the defeat of the amended bill. Okay. That's a double standard, but okay, if you want it that way.
If you insist that every law passed be crystal clear and unadulterated, good luck.
If I want to be thankful for any pro-gun legislation passes, even the ones you think are not 100% perfect, I believe I'll see a lot more bills passed than you will because you will see none.
Americans will have to make a decision one of these fine days...continue listening to that sweet voice...or draw that line in the sand.
The Founders pointed the way.
No amount of 'reason' can change the facts. You take a Right...and make it into a privilege..eagerly...you point out to our masters that we the people no longer have a spine.
"Head in the sand"...? Indeed. The NRA and people like charlie have had their head in the sand for...HE admitted, not I...40 years. I was standing in the breech in 1968...screaming to high heaven. Tallcharlie and his ilk were going hunting...and mostly still are, peaceable convinced that we are gaining ground..as we give away yet more rights.
About the two versions of the Protection bill. The House version was introduced the day before the Senate version.
Originally, both versions were nearly the same.
The usual way for bills to get through Congress is for one house or the other to introduce a bill, vote on it, and pass it to the other house.
The amendments were added to the Senate version after the House had passed on their version.
I do not believe there was any option as to which bill to push. It was either pass the Senate version, as amended, or start all over again. So your assertion: quote:Wrong, the pro-gun legislation was H.R. 800, which was completely ignored by the Bush Administration and the NRA in favor of the compromise S.B. 397. There was plenty of support for H.R. 800, it would have passed, but the NRA and the liberal Republicans jammed S.B. 397 through Congress. A screwjob if there ever was one.Overlooks the fact that Congress works somewhat differently.
1. I support their education and training programs. I especially support their non-profit wing, the NRA Foundation.
2. I support their organized shooting events.
3. I like their magazines. Once you skip all the "Rah Rah, we are great!" articles, the technical articles and product reviews are very good.
4. You tell a Liberal that you are a member of GOA and they typically respond, "Who? Wha? Huh?". But you say the letters N-R-A and you will no doubt evoke a response.
5. I have come to terms with the fact that the NRA is a gun industry lobbying organization, not a gun rights lobbying organization.
6. I am a NRA member for many of the same reasons I am a Republican; I still have a hope (perhaps false) that I can evoke some change in policy and direction from within.
I currently provide financial support to both the NRA and GOA.
[:)]
So they loaded up their nine mils, took a couple of tokes, and went to visit the opposition party. In due time, they pulled up in front of the house, stuck their heads out of various car doors and windows, and opened fire in the best tradition of several black rappers.
There was a problem: they had the right address, but they were on the wrong street.
The house they were shooting at was not occupied by other drug-dealing gangbangers, it was owned and occupied by a black Vietnam War veteran who was also the proud owner of a Chinese SKS rifle (complete with an evil spike bayonet).
By the time the police were summoned and worked up enough courage to arrive, four of the five hoodlums were no longer of this world, and the fifth was shortly scheduled to join his brethern.
Oh, their old Buick was also hors de combat with at least two rounds having passed squarely through the engine block.
After chatting with the local NRA attorney, the Nashville district attorney found it in his heart to rule the event as justifiable homicide, aka self-defense, and return the vet's rifle without bringing charges.
The SKS is one of the weapons that California has banned and the Assault Weapons ban People would like to ban nationwide. Yet here we have a valid expample of an SKS making a positive contribution to the lives of the owner, his neighbors, and the entire city of Nashville. His expenditure of about five dollars worth of ammunition also saved the city and state many thousands of dollars that would otherwise have been spent on police investigations, criminal trials, incarcerations, motor vehicle enforcement, and drug rehabilitation programs.
What a bargain! What a triumph for justice! How can anyone, Democrat or Republican, not realize what a beneficial and righteous thing it would be to arm everyone with a semi-automatic rifle?
[:D]
I suddenly realized the other day that I really don't own a legitimate combat firearm. I own several semi-auto pistols, a lever action carbine, and a bolt action rifle, but I don't own a decent combat caliber semi-auto rifle. So I am going to make it a point to purchase a reliable combat rifle in the very near future. The SKS is very high on my list.
-WW
I would like to point out to you that the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in Poland during Nazi occupation was started with a handful of Jews and 8 handguns. They managed to stay the occupying forces until reinforcements had to be called in to drastically outnumber them, and it pulled resources the Nazis needed in other parts of the country to bring down the uprising.
I don't know what good your semiauto pistols would do today, but never underestimate the power of the handgun.
In the meantime, an SKS is nice, sure, but I might suggest you get something a little higher in capacity (aftermarket hi-caps for SKS' suck) like a CAR-15, AK-47 or FAL (three choices of calibers, right there). You won't be disappointed.
Don't overlook the shotguns, expecially in the city.
Agreed with WoundedWolf. The NRA is a bunch of spineless wimps. I'm glad I found the GOA, so I can support a real pro-gun group. BTW, didn't WoundedWolf used to support the NRA?
The NRA does some good for every gun owner. The only part of this fact that is debatable is just how much good does it do. A few extremists will say the NRA does zero good. A reasonable person will admit that the NRA does at the very, very least, some good for gun owners and gun rights.
So after all agreeing that the NRA does some good, we can then note that the NRA does some good for people like dsmith and does it for free since dsmith pays no money to the NRA.
If this is true, it is a mistake for dsmith to publically critize the NRA and discourage present members from continuing and discourage future members from supporting. Reason being that with the NRA still functioning, dsmith is getting some free help.
How can this be otherwise?
TR, I think your heart is in the right place, but I don't quite agree with you. I think that the anti-NRA folks have some legitimate grievances. I have listed many that I personally have in this very thread. I have no problem with public criticism of the NRA concerning its activities and policies. This may be one of the few ways to actually evoke change from them since they place a very high value on their public image. In fact, board member Ted Nugent has spoken about his disappointment with the NRA's actions on certain occassions. I think it is refreshing for the general public to hear that the NRA is not pro-gun ENOUGH! Lord knows they regularly get the opposing arguement from the media, politicians, and anti-gun activists.
I choose to remain a dues paying NRA member so that I may instigate change in a positive and constructive way. However, I have no hesitation calling a spade a spade when the NRA slips up.
-Wolf
quote:If this is true, it is a mistake for dsmith to publically critize the NRA and discourage present members from continuing and discourage future members from supporting. Reason being that with the NRA still functioning, dsmith is getting some free help.
TR, I think your heart is in the right place, but I don't quite agree with you. I think that the anti-NRA folks have some legitimate grievances. I have listed many that I personally have in this very thread. I have no problem with public criticism of the NRA concerning its activities and policies. This may be one of the few ways to actually evoke change from them since they place a very high value on their public image. In fact, board member Ted Nugent has spoken about his disappointment with the NRA's actions on certain occassions. I think it is refreshing for the general public to hear that the NRA is not pro-gun ENOUGH! Lord knows they regularly get the opposing arguement from the media, politicians, and anti-gun activists.
I choose to remain a dues paying NRA member so that I may instigate change in a positive and constructive way. However, I have no hesitation calling a spade a spade when the NRA slips up.
-Wolf
If we gunners were fighting on a level playing field and we possessed stength that fairly evenly matched our opponents, I would agree with you, dsmith, pickitup, highbail (hehe, friendly joke there) and many others. If we were in a fair fight, gun rights vs no gun rights, then we gunners could and should criticize, not only our enemies/opponents, but even our friends/allies when they screw up.
However, you and every thinking gun owner knows we are fighting from a position of weakness. We are fighting well funded, organized, rabid and powerful foes. We gunners are not only weakly fighting a fight to the "death" but a fight to a sudden death.
Therefore we cannot afford the luxury of widespread and public criticism or other harm to any of the very few and very weak allies we gunners have. To willingly try and harm organizations such as the NRA will in fact have the effect of further weakening, by public criticism and/or angrily witholding our support and encouraging others to copy us, already weak organizations.
If anyone wishes to publically urge other gunners to take hurtful action towards the NRA (or GOA, SAF, etc) you are doing little good and instead are probably doing a lot of harm. AT THE VERY LEAST your public criticism is creating a comfortable environment for the majority of gun owners who don't do one damn thing to help and protect our gun rights. You all know about the great majority of gun owners who do nothing but buy guns, ammo, join gun clubs, go shooting and otherwise enjoy their gun rights. But you also know this great majority does absoutely nothing else in regards to protecting or expanding gun rights.
And many such do-nothing people are smug and proud of their lack of helping. I have gotten in many an argument about this on the general discussion forum. Many of the do-nothings are proud of being "smart enough" that they don't spend any time, money or effort to help organizations such as the NRA. They laugh at me for being an idiot by my helping the NRA.
When such do nothing people read public criticism of the NRA, from their fellow gunners, it makes them feel oh-so-good about their cheap lack of support.
If anyone hates the NRA, then pour that hate into giving more time, money and effort to a pro-gun rights organization that you LIKE. Or start your own organization. Or join the NRA and reform it from within.
The above is constructive actions to take regarding your dislike of the NRA. To publically critize the NRA is destructive.
Comfortable with 20,000 ++++ gun laws, the NRA members continue to proclaim 'we must stop gun laws'...until the next one that the leaders of the NRA support..."Because we will get a worse one, if we don't support this one".....
People supporting gun laws OUGHT to be disarmed...and they ought to be forced to get out of the face of people that love freedom.
Give us a gun ban...and it will be so.
I may be getting "free" handgun support, but I am also getting "free" opposition.
TR, I do recognize that the NRA does some good, but also a lot of harm. It's true that I may be accepting some free support as far as handgun owning goes, but I am also forced to accept some all too costly "support" from the NRA's beloved FOPA, which ensures that good automatic weapons cost tens of thousands of dollars, and new ones can't legally be made for the average sheeple.
I may be getting "free" handgun support, but I am also getting "free" opposition.
Here you are admitting that the NRA does some good for you. But in almost all your public criticism of the NRA, you make it seem as if the NRA does absolutely no good whatsoever. I seem a conflict in logic there.