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 Marc1301
Wolf,........I would agree with you totally on the child issue, except for a point you left out! With you, I know it was a missed thought, as I am sure you are not in favor of my return point.
Sometimes, when I see the "dullard" parents that exist, I have been of the opinion that one should need a "permit" to have a child in this day and age.
Obviously, that would be unconstitutional to a major degree. The only thing I WILL say is,............I am getting tired of paying for people that can't afford the children they create, and feel like someone else should pay their way, and provide all kinds of benefits to them, because they were, and are,........irresponsible. Some of these folks can't even take care of themselves, much less raise children.
That is where the "little demons", that have no soul, or concern for anything, but themselves, are coming from. Don't think I need to mention the benefits we give to illegal aliens, for their children, and the fact that if a "Burrito" mama, happens to be able to get her butt across the border, and drop the umpteenth child,........that child is now a US citizen, just like we are, and we are going to pay out the wazoo, for everything they want, and need!
This country is trying to create a "Utopia", which will never exist on this earth. We will fail, but it will turn us into a third world country, in the process.[;)]
Marc, where you are missing it is:
The social syatem IS the FAULT as much as nit-wit parents. The political snakes created this system of "free for all" and "no one has responsibility". I blame the snakes in office as much as I blame the parents. After all, how many of them came from the same system?
As far as the border jumping criminals, I firmly believe we should either deport the whole lot of them OR tell them to leave their kids that were born here behind forever. Amnesty = blind eye to crime.
WW Wrote: "The sad truth is that in a few decades, the liberals may actually be able to incrementally force the Catholic Church into buying off on abortion."
Incrementally, you bet!!!! Remember Oligarchic Republic? Conn. Lawmakers Passed Plan B Pill - Wednesday the state House overwhelmingly approved a bill to require all hospitals to offer rape victims emergency contraception, over objections from Catholic leaders who say it infringes on their religious rights. Separation Of Church And State???? How many of the Coastal Elites Will follow suit? The Minority will gets it's way, one way on another!!
quote:Originally posted by Highball
TrFox;
You are not fighting for 'Gun Rights'...you are fighting for privileges. there is a vast difference...
Lines in the sand......Were I to use a gun to prevent harm to myself or a loved one...and governmnent insisted upon making me a criminal over it...that would be THEIR choice. At that moment, a line would be crossed.
For me, the REAL fight for gun rights would begin...and waiting for others would no longer be an option.
You will accept nothing but perfection. Being a realist I will accept what can reasonably be expected and attained. Then I will continue to expect more, demand more and accept more until the 2A is once again recognized as a true and important costitutional right.
IOW, while you sit and grip I at least attempt to move ahead. And at the end of the road you and I both have the same vision.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Highball
TrFox;
You are not fighting for 'Gun Rights'...you are fighting for privileges. there is a vast difference...
Lines in the sand......Were I to use a gun to prevent harm to myself or a loved one...and governmnent insisted upon making me a criminal over it...that would be THEIR choice. At that moment, a line would be crossed.
For me, the REAL fight for gun rights would begin...and waiting for others would no longer be an option.
You will accept nothing but perfection. Being a realist I will accept what can reasonably be expected and attained. Then I will continue to expect more, demand more and accept more until the 2A is once again recognized as a true and important costitutional right.
IOW, while you sit and grip I at least attempt to move ahead. And at the end of the road you and I both have the same vision.
I can respect that, to a degree, fox.
I think fundamentally, it is more realistic for people to grow a pair and refuse to grovel before the fuds. The prison system would quickly collapse if 30 million people decided they were going to carry and didn't give a damn what the fuds did about it. They fine you, you refuse to pay, on a 30 million violator scale, what will they do, throw them all in jail??? They'll fall apart, first.
I know Highball well enough to tell you that, in no uncertain terms, he views from greatest to least, unrestricted rights to carry firearms in any way he chooses, then having the right not acknowledged, and finally, having that right turned into an arbtrarily revokable privilege. I can also tell you that the CCW thing has a very dark side few of you realize or comment on, because your narrow vision of it is restricted to criminals and thugs, but consider that registering to have a CCW puts you on a blacklist with any agency that wants to kill you, or steal your firearms when the time comes. Is that moving ahead, or stepping way back??
Correct me if I'm wrong, Highball, but in this case, I don't think I am, because I feel the same way. i just wish I felt this way before i went and became Ohio CHL-holder. I think about this every time this is brought up, that I may have just slit my own throat....
Do you think they are going to get all the guns at the very same instant in time ?......The answer is NO. There is not enough manpower to do that. They will go after a few big fish, you will hear about it, and have time to prepare yourself and family.
You will accept nothing but perfection. Being a realist I will accept what can reasonably be expected and attained. Then I will continue to expect more, demand more and accept more until the 2A is once again recognized as a true and important costitutional right.
IOW, while you sit and grip I at least attempt to move ahead. And at the end of the road you and I both have the same vision.
Fox you keep pointing to "perfection". You sir are dead wrong. We are not willing to accept a portion of our rights. We want what we FULLY deserve. You think you can "comprimise" them all back. You think your making progress. Have you ever really sat back and thought about that? There is no real improvement when what is yours is stolen. Your way turns a right to a privilage. They will not willingly give you your rights back. They are keeping them hostage, and unless your willing to kick the bababooey outta them and show as such, why would they? They perceive themselves SUPERIOR to the likes of us commoners. It is if to say "Keep begging peasent, I like the entetainment!". Unce upon a time you sir, would have been labeled a Tory. Today, I would sat that is APPROPRIATE. Either you want what you deserve or you are willing to take whatever the king lets you have.
Gunphreak
Of course. That is exactly the way a Right OUGHT to be viewed.
The King and his pisa+++ slimy suits OUGHT to be in mortal fear of trespassing upon a soverign citizens toes...not glorying in their subjucation.
Soverign citizens ought to be DEMANDING their rights...not crawling on their bellies for permission to protect what the King and his Courts have said they have absolutely NO duty to protect..the lives of your loved ones.
Meanwhile, there will continue to be cheering from those viewing Rights as being subject to the Kings' whim for whatever litle scraps he choses to throw their way.
Granted, I haven't posted in a few years, but I still come and read. I find it odd and surprising that you, tr, are still so "pro NRA". This sounds just like the debates we used to have. Now I'm not sure why you ask who I support... quote:In addition, since you seem to have a grudge against the NRA, just what pro-gun organizations DO you believe in and support? I'm asking a question here so please answer. Why don't you complain about one of them not helping "that guy in Denver?".... when you already know. Or has it been too long? Ok, GOA and RMGO. As far as your other question about "where were they?" I don't have an answer. Maybe I will try to get one, maybe not. It is one case. In 20,000 opportunities that arose prior to the existence of these org's, the NRA showed you what they do with your $$$. Precisely the reason these org's came to be. Too bad they were needed.
For all you who condemn the NRA because it is not perfect enough. For all who critisize my stand on gun rights as not being pure enough because I try to work with what we have and can expect to get for the moment.
If you had a firearm that didn't function pefectly or was a .22 short caliber and to some not really a "true" enough firearm.
If you were unable to sell, trade or give away that firearm, I seriously doubt you would just trash it and walk away. But that is what you want to do with the NRA. And with the gun progress (CCW in 48 states, DC gun ban overturned, etc) that we have achieved.
It looks like you are using strange logic.
Funny thing is that if some of the radical opinions and disagreements expressed on this very board (eagerness to go to civil war over our gun rights, will acceept nothing but absoutely no control over guns, etc) were placed on placards and presented to the media and the public outside the courtroom when the DC gun ban was being debated, it is possible that the negative reaction to those opinions would have been just enough to have swung the judges to rule differently than they did and the DC gun ban might have been upheld.
JWolf. I support the NRA and others because I see the NRA as doing good things for gun owners. Not doing those things in a perfect manner, but still doing good things. We need as much help as we can get.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Funny thing is that if some of the radical opinions and disagreements expressed on this very board (eagerness to go to civil war over our gun rights,
it is not over gun ownership that these "opinions and disagreements" are expressed, it is over the fact that the Bill of Rights as it was intended is being pissed away.
what i don't understand is why are you so inclined to even show a shadow of a doubt that NRA might not be as good as you picture it, after all it did enough damage to 2nd Amendment to discredit itself as its protector. I am not sure of their agenda, but besides the legal damage they are doing enough damage to ideology that it makes one wonder of what exactly they are trying to do.
hey guys (and Gals [;)]) letting you all know im Back from Iraq [:)]...Kuwait never looked so good. hopefully I wont have to go back up North before I go home (fingers crossed)
Since I do believe that the 2A as well as my home state of KS constitution clearly and emphatically grants citizen rights of firearm ownership and carry, I could easily sit here and demand and accept nothing but those constitutionally guaranteed right. And in so doing I could findmyself sitting here with a continuing loss of those rights.
Instead I would take my second choice of making progress with such things as a 48 state CCW law, the Washington DC gun ban overturned, etc. I will take those scraps and continue working for country wide recogination of my true constitutional rights.
But an important fact that is lost on this forum is that as more and more people are able to still buy, own and shoot guns and get CCW licenses, that activity will help insure that the idea and concept of citizens gun rights is accepted by more and more Americans. This cannot but help mean that more and more judges, juries, even media members, will start having a better attitude towards citizens with guns. Then, for example, they finally cannot ignore the fact that the citizens in 48 states carrying concealed firearms are not only NOT A THREAT as so many predicted, but in some cases have even been able to save themselves and others from harm by using their firearm.
This change in attitude, impossible if we gun people did not get AND ACCEPT some gun rights that are given in such as way as to appear to be (and probably are) not our constitutional rights. If all gun people had stood firm and demanded we accept nothing less than our full and complete constitutional rights, there would be NO CCW laws in 48 states, no repeal of Clinton's so called assault weaapons ban, etc. And in that case, the situation I just described would never be able to happen.
IOW, if your opponent (the anti-gun people in this case) are willing to throw us a few crumbs, take those crumbs, enjoy them and use them against your opponent, and continue striving for your full constitutional rights.
In regards to the NRA, I have seen it do good things for the pro-gun people and it continues to do good things. It is not perfect and neither are you.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
#1 I will take those scraps and continue working for country wide recogination of my true constitutional rights.
#2IOW, if your opponent (the anti-gun people in this case) are willing to throw us a few crumbs, take those crumbs, enjoy them and use them against your opponent, and continue striving for your full constitutional rights.
#1 The kings are mighty happy to have a begging peasent like you.
#2 I am glad you are not in charge of any military forces. You would lose the war before it began.
What part of,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
"The right to keep and BEAR arms",
is hard to understand???
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Or are some so "afraid" of the "WHOLE" truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?
It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional.
Members CAN'T FIX IT, IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S BROKEN.
Even if you change the leaders in the NRA, the problem is "as with politicians" if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting "MANY" of them passed.
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win "some" if they didn't, they wouldn't have much of a membership, now would they? We have had almost 2 terms of a republican controlled government. How many gun laws has the NRA even tried to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a "Vermont Style" CCW law in?
I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?
*****
Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the "compromise" in this?
*****
What HARM can they do / have they done?
Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.
The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934 was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby clearing an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
*****
The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what it really is.
The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep and hide arms" or "to keep and lock up your arms" or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.
*****
"Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
*****
Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???
*****
LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
*****
First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out pro-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.
*****
It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.
Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. They started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.
Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.
Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.
From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT`S OUR BILL in five years.
*****
Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. A case that ultimately overturned a gun ban. Why? Because they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the supreme court. A supreme court (considering the make up of it now) where we have the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?
*****
While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."
In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.
CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills
TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.
Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?
In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.
In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.
In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS...NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???
In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ?
In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.
In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.
*******
John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term"jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?
NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.
Can't forget the "help" we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer. We are still waiting to see, if the anti-gun attachments that were on the one that was passed, is going to come back and bite us in the *.
The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time
Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!
In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?
From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.
The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.
Admittedly, some of this information is "historical" in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. It shows a distinct pattern. An agenda? If so, it's one that I'm not happy with at all.
Is this the kind of "representation" that YOU want/expect? There are more bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
OK fine, a little about the NRA
What part of,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
"The right to keep and BEAR arms",
is hard to understand???
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Or are some so "afraid" of the "WHOLE" truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?
It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional.
Members CAN'T FIX IT, IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S BROKEN.
Even if you change the leaders in the NRA, the problem is "as with politicians" if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting "MANY" of them passed.
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win "some" if they didn't, they wouldn't have much of a membership, now would they? We have had almost 2 terms of a republican controlled government. How many gun laws has the NRA even tried to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a "Vermont Style" CCW law in?
I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?
*****
Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the "compromise" in this?
*****
What HARM can they do / have they done?
Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.
The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934 was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby clearing an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
*****
The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what it really is.
The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep and hide arms" or "to keep and lock up your arms" or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.
*****
"Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
*****
Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???
*****
LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
*****
First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out pro-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.
*****
It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.
Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. They started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.
Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.
Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.
From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT`S OUR BILL in five years.
*****
Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. A case that ultimately overturned a gun ban. Why? Because they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the supreme court. A supreme court (considering the make up of it now) where we have the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?
*****
While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."
In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.
CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills
TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.
Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?
In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.
In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.
In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS...NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???
In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ?
In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.
In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.
*******
John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term"jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?
NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.
Can't forget the "help" we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer. We are still waiting to see, if the anti-gun attachments that were on the one that was passed, is going to come back and bite us in the *.
The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time
Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!
In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?
From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.
The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.
Admittedly, some of this information is "historical" in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. It shows a distinct pattern. An agenda? If so, it's one that I'm not happy with at all.
Is this the kind of "representation" that YOU want/expect? There are more bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.
pickenup,
You can lead a horse "herd" to water, but you can't make them drink.
I don't know what else a man can do, beyond producing easy to read, verifiable facts to the "herd" and holding said facts up for the "herd " to read. It seems as if the "herd" does not want to be bothered by facts.
I don't trust NRA any longer. Trust is earned. They have squandered any remaining trust I had in them.
H ell, I was reading about the DC Handgun Ban "victory" in my American Rifleman. If I hadn't already known the real story, I would have thought the NRA was leading the fight from day one on that one. What unmitigated gall, but I am quite sure that it impressed the h ell out of the "herd" and the "herd" will continue to think NRA is a staunch supporter of Amendment II.
Very well documented. Thank you. This is one for the "Sticky" so it doesn't get lost.
Admittedly, there was a time when I totally supported the NRA. You may remember a couple of my exchanges with Highball in that regard. SORRY Highball, I must, AGAIN, admit you were right. I have probably signed up over a 100, easy, during membership drives myself thru the 80's. As a youngster I had been told what a great organization it was for kids to learn firearms training and gun handling, and still believed that. What good work and opportunities they did and offered to and for women gun owners. How they supported "Hunting" (the 2nd was never brought up) and what great work they did for their members.
Well, since reinstituting myself into society, building a house and getting modern conveniences like electricity and plumbing I also got a computer. I should have stayed in the woods!! Ignorance is Bliss. (The only problem with that is; to remain ignorant when the truth IS available would be the ultimate sin.) Although I have always had an interest in politics it was mostly, talk radio and State and Federal Election Cycle information where I made decisions based media reports and on "what the candidates said", without access to their true colors. Access to the inter-net AND This Forum, changed all that and has made me the consummate activist. Even though some think it a waste of time, I Thank You ALL.
The NRA is no longer a citizens advocacy group for the 2nd Amendment. It has become the "Right Arm" of the "Left Wing" Gun Grabbers. Today's NRA has no resemblance to what Grandpa/ma knew as the NRA. AND, NO, the NRA gets NO financial backing from this, now enlightened and dissatisfied, EX-Member and previous supporter.
Even if all the anti-NRA people here are absoutely right and I am absoutely wrong, you are still making a fatal error. I am referring to the few here who have the battle scars of having fought long and hard for our gun rights.They may know a lot more than me about the NRA just for an example, but they are joining in the "topple the NRA" chorus along with many (actually the majority of gun owners) gun owners who jump at the chance to disparage the NRA, along with your disparaging, because they don't do even one damn thing at all to help the fight for our gun rights. So by joining in the "topple the NRA" chorus, along with those few pro-gun people who do/have actually done things for gun rights, makes them be able to feel good about themselves in regards to their not spending any time and/or money to help other organizations such as the GOA, etc.
And you know this is true. If you doubt, carefully read some of the topics/responses here and on the general forum. You can recognize such slackers who are so willing and anxious to bash the NRA and when the do so, if you read the content of their posts you can often determine that they know little about the long-term, on going gun rights war and so therefore obviously have been/are sitting on the sidelines.
For you true and active 2A supporters, at least distance yourself from those here who do nothing but complain about what is not being done while they themselves do little or nothing.
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
The more I hear, and read,........the more I don't believe I will renew my membership with the NRA.
I think the time has come for the government to do what they want to try,.........and lets see what happens! I think they will be shocked.
I am SO sick, of writing letters, and e-mails, about everything, that a normal American citizen, would be concerned about, and getting the canned responses! This needs to come to a head,........it is time to let the bad things start to happen. Our lives are not going to be like they have been for generations anyway,......even with our "passive" resistance.
I am tired of being "screwed"!![}:)]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
I wonder how many people are also tired of it. i know many don't give a @#$% out of their ignorance, but i hear more and more people speaking out of their grunts against the current administration, the system it has created, illegals, and the rest of the mess. Just wondering if people will actually stand up and do something about it.
quote:the more I don't believe I will renew my membership with the NRA
Does that mean you are taking the sticker off of your truck??? The thought of you waving at that snooty jogger each morning is the only thing that keeps me going these days.
Those that insist upon 'working within the system' to change the system really need to understand something.
Inability to grasp the concept that the PEOPLE in the system are rotten corrupt power mad skanks leaves you supporting those people....nullifing all your grand good schemes.
You can bet that the Founders were aware that the King was insane with power....
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Even if all the anti-NRA people here are absoutely right and I am absoutely wrong, you are still making a fatal error. I am referring to the few here who have the battle scars of having fought long and hard for our gun rights.They may know a lot more than me about the NRA just for an example, but they are joining in the "topple the NRA" chorus along with many (actually the majority of gun owners) gun owners who jump at the chance to disparage the NRA, along with your disparaging, because they don't do even one damn thing at all to help the fight for our gun rights. So by joining in the "topple the NRA" chorus, along with those few pro-gun people who do/have actually done things for gun rights, makes them be able to feel good about themselves in regards to their not spending any time and/or money to help other organizations such as the GOA, etc.
And you know this is true. If you doubt, carefully read some of the topics/responses here and on the general forum. You can recognize such slackers who are so willing and anxious to bash the NRA and when the do so, if you read the content of their posts you can often determine that they know little about the long-term, on going gun rights war and so therefore obviously have been/are sitting on the sidelines.
For you true and active 2A supporters, at least distance yourself from those here who do nothing but complain about what is not being done while they themselves do little or nothing.
You sir, seem to be the quintessential ostrich, with your head buried very deeply in the sand, or some other orifice.
Most of the "topple the NRA" crowd, as you label them, are not trying to topple anything. I see nothing but an effort to wake up some ignorant gun owners to FACTS. I have never seen such frantic defense, or unwillingness to face reality.
You make a supposition, particularly in my case, that I don't do anything to fight for gun-rights. Again, this is ignorance and another demonstration of your failure to address the issue as presented.
If you were a true and active "Second Amendment supporter" as you claim, you would support the true Second Amendment, not the government regulated, infringed, individual restricting, compromised away kind of "Second Amendment" that the NRA is pushing. Two different Second Amendments sir. Mine is the one enumerated in the US Constitutions Bill of Rights. Where did yours and the NRA's "Second Amendment" come from?
It appears that most here, who point out NRA gun-control info, are wanting to educate some here and hopefully, cause appropriate pressure to be brought to bear from within the organization to effect change.
Seems like good sense and a positive, pro gun-rights move to me. Maybe I am way off base on this issue, but I don't think so.
Blind obedience is what I see from you and a number of others here. If you would acknowledge the reality and work to change things, we would all be better off. Instead, what I see, particularly from your posts, is a frantic, irrational defense of the NRA, disregarding the issues presented here, attacking those attempting to educate and making the case that those attempting to educate on the REAL actions of the NRA, are the problem with the gun-rights battle. Rather, you should be accepting the facts and working from you position of passion and membership, to MAKE the NRA change its ways and actually support Amendment II, as it was intended.
If NRA fails to mend its ways and still receives support from members like yourself, I submit to you that you are the problem, not those who are Constitutionally motivated.
Strongly worded, not from disrespect TR, just from the passion that the issue brings to me.
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
Now THAT, is an analogy that is spot on. Excellent example.
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
OK, I read your argument and also thank you for having read and thought about mine in the past. I wish to present another argument in response to yours. But first I want to insist that many of the anti-NRA people here do want to topple the NRA. What else could happen when, as so many urge, everyone quit joining/supporting the NRA? It would of course cease to exist. That would make the NRA bashers here happy but it would also make the anti-gun crowd happy.
DOES IT NOT REGISTER ON YOUR MIND THAT THERE PROBABLY IS SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT YOU AND THE ANTI-GUN CROWD BEING HAPPY ABOUT THE SAME THING?
Hey, I want to know a specific answer to the above specific question. It should be easy to answer and many of you NRA bashers here have already launched thousands of words on the subject of the NRA. Surely you won't hesitate to add a few more in response to my specific question .
So, how about it. How about a direct, specific answer.
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
There is one very serious flaw with your example. You are using a company that is privately owned. A company in which all I can ever be is a "customer". It is extremely likely I can never be the president, vice president, member of the board, or any executive who exerts any control over the way the company does its business or how it treats its customers.
THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF HOW THE NRA IS STRUCTURED. The NRA president is elected! The board of directors is elected! ONLY THEN does the board of directors appoint the executive director who handles most of the day-to-day operation.
Anyone here who would be a member of the NRA could vote for the directors. After several years of active membership a member can run for director. A few years after that he could run for president. If you are a member in good standing and a new executive director is needed, you could apply for the job.
Geez. The NRA is not some foreign country where you have no claim, interest, vote or control and if you have a serious problem with that country, the only choice you have is to go to war with that country. The NRA is owned by its membership. Just as with any organization owned by its membership, if you don't llike the way the organization is being run, then change it. If the NRA is screwing up so much in so many ways, those of you here who feel this way must have MILLIONS of other gun owners who feel the same way. If that is the case it should be very, very easy for you to band together and make a drastic change for the "better" in the way the NRA is being run.
In fact I would think you would get more satisfaction out of banding together with all the other (surely there are millions) of gun owning NRA haters and changing the entire way the NRA conducts business. But I believe you would rather just stand outside the NRA and throw rocks at the windows.
quote:Does that mean you are taking the sticker off of your truck??? The thought of you waving at that snooty jogger each morning is the only thing that keeps me going these days.
Wolf,......I have already thought about that![:D] She does wave at me now though, but I would hate to have her think she made ME change my mind about something. I am a member until 11/08 already, so I will leave them for that timeframe![;)]
One of the things that impacted me about this whole subject,........I constantly get hit up by NRA for more contributions. You give to the ILA division, and before your check even clears, there is another pitch in the mail, or my e-mail.
I have written them letters before, asking why they are not fighting to "roll back" existing gunlaws that are unconstitutional, instead of trying to cooperate with liberals, and water down the legislation,.....for our protection. All I have EVER received is a "blah, blah", canned BS response, followed by another request for money,..........I'm just done.
On the other hand, I am not suggesting that anyone else follow my example,...........do what you think is right for you, and your view of the big picture. I can only do what I feel is right, and this is where I have arrived at this point.
I'll be lucky if I don't get a "visit" soon, after all of the letters that I have written to Congressmen from my state, and area,.......and to the White House, over this immigration abortion.
It is just getting to me, to finally realize that none of these scums, give a damn, about anything that the American voter thinks or feels. They have seen the polls, showing overwhelming opposition, to any form of amnesty, and they have been bombarded with calls, and mail, of both sorts,........they are just "thumbing" their nose at us![}:)]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Does that mean you are taking the sticker off of your truck??? The thought of you waving at that snooty jogger each morning is the only thing that keeps me going these days.
Wolf,......I have already thought about that![:D] She does wave at me now though, but I would hate to have her think she made ME change my mind about something. I am a member until 11/08 already, so I will leave them for that timeframe![;)]
One of the things that impacted me about this whole subject,........I constantly get hit up by NRA for more contributions. You give to the ILA division, and before your check even clears, there is another pitch in the mail, or my e-mail.
I have written them letters before, asking why they are not fighting to "roll back" existing gunlaws that are unconstitutional, instead of trying to cooperate with liberals, and water down the legislation,.....for our protection. All I have EVER received is a "blah, blah", canned BS response, followed by another request for money,..........I'm just done.
On the other hand, I am not suggesting that anyone else follow my example,...........do what you think is right for you, and your view of the big picture. I can only do what I feel is right, and this is where I have arrived at this point.
I'll be lucky if I don't get a "visit" soon, after all of the letters that I have written to Congressmen from my state, and area,.......and to the White House, over this immigration abortion.
It is just getting to me, to finally realize that none of these scums, give a damn, about anything that the American voter thinks or feels. They have seen the polls, showing overwhelming opposition, to any form of amnesty, and they have been bombarded with calls, and mail, of both sorts,........they are just "thumbing" their nose at us![}:)]
I don't enjoy being asked for money either. However I don't resent the NRA for asking. The anti-gun crowd is awash in money and they use it to try and take away our rights. It takes the power of money to resist the power of money.
Where, other than the members and the occassional fund raisers and NRA products sales, can the NRA get the money it absoutely has to have in order to function?
quote:Where, other than the members and the occassional fund raisers and NRA products sales, can the NRA get the money it absoutely has to have in order to function?
Of course those are the routes that must be used to raise money,......but just as a charity does,......the more you send them, the more they ask for.
I would think that with the amounts they have gotten out of me over the years, that I should at least qualify to get a "real" response to a serious question, instead of a "canned" form letter!
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Where, other than the members and the occassional fund raisers and NRA products sales, can the NRA get the money it absoutely has to have in order to function?
Of course those are the routes that must be used to raise money,......but just as a charity does,......the more you send them, the more they ask for.
I would think that with the amounts they have gotten out of me over the years, that I should at least qualify to get a "real" response to a serious question, instead of a "canned" form letter!
Well, yeah I have also wished for a more personal response from various large organizations such as the NRA. It just doesn't seem to happen though. You or I probaably should make a phone call to them or even send a letter to them that has been signed by numerous other gun owners and that would surely get their attention and get us a personal reply.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Wagon Wheel
tr fox:
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
OK, I read your argument and also thank you for having read and thought about mine in the past. I wish to present another argument in response to yours. But first I want to insist that many of the anti-NRA people here do want to topple the NRA. What else could happen when, as so many urge, everyone quit joining/supporting the NRA? It would of course cease to exist. That would make the NRA bashers here happy but it would also make the anti-gun crowd happy.
DOES IT NOT REGISTER ON YOUR MIND THAT THERE PROBABLY IS SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT YOU AND THE ANTI-GUN CROWD BEING HAPPY ABOUT THE SAME THING?
Hey, I want to know a specific answer to the above specific question. It should be easy to answer and many of you NRA bashers here have already launched thousands of words on the subject of the NRA. Surely you won't hesitate to add a few more in response to my specific question .
So, how about it. How about a direct, specific answer.
TR, same question, right back at you.
Anti-gunners are thrilled that NRA supports their positions on many issues.
Example #1. "The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one.
Example #2. The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one also.
Example #3. In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one too.
Example #4. NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
Anti-gunners were happy again.
Example #5. "Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
Happy again.
Example #6. Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
Anti-gunners win again. Happy??????
Example #7. LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
Another NRA action that made anti-gunners happy.
Example #8. Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
Another happy moment.
I could go on and on, but why bother?
You own question shows that YOUR position is flawed.
They are too big, at this stage TR.
It would take a petition with at least tens of thousands of signatures, to even get them to consider fighting a different way. And even then, I don't know what effect it would have..
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Wagon Wheel
tr fox:
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
OK, I read your argument and also thank you for having read and thought about mine in the past. I wish to present another argument in response to yours. But first I want to insist that many of the anti-NRA people here do want to topple the NRA. What else could happen when, as so many urge, everyone quit joining/supporting the NRA? It would of course cease to exist. That would make the NRA bashers here happy but it would also make the anti-gun crowd happy.
DOES IT NOT REGISTER ON YOUR MIND THAT THERE PROBABLY IS SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT YOU AND THE ANTI-GUN CROWD BEING HAPPY ABOUT THE SAME THING?
Hey, I want to know a specific answer to the above specific question. It should be easy to answer and many of you NRA bashers here have already launched thousands of words on the subject of the NRA. Surely you won't hesitate to add a few more in response to my specific question .
So, how about it. How about a direct, specific answer.
TR, same question, right back at you.
Anti-gunners are thrilled that NRA supports their positions on many issues.
Example #1. "The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one.
Example #2. The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one also.
Example #3. In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one too.
Example #4. NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
Anti-gunners were happy again.
Example #5. "Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
Happy again.
Example #6. Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
Anti-gunners win again. Happy??????
Example #7. LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
Another NRA action that made anti-gunners happy.
Example #8. Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
Another happy moment.
I could go on and on, but why bother?
You own question shows that YOUR position is flawed.
Enough said.
In bold blue above. if you are going to answer my question with a question there is no chance for a meaningful dialogue.
quote:They are too big, at this stage TR.
It would take a petition with at least tens of thousands of signatures, to even get them to consider fighting a different way. And even then, I don't know what effect it would have..
Why don't we draft the petition anyway? Between this forum and General Discussion we could probably get a couple of hundred signatures. TR Fox, if you drafted it and posted it here for feedback from the other members then I would gladly send you my full name, phone number, and NRA member number to add to the petition.
If we can get 200 signees onto such a letter to the NRA, from hard-core gun owners like ourselves, and the NRA still ignores us, then I think you would have to admit there is a flaw in that organization.
If a few dozen decent men could raise the ire of the King of England, then perhaps a couple hundred of us could at least get the attention of an organization that supposedly represents us.
Marc1301, I'm glad you finally got the jogger lady to wave at you. Next step is taking her to the range for some .22 plinking. [:D]
A little side story... about a year ago, my wife bought me an NRA hitch cover. I never have put it on my truck. She asked me a few months ago why I hadn't, and I could tell she was kind of insulted and hurt. I told her that I had heard about people getting their cars broken into that had NRA stickers on them, because the thieves thought there was a good liklihood of a gun being in the car (which is true).
But the real reason I haven't put it on my truck is, through the discussions on this forum, I no longer feel that the NRA accurately represents my position on gun rights. But I am still a dues paying member. The way I look at it... the $50 a year that I pay the NRA for my wife and myself basically gets us two pretty decent monthly magazines with lots of product reviews, some discounts on travel and other services, and each a $10,000 insurance policy if we are injured or killed by a firearm.
I figure it is about the equivalent of getting a Guns & Ammo subscription. I have no idea what Guns & Ammo does with their money, they could be a front for the Brady Campaign for all I know. But I still buy a copy off the newsstand once in a while. If a business or organization is anti-gun then I try not to patronize them, but I don't research every single entity that my money goes to, so I'm sure that sometimes I am feeding the beast.
I personally don't care if any move that I make causes the anti-Constitution crowd any happiness. I focus on the issue and do what is right, no matter the public, or prevailing wisdom, or the difficulty in doing so.
The issue is that the Constitution is inviolate, unless changed through established processes. Backdoor deals, compromise, collusion in passing bills that infringe on the Bill of Rights, legislating other infringements and judicial fiat are not valid methods and absolutely infringe on my God-given rights.
If millions of NRA members took my view and left the NRA (which I have not done by the way, Life Member here), then the organization would fold. That would indeed make the anti-gunners happy.
However.....and a big however.....
The result of that should be that those millions who were dissatisfied with, or fooled by the NRA, could and should throw their support behind an organization that actually supports Amendment II. You pick the organization, although the list is small e.g. GOA or JPFO.
If NRA's base and wealth went to a group that actually took the appropriate stance on Amendment II, some real progress WOULD be made, not a continuing decline and erosion, as is the case with NRA.
NRA is the big dog in the fight right now. They are not fighting the Constitutional Fight, they are compromisers, period. They achieve some good occasionally, but it seems as if many, including yourself, consider success by the NRA to be in the degree of compromise that is reached.
That my friend is where we part company.
I desire and wish that the NRA would represent my views. Reality suggests that this will never be the case.
The real sad part of this whole story is, that most NRA Members are not aware of the past and current duplicity, the facilitation and the outright support for multiple forms of gun-control that the NRA is and has been involved in.
Support for this flawed monster still abounds, which prevents real Amendment II supporting organizations from having the support and voice that they need to force positive change.
Bottom line, if anyone is aware of the factual history of NRA and chooses to ignore, disbelieve, or continue to support them, rather than throw support behind an organization that actually fights the fight, then those people are what will ultimately cause the loss of the Bill of Rights, NOT those of us who see things as they are.
Again TR, no disrespect intended. I merely continue the attempt to make my point.
quote:Marc1301, I'm glad you finally got the jogger lady to wave at you. Next step is taking her to the range for some .22 plinking.
WWolf,.......Don't believe the fiance' would be too happy about that idea. My chiropractor, that I see about every three months,.....IF I'm doing good, has a cute, and much younger than my 45 years, receptionist. The Chiro knows that I am a big shooter, and evidently she wants to learn to shoot. He must have told her about me,.......because the last time I was in there, she asked me all about it. From what kinds of guns I had, to where did I shoot. She asked me if I would take her out to the range I belong to one weekend,.......and I innocently[}:)], said sure!
Rest of the story,........I told my fiance' about it, and that I would like to take her, to start another person out on firearms. Since you are married,.....bet you can guess the rest of the story. I AM stubborn though, and replied by saying I would give her thoughts,.......consideration![:D]
I am due to go back next month for an adjustment, and if I am asked again,.......I will have to make a choice between being in the doghouse, or the silent treatment, which does not bother me,.........or bringing a new female shooter into the game!
I am a risk taker, if you can't tell[;)]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
Wolf,.......also, I agree with what you proposed. Why doesn't one of us,....preferrably with the most literary skill, make a petition to the NRA! I am in just like you said,.......info and all.
It would be a good way to find out what I suspect their response would be.
I think TRFox, would be good at writing it also,.........so decide if this is something that you would like to do. We might be surprised at the signatures we could get.
Worse case,.......a waste of a bit of time. But don't we all waste a lot of time here anyway?[;)]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
Comments
Wolf,........I would agree with you totally on the child issue, except for a point you left out! With you, I know it was a missed thought, as I am sure you are not in favor of my return point.
Sometimes, when I see the "dullard" parents that exist, I have been of the opinion that one should need a "permit" to have a child in this day and age.
Obviously, that would be unconstitutional to a major degree. The only thing I WILL say is,............I am getting tired of paying for people that can't afford the children they create, and feel like someone else should pay their way, and provide all kinds of benefits to them, because they were, and are,........irresponsible. Some of these folks can't even take care of themselves, much less raise children.
That is where the "little demons", that have no soul, or concern for anything, but themselves, are coming from. Don't think I need to mention the benefits we give to illegal aliens, for their children, and the fact that if a "Burrito" mama, happens to be able to get her butt across the border, and drop the umpteenth child,........that child is now a US citizen, just like we are, and we are going to pay out the wazoo, for everything they want, and need!
This country is trying to create a "Utopia", which will never exist on this earth. We will fail, but it will turn us into a third world country, in the process.[;)]
Marc, where you are missing it is:
The social syatem IS the FAULT as much as nit-wit parents. The political snakes created this system of "free for all" and "no one has responsibility". I blame the snakes in office as much as I blame the parents. After all, how many of them came from the same system?
As far as the border jumping criminals, I firmly believe we should either deport the whole lot of them OR tell them to leave their kids that were born here behind forever. Amnesty = blind eye to crime.
Incrementally, you bet!!!! Remember Oligarchic Republic? Conn. Lawmakers Passed Plan B Pill - Wednesday the state House overwhelmingly approved a bill to require all hospitals to offer rape victims emergency contraception, over objections from Catholic leaders who say it infringes on their religious rights. Separation Of Church And State???? How many of the Coastal Elites Will follow suit? The Minority will gets it's way, one way on another!!
Not Coastal but another example:
Rape victims advocate requiring morning-after pill at hospitals
http://www.examiner.com/a-694368~Rape_victims_advocate_requiring_morning_after_pill_at_hospitals.html
And Texas Is going to offer-up a 165,000 11-year-olds in Texas schools as a study group for Merck to find out what the implications of this vaccine would be for these girls.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2007/may/08/050804365.html
And here is a new comparison to Gun Control.
Polygamy Activist Compares Gun Control to 'Marriage Control' -- 05/10/200
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070510a.html
TrFox;
You are not fighting for 'Gun Rights'...you are fighting for privileges. there is a vast difference...
Lines in the sand......Were I to use a gun to prevent harm to myself or a loved one...and governmnent insisted upon making me a criminal over it...that would be THEIR choice. At that moment, a line would be crossed.
For me, the REAL fight for gun rights would begin...and waiting for others would no longer be an option.
You will accept nothing but perfection. Being a realist I will accept what can reasonably be expected and attained. Then I will continue to expect more, demand more and accept more until the 2A is once again recognized as a true and important costitutional right.
IOW, while you sit and grip I at least attempt to move ahead. And at the end of the road you and I both have the same vision.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
TrFox;
You are not fighting for 'Gun Rights'...you are fighting for privileges. there is a vast difference...
Lines in the sand......Were I to use a gun to prevent harm to myself or a loved one...and governmnent insisted upon making me a criminal over it...that would be THEIR choice. At that moment, a line would be crossed.
For me, the REAL fight for gun rights would begin...and waiting for others would no longer be an option.
You will accept nothing but perfection. Being a realist I will accept what can reasonably be expected and attained. Then I will continue to expect more, demand more and accept more until the 2A is once again recognized as a true and important costitutional right.
IOW, while you sit and grip I at least attempt to move ahead. And at the end of the road you and I both have the same vision.
I can respect that, to a degree, fox.
I think fundamentally, it is more realistic for people to grow a pair and refuse to grovel before the fuds. The prison system would quickly collapse if 30 million people decided they were going to carry and didn't give a damn what the fuds did about it. They fine you, you refuse to pay, on a 30 million violator scale, what will they do, throw them all in jail??? They'll fall apart, first.
I know Highball well enough to tell you that, in no uncertain terms, he views from greatest to least, unrestricted rights to carry firearms in any way he chooses, then having the right not acknowledged, and finally, having that right turned into an arbtrarily revokable privilege. I can also tell you that the CCW thing has a very dark side few of you realize or comment on, because your narrow vision of it is restricted to criminals and thugs, but consider that registering to have a CCW puts you on a blacklist with any agency that wants to kill you, or steal your firearms when the time comes. Is that moving ahead, or stepping way back??
Correct me if I'm wrong, Highball, but in this case, I don't think I am, because I feel the same way. i just wish I felt this way before i went and became Ohio CHL-holder. I think about this every time this is brought up, that I may have just slit my own throat....
You will accept nothing but perfection. Being a realist I will accept what can reasonably be expected and attained. Then I will continue to expect more, demand more and accept more until the 2A is once again recognized as a true and important costitutional right.
IOW, while you sit and grip I at least attempt to move ahead. And at the end of the road you and I both have the same vision.
Fox you keep pointing to "perfection". You sir are dead wrong. We are not willing to accept a portion of our rights. We want what we FULLY deserve. You think you can "comprimise" them all back. You think your making progress. Have you ever really sat back and thought about that? There is no real improvement when what is yours is stolen. Your way turns a right to a privilage. They will not willingly give you your rights back. They are keeping them hostage, and unless your willing to kick the bababooey outta them and show as such, why would they? They perceive themselves SUPERIOR to the likes of us commoners. It is if to say "Keep begging peasent, I like the entetainment!". Unce upon a time you sir, would have been labeled a Tory. Today, I would sat that is APPROPRIATE. Either you want what you deserve or you are willing to take whatever the king lets you have.
Of course. That is exactly the way a Right OUGHT to be viewed.
The King and his pisa+++ slimy suits OUGHT to be in mortal fear of trespassing upon a soverign citizens toes...not glorying in their subjucation.
Soverign citizens ought to be DEMANDING their rights...not crawling on their bellies for permission to protect what the King and his Courts have said they have absolutely NO duty to protect..the lives of your loved ones.
Meanwhile, there will continue to be cheering from those viewing Rights as being subject to the Kings' whim for whatever litle scraps he choses to throw their way.
If you had a firearm that didn't function pefectly or was a .22 short caliber and to some not really a "true" enough firearm.
If you were unable to sell, trade or give away that firearm, I seriously doubt you would just trash it and walk away. But that is what you want to do with the NRA. And with the gun progress (CCW in 48 states, DC gun ban overturned, etc) that we have achieved.
It looks like you are using strange logic.
Funny thing is that if some of the radical opinions and disagreements expressed on this very board (eagerness to go to civil war over our gun rights, will acceept nothing but absoutely no control over guns, etc) were placed on placards and presented to the media and the public outside the courtroom when the DC gun ban was being debated, it is possible that the negative reaction to those opinions would have been just enough to have swung the judges to rule differently than they did and the DC gun ban might have been upheld.
Funny thing is that if some of the radical opinions and disagreements expressed on this very board (eagerness to go to civil war over our gun rights,
it is not over gun ownership that these "opinions and disagreements" are expressed, it is over the fact that the Bill of Rights as it was intended is being pissed away.
what i don't understand is why are you so inclined to even show a shadow of a doubt that NRA might not be as good as you picture it, after all it did enough damage to 2nd Amendment to discredit itself as its protector. I am not sure of their agenda, but besides the legal damage they are doing enough damage to ideology that it makes one wonder of what exactly they are trying to do.
Instead I would take my second choice of making progress with such things as a 48 state CCW law, the Washington DC gun ban overturned, etc. I will take those scraps and continue working for country wide recogination of my true constitutional rights.
But an important fact that is lost on this forum is that as more and more people are able to still buy, own and shoot guns and get CCW licenses, that activity will help insure that the idea and concept of citizens gun rights is accepted by more and more Americans. This cannot but help mean that more and more judges, juries, even media members, will start having a better attitude towards citizens with guns. Then, for example, they finally cannot ignore the fact that the citizens in 48 states carrying concealed firearms are not only NOT A THREAT as so many predicted, but in some cases have even been able to save themselves and others from harm by using their firearm.
This change in attitude, impossible if we gun people did not get AND ACCEPT some gun rights that are given in such as way as to appear to be (and probably are) not our constitutional rights. If all gun people had stood firm and demanded we accept nothing less than our full and complete constitutional rights, there would be NO CCW laws in 48 states, no repeal of Clinton's so called assault weaapons ban, etc. And in that case, the situation I just described would never be able to happen.
IOW, if your opponent (the anti-gun people in this case) are willing to throw us a few crumbs, take those crumbs, enjoy them and use them against your opponent, and continue striving for your full constitutional rights.
In regards to the NRA, I have seen it do good things for the pro-gun people and it continues to do good things. It is not perfect and neither are you.
#1 I will take those scraps and continue working for country wide recogination of my true constitutional rights.
#2IOW, if your opponent (the anti-gun people in this case) are willing to throw us a few crumbs, take those crumbs, enjoy them and use them against your opponent, and continue striving for your full constitutional rights.
#1 The kings are mighty happy to have a begging peasent like you.
#2 I am glad you are not in charge of any military forces. You would lose the war before it began.
What part of,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
"The right to keep and BEAR arms",
is hard to understand???
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Or are some so "afraid" of the "WHOLE" truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?
It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional.
Members CAN'T FIX IT, IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S BROKEN.
Even if you change the leaders in the NRA, the problem is "as with politicians" if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting "MANY" of them passed.
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win "some" if they didn't, they wouldn't have much of a membership, now would they? We have had almost 2 terms of a republican controlled government. How many gun laws has the NRA even tried to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a "Vermont Style" CCW law in?
I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?
*****
Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the "compromise" in this?
*****
What HARM can they do / have they done?
Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.
The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934 was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby clearing an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
*****
The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what it really is.
The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep and hide arms" or "to keep and lock up your arms" or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.
*****
"Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
*****
Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???
*****
LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
*****
First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out pro-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.
*****
It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.
Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. They started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.
Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.
Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.
From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT`S OUR BILL in five years.
*****
Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. A case that ultimately overturned a gun ban. Why? Because they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the supreme court. A supreme court (considering the make up of it now) where we have the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?
*****
While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."
In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.
CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills
TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.
Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?
In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.
In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.
In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS...NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???
In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ?
In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.
In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.
*******
John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term"jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?
NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.
Can't forget the "help" we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer. We are still waiting to see, if the anti-gun attachments that were on the one that was passed, is going to come back and bite us in the *.
The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time
Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!
In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?
From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.
The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.
Admittedly, some of this information is "historical" in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. It shows a distinct pattern. An agenda? If so, it's one that I'm not happy with at all.
Is this the kind of "representation" that YOU want/expect? There are more bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.
OK fine, a little about the NRA
What part of,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
"The right to keep and BEAR arms",
is hard to understand???
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Or are some so "afraid" of the "WHOLE" truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?
It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional.
Members CAN'T FIX IT, IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S BROKEN.
Even if you change the leaders in the NRA, the problem is "as with politicians" if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting "MANY" of them passed.
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win "some" if they didn't, they wouldn't have much of a membership, now would they? We have had almost 2 terms of a republican controlled government. How many gun laws has the NRA even tried to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a "Vermont Style" CCW law in?
I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?
*****
Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the "compromise" in this?
*****
What HARM can they do / have they done?
Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.
The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934 was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby clearing an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
*****
The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what it really is.
The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep and hide arms" or "to keep and lock up your arms" or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.
*****
"Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
*****
Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???
*****
LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
*****
First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out pro-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.
*****
It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.
Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. They started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.
Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.
Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.
From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT`S OUR BILL in five years.
*****
Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. A case that ultimately overturned a gun ban. Why? Because they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the supreme court. A supreme court (considering the make up of it now) where we have the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?
*****
While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."
In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.
CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills
TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.
Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?
In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.
In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.
In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS...NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???
In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ?
In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.
In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.
*******
John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term"jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?
NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.
Can't forget the "help" we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer. We are still waiting to see, if the anti-gun attachments that were on the one that was passed, is going to come back and bite us in the *.
The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time
Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!
In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?
From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.
The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.
Admittedly, some of this information is "historical" in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. It shows a distinct pattern. An agenda? If so, it's one that I'm not happy with at all.
Is this the kind of "representation" that YOU want/expect? There are more bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.
pickenup,
You can lead a horse "herd" to water, but you can't make them drink.
I don't know what else a man can do, beyond producing easy to read, verifiable facts to the "herd" and holding said facts up for the "herd " to read. It seems as if the "herd" does not want to be bothered by facts.
I don't trust NRA any longer. Trust is earned. They have squandered any remaining trust I had in them.
H ell, I was reading about the DC Handgun Ban "victory" in my American Rifleman. If I hadn't already known the real story, I would have thought the NRA was leading the fight from day one on that one. What unmitigated gall, but I am quite sure that it impressed the h ell out of the "herd" and the "herd" will continue to think NRA is a staunch supporter of Amendment II.
Pathetic.[V]
Very well documented. Thank you. This is one for the "Sticky" so it doesn't get lost.
Admittedly, there was a time when I totally supported the NRA. You may remember a couple of my exchanges with Highball in that regard. SORRY Highball, I must, AGAIN, admit you were right. I have probably signed up over a 100, easy, during membership drives myself thru the 80's. As a youngster I had been told what a great organization it was for kids to learn firearms training and gun handling, and still believed that. What good work and opportunities they did and offered to and for women gun owners. How they supported "Hunting" (the 2nd was never brought up) and what great work they did for their members.
Well, since reinstituting myself into society, building a house and getting modern conveniences like electricity and plumbing I also got a computer. I should have stayed in the woods!! Ignorance is Bliss. (The only problem with that is; to remain ignorant when the truth IS available would be the ultimate sin.) Although I have always had an interest in politics it was mostly, talk radio and State and Federal Election Cycle information where I made decisions based media reports and on "what the candidates said", without access to their true colors. Access to the inter-net AND This Forum, changed all that and has made me the consummate activist. Even though some think it a waste of time, I Thank You ALL.
The NRA is no longer a citizens advocacy group for the 2nd Amendment. It has become the "Right Arm" of the "Left Wing" Gun Grabbers. Today's NRA has no resemblance to what Grandpa/ma knew as the NRA. AND, NO, the NRA gets NO financial backing from this, now enlightened and dissatisfied, EX-Member and previous supporter.
And you know this is true. If you doubt, carefully read some of the topics/responses here and on the general forum. You can recognize such slackers who are so willing and anxious to bash the NRA and when the do so, if you read the content of their posts you can often determine that they know little about the long-term, on going gun rights war and so therefore obviously have been/are sitting on the sidelines.
For you true and active 2A supporters, at least distance yourself from those here who do nothing but complain about what is not being done while they themselves do little or nothing.
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
Nothing Personal. Just got this. Here is another mans' perspective on the NRA.
H.R. 297 - More Gun Control That Won't Work
http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/hr297_a.htm?nl=1
I think the time has come for the government to do what they want to try,.........and lets see what happens! I think they will be shocked.
I am SO sick, of writing letters, and e-mails, about everything, that a normal American citizen, would be concerned about, and getting the canned responses! This needs to come to a head,........it is time to let the bad things start to happen. Our lives are not going to be like they have been for generations anyway,......even with our "passive" resistance.
I am tired of being "screwed"!![}:)]
Does that mean you are taking the sticker off of your truck??? The thought of you waving at that snooty jogger each morning is the only thing that keeps me going these days.
[:D][:o)][8D][;)]
Inability to grasp the concept that the PEOPLE in the system are rotten corrupt power mad skanks leaves you supporting those people....nullifing all your grand good schemes.
You can bet that the Founders were aware that the King was insane with power....
Even if all the anti-NRA people here are absoutely right and I am absoutely wrong, you are still making a fatal error. I am referring to the few here who have the battle scars of having fought long and hard for our gun rights.They may know a lot more than me about the NRA just for an example, but they are joining in the "topple the NRA" chorus along with many (actually the majority of gun owners) gun owners who jump at the chance to disparage the NRA, along with your disparaging, because they don't do even one damn thing at all to help the fight for our gun rights. So by joining in the "topple the NRA" chorus, along with those few pro-gun people who do/have actually done things for gun rights, makes them be able to feel good about themselves in regards to their not spending any time and/or money to help other organizations such as the GOA, etc.
And you know this is true. If you doubt, carefully read some of the topics/responses here and on the general forum. You can recognize such slackers who are so willing and anxious to bash the NRA and when the do so, if you read the content of their posts you can often determine that they know little about the long-term, on going gun rights war and so therefore obviously have been/are sitting on the sidelines.
For you true and active 2A supporters, at least distance yourself from those here who do nothing but complain about what is not being done while they themselves do little or nothing.
You sir, seem to be the quintessential ostrich, with your head buried very deeply in the sand, or some other orifice.
Most of the "topple the NRA" crowd, as you label them, are not trying to topple anything. I see nothing but an effort to wake up some ignorant gun owners to FACTS. I have never seen such frantic defense, or unwillingness to face reality.
You make a supposition, particularly in my case, that I don't do anything to fight for gun-rights. Again, this is ignorance and another demonstration of your failure to address the issue as presented.
If you were a true and active "Second Amendment supporter" as you claim, you would support the true Second Amendment, not the government regulated, infringed, individual restricting, compromised away kind of "Second Amendment" that the NRA is pushing. Two different Second Amendments sir. Mine is the one enumerated in the US Constitutions Bill of Rights. Where did yours and the NRA's "Second Amendment" come from?
It appears that most here, who point out NRA gun-control info, are wanting to educate some here and hopefully, cause appropriate pressure to be brought to bear from within the organization to effect change.
Seems like good sense and a positive, pro gun-rights move to me. Maybe I am way off base on this issue, but I don't think so.
Blind obedience is what I see from you and a number of others here. If you would acknowledge the reality and work to change things, we would all be better off. Instead, what I see, particularly from your posts, is a frantic, irrational defense of the NRA, disregarding the issues presented here, attacking those attempting to educate and making the case that those attempting to educate on the REAL actions of the NRA, are the problem with the gun-rights battle. Rather, you should be accepting the facts and working from you position of passion and membership, to MAKE the NRA change its ways and actually support Amendment II, as it was intended.
If NRA fails to mend its ways and still receives support from members like yourself, I submit to you that you are the problem, not those who are Constitutionally motivated.
Strongly worded, not from disrespect TR, just from the passion that the issue brings to me.
tr fox:
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
Now THAT, is an analogy that is spot on. Excellent example.
tr fox:
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
OK, I read your argument and also thank you for having read and thought about mine in the past. I wish to present another argument in response to yours. But first I want to insist that many of the anti-NRA people here do want to topple the NRA. What else could happen when, as so many urge, everyone quit joining/supporting the NRA? It would of course cease to exist. That would make the NRA bashers here happy but it would also make the anti-gun crowd happy.
DOES IT NOT REGISTER ON YOUR MIND THAT THERE PROBABLY IS SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT YOU AND THE ANTI-GUN CROWD BEING HAPPY ABOUT THE SAME THING?
Hey, I want to know a specific answer to the above specific question. It should be easy to answer and many of you NRA bashers here have already launched thousands of words on the subject of the NRA. Surely you won't hesitate to add a few more in response to my specific question .
So, how about it. How about a direct, specific answer.
tr fox:
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
There is one very serious flaw with your example. You are using a company that is privately owned. A company in which all I can ever be is a "customer". It is extremely likely I can never be the president, vice president, member of the board, or any executive who exerts any control over the way the company does its business or how it treats its customers.
THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF HOW THE NRA IS STRUCTURED. The NRA president is elected! The board of directors is elected! ONLY THEN does the board of directors appoint the executive director who handles most of the day-to-day operation.
Anyone here who would be a member of the NRA could vote for the directors. After several years of active membership a member can run for director. A few years after that he could run for president. If you are a member in good standing and a new executive director is needed, you could apply for the job.
Geez. The NRA is not some foreign country where you have no claim, interest, vote or control and if you have a serious problem with that country, the only choice you have is to go to war with that country. The NRA is owned by its membership. Just as with any organization owned by its membership, if you don't llike the way the organization is being run, then change it. If the NRA is screwing up so much in so many ways, those of you here who feel this way must have MILLIONS of other gun owners who feel the same way. If that is the case it should be very, very easy for you to band together and make a drastic change for the "better" in the way the NRA is being run.
In fact I would think you would get more satisfaction out of banding together with all the other (surely there are millions) of gun owning NRA haters and changing the entire way the NRA conducts business. But I believe you would rather just stand outside the NRA and throw rocks at the windows.
Wolf,......I have already thought about that![:D] She does wave at me now though, but I would hate to have her think she made ME change my mind about something. I am a member until 11/08 already, so I will leave them for that timeframe![;)]
One of the things that impacted me about this whole subject,........I constantly get hit up by NRA for more contributions. You give to the ILA division, and before your check even clears, there is another pitch in the mail, or my e-mail.
I have written them letters before, asking why they are not fighting to "roll back" existing gunlaws that are unconstitutional, instead of trying to cooperate with liberals, and water down the legislation,.....for our protection. All I have EVER received is a "blah, blah", canned BS response, followed by another request for money,..........I'm just done.
On the other hand, I am not suggesting that anyone else follow my example,...........do what you think is right for you, and your view of the big picture. I can only do what I feel is right, and this is where I have arrived at this point.
I'll be lucky if I don't get a "visit" soon, after all of the letters that I have written to Congressmen from my state, and area,.......and to the White House, over this immigration abortion.
It is just getting to me, to finally realize that none of these scums, give a damn, about anything that the American voter thinks or feels. They have seen the polls, showing overwhelming opposition, to any form of amnesty, and they have been bombarded with calls, and mail, of both sorts,........they are just "thumbing" their nose at us![}:)]
quote:Does that mean you are taking the sticker off of your truck??? The thought of you waving at that snooty jogger each morning is the only thing that keeps me going these days.
Wolf,......I have already thought about that![:D] She does wave at me now though, but I would hate to have her think she made ME change my mind about something. I am a member until 11/08 already, so I will leave them for that timeframe![;)]
One of the things that impacted me about this whole subject,........I constantly get hit up by NRA for more contributions. You give to the ILA division, and before your check even clears, there is another pitch in the mail, or my e-mail.
I have written them letters before, asking why they are not fighting to "roll back" existing gunlaws that are unconstitutional, instead of trying to cooperate with liberals, and water down the legislation,.....for our protection. All I have EVER received is a "blah, blah", canned BS response, followed by another request for money,..........I'm just done.
On the other hand, I am not suggesting that anyone else follow my example,...........do what you think is right for you, and your view of the big picture. I can only do what I feel is right, and this is where I have arrived at this point.
I'll be lucky if I don't get a "visit" soon, after all of the letters that I have written to Congressmen from my state, and area,.......and to the White House, over this immigration abortion.
It is just getting to me, to finally realize that none of these scums, give a damn, about anything that the American voter thinks or feels. They have seen the polls, showing overwhelming opposition, to any form of amnesty, and they have been bombarded with calls, and mail, of both sorts,........they are just "thumbing" their nose at us![}:)]
I don't enjoy being asked for money either. However I don't resent the NRA for asking. The anti-gun crowd is awash in money and they use it to try and take away our rights. It takes the power of money to resist the power of money.
Where, other than the members and the occassional fund raisers and NRA products sales, can the NRA get the money it absoutely has to have in order to function?
Of course those are the routes that must be used to raise money,......but just as a charity does,......the more you send them, the more they ask for.
I would think that with the amounts they have gotten out of me over the years, that I should at least qualify to get a "real" response to a serious question, instead of a "canned" form letter!
quote:Where, other than the members and the occassional fund raisers and NRA products sales, can the NRA get the money it absoutely has to have in order to function?
Of course those are the routes that must be used to raise money,......but just as a charity does,......the more you send them, the more they ask for.
I would think that with the amounts they have gotten out of me over the years, that I should at least qualify to get a "real" response to a serious question, instead of a "canned" form letter!
Well, yeah I have also wished for a more personal response from various large organizations such as the NRA. It just doesn't seem to happen though. You or I probaably should make a phone call to them or even send a letter to them that has been signed by numerous other gun owners and that would surely get their attention and get us a personal reply.
quote:Originally posted by Wagon Wheel
tr fox:
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
OK, I read your argument and also thank you for having read and thought about mine in the past. I wish to present another argument in response to yours. But first I want to insist that many of the anti-NRA people here do want to topple the NRA. What else could happen when, as so many urge, everyone quit joining/supporting the NRA? It would of course cease to exist. That would make the NRA bashers here happy but it would also make the anti-gun crowd happy.
DOES IT NOT REGISTER ON YOUR MIND THAT THERE PROBABLY IS SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT YOU AND THE ANTI-GUN CROWD BEING HAPPY ABOUT THE SAME THING?
Hey, I want to know a specific answer to the above specific question. It should be easy to answer and many of you NRA bashers here have already launched thousands of words on the subject of the NRA. Surely you won't hesitate to add a few more in response to my specific question .
So, how about it. How about a direct, specific answer.
TR, same question, right back at you.
Anti-gunners are thrilled that NRA supports their positions on many issues.
Example #1. "The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one.
Example #2. The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one also.
Example #3. In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one too.
Example #4. NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
Anti-gunners were happy again.
Example #5. "Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
Happy again.
Example #6. Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
Anti-gunners win again. Happy??????
Example #7. LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
Another NRA action that made anti-gunners happy.
Example #8. Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
Another happy moment.
I could go on and on, but why bother?
You own question shows that YOUR position is flawed.
Enough said.
It would take a petition with at least tens of thousands of signatures, to even get them to consider fighting a different way. And even then, I don't know what effect it would have..
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Wagon Wheel
tr fox:
You have offered several "hypothetical" arguments, let me try one.
You have done well in life, live comfortably and are basically happy with everything. You have been able to save some money, derived by hard work, your own blood, sweat and sacrifice. Your Grandfather dies and leaves you to manage his life savings, derived from a life much harsher than you would ever know, or wish to endure. You would like to invest this money for your old age or possibly to ensure financial stability of your children's and or grandchildren's future. Whatever the case may be.
You aren't well versed in the investment game but decide to go with a "Group" that is well known, and by all accounts has a good record. Over the course of the first year, your statements indicate a lose of principle rather than a gain. You consider this, hope the trend will reverse, and stay with them. Your loses the next year aren't quite as substantial, but you lost none-the-less. You complain to no avail and again hope things get better. Eventually, they increase their fees "to better manage your investment". Then they suggest you add to your initial investment to "Sweeten" the pot when things get better, more stock or whatever, equals higher gain. "The more we have to work with the better returns we can bring to your investment. After all it's just due to a poor economy and market fluctuations." Knowing better, you wisely decline/or not. The losing trend continues, with the occasional small gain, that eventually is lost as well, but it keeps you invested. Over the long term, you suffer no sudden, major financial lose but year-by-year your portfolio is slimmer and slimmer. You see your grandfather's hard-earned life savings, your future, and your kids/grandkids, future financial security dwindle, and fade away, incrementally, before your very eyes. All due to ill-advised investments, increases in fees that obvious were not earned and higher overhead due to exorbitant salaries paid to investors and CEO's, making a good living from YOUR investment.
At what point should or would you pull out and look for a more secure "Group". A "Group" that functioned more in line with your needs, and desire to make money, rather than lose. A "Group" to handle your investment wisely, as you would, and essentially insures your future "financial" security?? Or would you remain with this "Group" until your portfolio is bankrupt???? Would you recommend this investment "Group" to your friends and family??
OK, I read your argument and also thank you for having read and thought about mine in the past. I wish to present another argument in response to yours. But first I want to insist that many of the anti-NRA people here do want to topple the NRA. What else could happen when, as so many urge, everyone quit joining/supporting the NRA? It would of course cease to exist. That would make the NRA bashers here happy but it would also make the anti-gun crowd happy.
DOES IT NOT REGISTER ON YOUR MIND THAT THERE PROBABLY IS SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT YOU AND THE ANTI-GUN CROWD BEING HAPPY ABOUT THE SAME THING?
Hey, I want to know a specific answer to the above specific question. It should be easy to answer and many of you NRA bashers here have already launched thousands of words on the subject of the NRA. Surely you won't hesitate to add a few more in response to my specific question .
So, how about it. How about a direct, specific answer.
TR, same question, right back at you.
Anti-gunners are thrilled that NRA supports their positions on many issues.
Example #1. "The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one.
Example #2. The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one also.
Example #3. In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
The anti-gunners were happy about this one too.
Example #4. NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
Anti-gunners were happy again.
Example #5. "Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
Happy again.
Example #6. Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
Anti-gunners win again. Happy??????
Example #7. LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
Another NRA action that made anti-gunners happy.
Example #8. Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
Another happy moment.
I could go on and on, but why bother?
You own question shows that YOUR position is flawed.
Enough said.
In bold blue above. if you are going to answer my question with a question there is no chance for a meaningful dialogue.
It would take a petition with at least tens of thousands of signatures, to even get them to consider fighting a different way. And even then, I don't know what effect it would have..
Why don't we draft the petition anyway? Between this forum and General Discussion we could probably get a couple of hundred signatures. TR Fox, if you drafted it and posted it here for feedback from the other members then I would gladly send you my full name, phone number, and NRA member number to add to the petition.
If we can get 200 signees onto such a letter to the NRA, from hard-core gun owners like ourselves, and the NRA still ignores us, then I think you would have to admit there is a flaw in that organization.
If a few dozen decent men could raise the ire of the King of England, then perhaps a couple hundred of us could at least get the attention of an organization that supposedly represents us.
Marc1301, I'm glad you finally got the jogger lady to wave at you. Next step is taking her to the range for some .22 plinking. [:D]
A little side story... about a year ago, my wife bought me an NRA hitch cover. I never have put it on my truck. She asked me a few months ago why I hadn't, and I could tell she was kind of insulted and hurt. I told her that I had heard about people getting their cars broken into that had NRA stickers on them, because the thieves thought there was a good liklihood of a gun being in the car (which is true).
But the real reason I haven't put it on my truck is, through the discussions on this forum, I no longer feel that the NRA accurately represents my position on gun rights. But I am still a dues paying member. The way I look at it... the $50 a year that I pay the NRA for my wife and myself basically gets us two pretty decent monthly magazines with lots of product reviews, some discounts on travel and other services, and each a $10,000 insurance policy if we are injured or killed by a firearm.
I figure it is about the equivalent of getting a Guns & Ammo subscription. I have no idea what Guns & Ammo does with their money, they could be a front for the Brady Campaign for all I know. But I still buy a copy off the newsstand once in a while. If a business or organization is anti-gun then I try not to patronize them, but I don't research every single entity that my money goes to, so I'm sure that sometimes I am feeding the beast.
JMHO,
WoundedWolf
Your question is not valid to my position.
I personally don't care if any move that I make causes the anti-Constitution crowd any happiness. I focus on the issue and do what is right, no matter the public, or prevailing wisdom, or the difficulty in doing so.
The issue is that the Constitution is inviolate, unless changed through established processes. Backdoor deals, compromise, collusion in passing bills that infringe on the Bill of Rights, legislating other infringements and judicial fiat are not valid methods and absolutely infringe on my God-given rights.
If millions of NRA members took my view and left the NRA (which I have not done by the way, Life Member here), then the organization would fold. That would indeed make the anti-gunners happy.
However.....and a big however.....
The result of that should be that those millions who were dissatisfied with, or fooled by the NRA, could and should throw their support behind an organization that actually supports Amendment II. You pick the organization, although the list is small e.g. GOA or JPFO.
If NRA's base and wealth went to a group that actually took the appropriate stance on Amendment II, some real progress WOULD be made, not a continuing decline and erosion, as is the case with NRA.
NRA is the big dog in the fight right now. They are not fighting the Constitutional Fight, they are compromisers, period. They achieve some good occasionally, but it seems as if many, including yourself, consider success by the NRA to be in the degree of compromise that is reached.
That my friend is where we part company.
I desire and wish that the NRA would represent my views. Reality suggests that this will never be the case.
The real sad part of this whole story is, that most NRA Members are not aware of the past and current duplicity, the facilitation and the outright support for multiple forms of gun-control that the NRA is and has been involved in.
Support for this flawed monster still abounds, which prevents real Amendment II supporting organizations from having the support and voice that they need to force positive change.
Bottom line, if anyone is aware of the factual history of NRA and chooses to ignore, disbelieve, or continue to support them, rather than throw support behind an organization that actually fights the fight, then those people are what will ultimately cause the loss of the Bill of Rights, NOT those of us who see things as they are.
Again TR, no disrespect intended. I merely continue the attempt to make my point.
WWolf,.......Don't believe the fiance' would be too happy about that idea. My chiropractor, that I see about every three months,.....IF I'm doing good, has a cute, and much younger than my 45 years, receptionist. The Chiro knows that I am a big shooter, and evidently she wants to learn to shoot. He must have told her about me,.......because the last time I was in there, she asked me all about it. From what kinds of guns I had, to where did I shoot. She asked me if I would take her out to the range I belong to one weekend,.......and I innocently[}:)], said sure!
Rest of the story,........I told my fiance' about it, and that I would like to take her, to start another person out on firearms. Since you are married,.....bet you can guess the rest of the story. I AM stubborn though, and replied by saying I would give her thoughts,.......consideration![:D]
I am due to go back next month for an adjustment, and if I am asked again,.......I will have to make a choice between being in the doghouse, or the silent treatment, which does not bother me,.........or bringing a new female shooter into the game!
I am a risk taker, if you can't tell[;)]
It would be a good way to find out what I suspect their response would be.
I think TRFox, would be good at writing it also,.........so decide if this is something that you would like to do. We might be surprised at the signatures we could get.
Worse case,.......a waste of a bit of time. But don't we all waste a lot of time here anyway?[;)]