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.
"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."
First of all, let us get one thing straight. Neither you nor anyone else on this forum has ever heard ME "Bash" the NRA!! Now, if you consider my "Hypothetical" a "Bash", that is your problem. If you must, read it again, there is Absolutely NO Mention of the NRA in that post. YOU as well as others here, automatically identified the similarities between my "Group" and the NRA and made that connection. It was a brilliant piece of work in my own opinion. Money is about the only thing people can identify with anymore.
The NRA will NEVER miss my dues. I've never urged anyone to drop their membership. I have exposed the truth about their activities. Some are just to thick headed to realize that the NRA track record in actually supporting OUR 2nd Amendment Rights is dismal at best. Criminal at worst.
The repercussions of NO NRA or a significantly weakened NRA have crossed my mind. The anti-gun crowd KNOWS the NRA is their go-to organization for supporting any and all of their corrupt legislation. With the NRA "Clout" behind them, anything they want now is practically a done deal. You've been around here longer than I have but, you must be the most na?ve individual on the planet if you can't see that the "NRA Clout" is being USED to Subvert the 2nd Amendment. If they don't just outright support a gun control bill, they will work a "Compromise" and support that. Either way it goes down "WE" lose!!! I have come to the conclusion that if the NRA suffered that lose of clout, it would be a good thing. First because the anti-gun crowd would lose their go-to gun owner crowd!! Secondly, they would be forced to do battle with the GOA or RTKABA, just to name two that would fill the void, that are NOT as likely to make any compromise.
Is that direct and specific enough for you?
"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?"
Say goodbye to Alice, pull your head out of that hole, and think about what you just ask me!!!
"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."
I've obviously been giving you more credit than is deserved. Once again you make unwarranted suppositions to support your feeble defense. My "Group" could have been privately owned. It could just as well been a members-only investment fund, a mutual fund or any number of publicly owned companies or corporations traded on the stock market!! Sh22, it could have been the group of old ladies down the street using an accountant as their "CEO". I didn't specify!! You've come to that conclusion on your own just to present another flimsy and faulted defense for the failures of the NRA. Is it so hard to admit that you have been deceived???
Call me stupid if you like but I'm unaware of the fact that most investment firms, Co-ops, Credit Unions etc.. Don't hold elections. In most of these investment groups an individual investor can work his/her way to the top positions. All it takes, of course, is money and clout. Not one bit different from the NRA. EXCEPT, a legitimate investment "Group" that is guarding your investment will pay dividends, your investment will grow and your future financial security will be better off for it. You get a warm fuzzy that all is good.
Can you HONESTLY say that your "investment" in the NRA has made your future as a gun owner, or even better yet, as an American Citizen, any more secure?? Or, that the next generation will even be AUTHORIZED the present Permissions you've been granted?? Do you have that warm fuzzy feeling that the NRA will support your 2nd Amendment rights without further incremental capitulation or compromise??
"So, how about it. How about a direct, specific answer."
Hey Wagon Wheel,.......are you into a petition to the NRA?
You may be the best one to write it,......now that I think about it.
I am being totally serious, and not joking about this. It is time for us that question, to find out if by trying, we can have any influence, or at the least, get a legitimate response from them.
I am sure you have had the same experiences as I have.
I am ready to let it all go,.......and let the s**t settle where it does. But if enough of you are into this,.....I am too.
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
I am flattered that would even ask. However, I am no longer a dues paying member of the NRA and any Correspondence they receive in petition form should originate from membership. The threat of a massive pullout by dues paying members, accentuated by a second list of others whom already quit may at least get you a special letter or personal response. It worked with Zumbo.
I would be more than happy to sign a petition as an EX-member.
quote:I would be more than happy to sign a petition as an EX-member.
I think ex-members would be okay, probably even better since it would represent the membership they have ALREADY lost. I was thinking TR might be a good primary author because he is an active member in good standing, and has been so for a long time. If we can craft a letter that outlines some legitimate grievances, it will have more weight coming from current and former members. I suggest we all include our membership ID numbers, past or present. I bet even Highball could find his membership number, should he choose to join us.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
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.
I answered it in a separate post on this thread. Here it is C&P for your reading pleasure;
"TR,
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."
Now you answer mine, which just happens to be your own question asked back at you, with the facts I put up in mind.
I love dialog and am not shy about getting into it, but you have your own question to answer and methinks you are not going to be able to do so easily, since it fits you more than you thought it fit me.[;)]
IMHO It496 or pickenup would be the better, active member, choice simply because they would be less likely to write in a "compromise" to complete withdrawal.
"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?"
Lt496 replied:
"TR, same question, right back at you."
And lt496 followed that with:
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.
Then TR replied:
"if you are going to answer my question with a question there is no chance for a meaningful dialogue."
lt496 responds with:
TR,
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.
lt496 asks TR again to answer his own question:
"Now you answer mine, which just happens to be your own question asked back at you, with the facts I put up in mind.
I love dialog and am not shy about getting into it, but you have your own question to answer and methinks you are not going to be able to do so easily, since it fits you more than you thought it fit me.
I will wait with baited breath sir."
The challenge still hangs out there TR:
I am still waiting on the "specific answer" that you requested from some of us. I put my answer forward.
I would really like to see an honest answer from you, to the very question you posed TR.
In many cases, NRA actions absolutely make the anti-gun crowd happy, so does it register on YOUR mind and is there something wrong with YOU?
I am still waiting on the "specific answer" that you requested from some of us. I put my answer forward.
I would really like to see an honest answer from you, to the very question you posed TR.
In many cases, NRA actions absolutely make the anti-gun crowd happy, so does it register on YOUR mind and is there something wrong with YOU?
_________________________________________________
You do have the courage to answer your own question, don't you? Either step up and defend your position, or admit you were off base.
I guess you could just ignore it, but where is the "meaningful dialogue" you wanted to have?
I'd rather you be a fellow 2A warrior in the Bill of Rights battle, instead of a lost cause TR. I know your heart is in the right place, just need to get your head there to make it complete.[;)][:o)]
He's busy writing a grievances list for the NRA Petition. Or else his head is stuck in that hole and he can't hear ya'.
I know, cheap shot. But I say it in a joking manner, with a smile on my face. We've all been the victims of product loyalty before. Some just can't identify with or admit that there ARE defective brand names. We just keep on buying the same ol' stuff, knowing there is better, higher quality stuff on the market. OBTW: Anyone know where I can buy a New Edsel or maybe a Studebaker??
He's busy writing a grievances list for the NRA Petition. Or else his head is stuck in that hole and he can't hear ya'.
I know, cheap shot. But I say it in a joking manner, with a smile on my face. We've all been the victims of product loyalty before. Some just can't identify with or admit that there ARE defective brand names. We just keep on buying the same ol' stuff, knowing there is better, higher quality stuff on the market. OBTW: Anyone know where I can buy a New Edsel or maybe a Studebaker??
WW,
Yeah, I plan on letting it go now, just had to get a last dig in.
Give him a chance to respond. Often folks that post regularly, have something happen in their life, that requires attention.
I can't imagine that TRFox, would not respond to your question,........or to our "endeavor", on the other thread.
I hope all is well with him.
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
I kind of expected an answer when I asked him basically the same thing but, I'm not holding my breath. He's a proud man and it's hard to admit when you're wrong. Been there, but I hope I've out grown it.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around lately. I picked up a couple of them myself in the last few years. Getting to be a real smart A## in my old age. I thought I out grew that a long time ago also. I guess not. You reckon there's any hope for us??
You are telling me you get to be MORE of a smart *, when you get older?
Man,.......I may as well turn myself in for a prison sentence now!
I have a "rep", of being that way, although I don't believe I have shown it here,.......yet![;)]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
I kind of expected an answer when I asked him basically the same thing but, I'm not holding my breath. He's a proud man and it's hard to admit when you're wrong. Been there, but I hope I've out grown it.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around lately. I picked up a couple of them myself in the last few years. Getting to be a real smart A## in my old age. I thought I out grew that a long time ago also. I guess not. You reckon there's any hope for us??
Wagon Wheel,
Doubtful, particularly in my case. I am a consummate smart a*s myself and, although I don't like to admit it, am getting the "old age" thing too.
TR, if you read this, consider it my official "let you off the hook" statement. I know you can't really answer the question and save face, so don't answer it at all.
Let peace and harmony reign among us....can I have an Amen on that Brothers and Sisters?[:o)] At least until the next time.[;)]
quote:Posted - 05/19/2007 : 11:28:39 AM
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.
People who are in the NRA but quit in disgust aren't loking to cut and run, they are looking for real representation. As the NRA's membership shrinks, GOA's membership grows. THIS MAKES ME HAPPY< THIS MAKES ANTI_GUNNERS VERY UNHAPPY. They would much rather see people stay with the group they can lead around by the nose.
I have felt for a long time that the cries of outrage about the NRA from the left/Socialist/Fascist agenda driven pukes in this country are disingenuous..
That something was missing.
The pieces that are missing are the fact that the NRA has supported many gun laws
.only the DEGREE of this or that law has been the main divergence of agreement between the two " sides ".I use that word loosely.because the NRA is NOT on MY `side'.
I believe that the Anti-gunners are delighted with the paper tiger the NRA is.and the massive amounts of money wasted by them.
Money better spent for arms and ammo, laid by against the day of need.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Wagon Wheel
lt496:
I kind of expected an answer when I asked him basically the same thing but, I'm not holding my breath. He's a proud man and it's hard to admit when you're wrong. Been there, but I hope I've out grown it.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around lately. I picked up a couple of them myself in the last few years. Getting to be a real smart A## in my old age. I thought I out grew that a long time ago also. I guess not. You reckon there's any hope for us??
Wagon Wheel,
Doubtful, particularly in my case. I am a consummate smart a*s myself and, although I don't like to admit it, am getting the "old age" thing too.
TR, if you read this, consider it my official "let you off the hook" statement. I know you can't really answer the question and save face, so don't answer it at all.
Let peace and harmony reign among us....can I have an Amen on that Brothers and Sisters?[:o)] At least until the next time.[;)]
Let me offer to you a "hook" of my own.
But first, in any debate there are sometimes those debaters who will offer/provide references/links to information which provides specific information (names, dates, actions, etc) that supports their side of the debate. I appreciate and respect those debaters for doing that. However, since I am not getting paid for my time to defend the NRA, I cannot expend the time and effort to research and refute an ocean of negative NRA information. And while I am not saying that is the case with the pro/anti NRA debate, one way to win a dishonest argument is to drown your opponent in an ocean of bogus, negative "information."
But to try and cut this debate down to a manageable size, I wish to ask the anti-NRA people here two questions. I will do this in two seperate posts because my second question will largely be framed according to the answers I get to my first question. So here is the first question.
"Who here believes the NRA has NEVER been good for gunowners like yourself?"
Now while I would not try and pressure anyone to answer, it will be difficult for me to continue the pro/anti-NRA debate if I do not have an answer from each member.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
dishonest
bogus
DISHONEST ???
BOGUS ???
A typical liberal tactic, avoid the issue, slander the messenger. [V]
Disprove ANY of it.
Geez pickenup, don't fall into your old habit of over-reacting. Read my disclaimer (copied below) where I clearly state I am not referring to the ongoing NRA debate. Then try and calm down.
"And while I am not saying that is the case with the pro/anti NRA debate, one way to win a dishonest argument is to drown your opponent in an ocean of bogus, negative "information."
I admire your persistence but, do you really wish to beat this dead horse again???? I had decided to drop it. Give you a pass. Again, agree to disagree, and leave it at that. But if you insist, then I must Demand An Answer, from YOU, in response to the previous question YOU posed. I responded honestly, Posted - 05/19/2007 : 6:36:27 PM and Posted - 05/19/2007 : 6:40:25 PM on Page 3 of this thread. Those are my terms and I now (again) await the same consideration from YOU.
If you wish further debate this issue then I too must have your answer to formulate my further platform for debate. Now, doesn't that statement just ring with stupidity on my part? It almost sounds as if I need your input to formulate my own opinion or a viable debate? Not so.
The facts are the facts. Just because I THOUGHT what they were doing was supporting my 2nd Amendment Rights and I supported them, just made me the fool, and I take responsibility for that error in judgment. There are good things done (Legislative Alerts) by the NRA but historically their record speaks more for hunters' rights than 2nd Amendment Rights. They DO NOT seem to be able to differentiate between the two and give hunting a higher priority than the 2nd Amendment. Compromising away the 2nd to ensure hunting survives. 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. As I responded earlier, I have supported the NRA. I was bamboozled into thinking (or just ignorant of the facts) they were doing my business. So, an HONEST Answer to your newest question would be; NO I can't!! But it doesn't mean I haven't changed my mind.
Today, you must see that this positive response from me can give Your argument NO credence. Unless of course your argument is that all NRA members are Sheeple, all NRA members have been misled, all NRA members joined before they knew there was a difference between Hunting Rights and 2nd Amendment Rights or maybe that they publish a couple nice magazines.
After I retired I allowed ALL memberships I held to expire. So, that's all ancient history, but a relevant question for which I cannot give a specific number. However, just guessing, probably many more times than your name appeared on a ballot.
Now, When can I expect an answer rather than more questions?????
I let you off the "hook" in an earlier post, reference a question you asked and I answered. I requested an answer from you, specifically to your own question and I received no reply.
As a refresher, here is the question you posed that I would like you to answer:
"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?"
Now you return, not answering the very question you posed, but asking a new, unrelated question. Your stated condition is that an answer needs to be forthcoming before you continue the debate/discussion.
WTH is up with that?
If you want any further discussion with me on this topic, answer the question as challenged earlier. I am ready, willing and able to renew discussion, but as I said in an earlier post, methinks your own question fits you far more than it does I, or others.
How about a little "intellectual honesty" and intestinal fortitude?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
dishonest
bogus
DISHONEST ???
BOGUS ???
A typical liberal tactic, avoid the issue, slander the messenger. [V]
Disprove ANY of it.
Geez pickenup, don't fall into your old habit of over-reacting. Read my disclaimer (copied below) where I clearly state I am not referring to the ongoing NRA debate. Then try and calm down.
"And while I am not saying that is the case with the pro/anti NRA debate, one way to win a dishonest argument is to drown your opponent in an ocean of bogus, negative "information."
How is this for another example of defending the 2nd amendment?? How many Sheeple will just blindly take this advice and attend or ignore the process because these are "PRO-GUN" Bills???? Would they be refering to H.R. 1022 OR MAYBE H.R. 297 ????
In the interest of civility, I've already removed all my sarcastic and smarta** comments to save pickenup the job. But just let your imagination run wild for about 2 seconds and you might get the idea.
From their own newsletter:
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 14, No. 21:
MAKE YOURSELF HEARD AT TOWN HALL MEETINGS! Congress will be on its Memorial Day District Work Period next week. During this time, your Senators and Representative will be back home in their states and districts.
Many lawmakers use this time to hold town hall meetings, and take questions from their constituents. These meetings offer a tremendous opportunity for you to personally voice your strong support for a number of pro-gun bills pending in Congress.
How is this for another example of defending the 2nd amendment?? How many Sheeple will just blindly take this advice and attend or ignore the process because these are "PRO-GUN" Bills???? Would they be refering to H.R. 1022 OR MAYBE H.R. 297 ????
In the interest of civility, I've already removed all my sarcastic and smarta** comments to save pickenup the job. But just let your imagination run wild for about 2 seconds and you might get the idea.
From their own newsletter:
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 14, No. 21:
MAKE YOURSELF HEARD AT TOWN HALL MEETINGS! Congress will be on its Memorial Day District Work Period next week. During this time, your Senators and Representative will be back home in their states and districts.
Many lawmakers use this time to hold town hall meetings, and take questions from their constituents. These meetings offer a tremendous opportunity for you to personally voice your strong support for a number of pro-gun bills pending in Congress.
Wagon Wheel,
Methinks tr is MIA on this topic.[;)]
Some rounds we were firing were hitting way to close to the bullseye. No rational point, or response to the direct questions can be made, so.........
He decided to resurrect the debate. I can't help his AWOL Status but, I will take every opportunity to bring to his, and everyone else's, attention when I note an APPARENT Contradiction in the NRA claim to be Advocates of 2nd Amendment Rights. This one is a blatant example of that disparity!!! Talk about Misleading, BOGUS AND downright Dishonest use of membership dues!!!
He decided to resurrect the debate. I can't help his AWOL Status but, I will take every opportunity to bring to his, and everyone else's, attention when I note an APPARENT Contradiction in the NRA claim to be Advocates of 2nd Amendment Rights. This one is a blatant example of that disparity!!! Talk about Misleading, BOGUS AND downright Dishonest use of membership dues!!!
Actually Ron Paul (SUPRISE.....NOT) did introduce a pro-gun bill a little earlier this year. While it's not a lot, at least it's a step in the right direction. My question would be, why have we NOT heard ANYTHING about THIS bill from the NRA?
Oh wait, I know, this is a PRO-gun bill, and the fact that they don't like Ron Paul. [V] Nevermind....
Bill #
H.R. 1096:
The "Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007"
You must be correct, as this is the first I have heard of it!
I read your link,.........probably too much common sense involved, for that Bill to get anywhere.
Plus it is too short,.......politicians need a bill to be hundreds of pages, so they can use their "legal" abilities to describe it one way, to the public, and then after one passes, it gets interpreted differently.[}:)]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
First state issued CCW was in Fla in about 1989 and was the result of the actions of a woman Marion Hammer, member and past president of THE NRA.
[/quote]
I got my first permit in GA in 1965, It was called "Gun Toters License" and was gun specific. The make of the handgun and serial # was printed right on there. Don't know when GA started issueing them but it was before 1965 because my brother in law got his a year earlier.
For any interested party, I have been laying low because I believe I am strongly in favor of the DC pro-gun lawsuit and I want to see how it turns out and see how much, or if, the NRA is or has reasons I don't know about to oppose that lawsuit.
UPDATE: On Tuesday, 8 May, 2007, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, declined to review the decision in Parker v. District of Columbia--the case in March that upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. The decision not to review the case means that an earlier ruling by the three-judge panel will stand. SO, THE NRA WAS SUCCESSFUL in their derailment process and it will never be heard by the Supreme Court!!!!!
UPDATE: On Tuesday, 8 May, 2007, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, declined to review the decision in Parker v. District of Columbia--the case in March that upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. The decision not to review the case means that an earlier ruling by the three-judge panel will stand. SO, THE NRA WAS SUCCESSFUL in their derailment process and it will never be heard by the Supreme Court!!!!!
Please do not let your rabid hatred of the NRA cause you to make foolish comments. The pro-gun side of this case WAS VERY, VERY SUCCESSFUL. So in that regard, how and why do you throw any blame at the NRA? Besides, the city of Washington, D.C., the anti-gun losing side BTW, will probably appeal the pro-gun decision to the US Supreme Court. Of course, if D.C. doesn't appeal the case I am sure you, and many others here, will find some way to blame the NRA.
quote:Please do not let your rabid hatred of the NRA cause you to make foolish comments. The pro-gun side of this case WAS VERY, VERY SUCCESSFUL. So in that regard, how and why do you throw any blame at the NRA? Besides, the city of Washington, D.C., the anti-gun losing side BTW, will probably appeal the pro-gun decision to the US Supreme Court. Of course, if D.C. doesn't appeal the case I am sure you, and many others here, will find some way to blame the NRA.
"Rabid Hatred"???? Nothing could be further from the truth!!!! IF you knew me, you would realize that I am the most laid-back person you will EVER meet. I can get along with anyone, even stupid. The world of "Rabid Hatred" is reserved for fanatics. I don't even "Hate" them. I empathize with them. They are the product of years of conditioning, brainwashing and propaganda; weak, mindless, followers of Powerful People with an agenda
No, what I have is, what some would label, a character flaw. I analyze the facts. I delve into trends, compare them with current events and avoid the `Talking Points" used to make an argument. I think for myself. I have a propensity to avoid the gray areas. Grey is the realm of the elites and politicians. Rather, a wise man will look at the overall picture and SEE the black or white for what it is. The gray interpretation, those for public consumption, will inevitably leave out the most important details, the down side, the things they don't want you to know. Grey is the tool of deceit and divisiveness!! You and I can't afford to live there!!! None of us can!!!!
Given Gray, YOU see the White in the D.C. case, using it as an example of a victory for D.C. gun owners. IF only viewed in the short term, with blinders, I can see how you could come to that conclusion. A SMALL Victory that will benefit D.C. gun owners and has the anti's running for cover.
I on the other-hand see the BLACK in this "Victory". By derailing a review by the Supreme Court this "Victory" will NEVER, and this would be the best chance, result in the 1st TRUE precedent to uphold the 2nd Amendment for what it is, an individual Right!!! So, once again, a compromise that benefits the few, at the expense of the majority!!! AND, Now, all those guns/gun-owners in D.C. can/will be accounted for. And, OBTW, the anti's aren't running, they just moved on to greener pastures!!
The NRA is not alone in this and my real question is why did they expose their hand and try to derail the appeal in the first place? An appeal to the Supreme Court will/would, most likely not happen anyway, for many reasons. The anti's find this one too difficult to defend if the Supreme reviews it. They can make an argument all day long, for gun registration and background checks however, they are at a lose to defend denying an individual the right to protect themselves. And that was the basis of the suit. I think D.C., under pressure from the left, will suck this up, just rewrite their laws, and never file their appeal. The backlash would devastate the grand successes, now being perpetrated throughout the country under the guise of current law.
I haven't seen the NRA demanding the return of firearms in Illinois or speaking out against the obvious violations involved in this confiscation process. AND YOU NEVER WILL!! WHY???? Because they have supported EVERY ONE of the Unconstitutional Laws that made these confiscations possible!!!!
I have said it, of myself, before, at times I lack tact and diplomacy. The reason? I have a rule that I live by; "If I can't speak frankly to my friends, and likewise, then we are not friends." My friends know they will not hurt my feelings by telling me the truth, and likewise. Disagreement can spawn healthy debate and dispose of hidden resentments. Brutal Honesty is the best policy, as it makes you come face to face with your inadequacies. I, personally, have no grand illusions because I have good friends. As is human nature, it prevents you from placing yourself on a pedestal. The NRA sits atop a very high pedestal, of deceit. I feel no animosity toward you for your stand in support of the NRA, I just don't agree. And, if I didn't consider you a friend I wouldn't waste my time trying to make you see the error in the blind confidence you have that every victory is something good. We're still taking about an infringement on the 2nd Amendment!!
Blind Allegiances, to any cause, is reason for concern. Healthy skepticism must be applied to everything that comes from lobbyists and the Government, because they have an agenda that, in the long term, is only "Self-serving", rather than for the public good. We The People must wake up and do some thinking for ourselves and quit relying upon the Interpretations (The Gray) offered up by the Lobbyists and the Government Elites. They are leading us, willingly in most instances, down the path of self-destruction.
My call is not for the demise of the NRA. I, instead, would rather piss-off the membership by letting them know they have been deceived and betrayed. The case for misrepresentation by the NRA, as a 2nd Amendment Advocate/Supporter, is very hard to deny. They have a long history that either attests to the fact that they have no understanding of the 2nd Amendment OR that is NOT their main agenda. Either way; Not someone I want as my mouthpiece. The ultimate success or failure of the NRA can only be decided by its membership. They either unite under ONE FLAG (Protect ALL guns and the 2nd Amendment) AND DEMAND a change in policy OR they seek other representation. I've made mine.
The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment is an easy target. The politico's can get away with just about anything they want and have willing accomplices to boot. The even greater danger is that it all goes unchallenged and, written into these unconstitutional laws, are infringements on other Amendments. Upon other Rights, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Amendments that, otherwise, would be off limits and if attacked directly would create a public outcry. Throughout their history, and all the elections you mentioned, why has there never been a Ron Paul in charge? Could it be that the nomination and election process is as corrupt as that in the Federal Government?? Ignorance, indifference, self-gratification and the ME first mentality WILL be our Demise.
This is a powerful piece by Wagon Wheel. Trying to read it was a nightmare.
'Grey areas'..so loved by those seeking to destroy freedom..and a well said rebuttal of them. I have grown to despise grey areas...and the people that use them to justify WHATEVER they are pushing today.
Comments
"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."
First of all, let us get one thing straight. Neither you nor anyone else on this forum has ever heard ME "Bash" the NRA!! Now, if you consider my "Hypothetical" a "Bash", that is your problem. If you must, read it again, there is Absolutely NO Mention of the NRA in that post. YOU as well as others here, automatically identified the similarities between my "Group" and the NRA and made that connection. It was a brilliant piece of work in my own opinion. Money is about the only thing people can identify with anymore.
The NRA will NEVER miss my dues. I've never urged anyone to drop their membership. I have exposed the truth about their activities. Some are just to thick headed to realize that the NRA track record in actually supporting OUR 2nd Amendment Rights is dismal at best. Criminal at worst.
The repercussions of NO NRA or a significantly weakened NRA have crossed my mind. The anti-gun crowd KNOWS the NRA is their go-to organization for supporting any and all of their corrupt legislation. With the NRA "Clout" behind them, anything they want now is practically a done deal. You've been around here longer than I have but, you must be the most na?ve individual on the planet if you can't see that the "NRA Clout" is being USED to Subvert the 2nd Amendment. If they don't just outright support a gun control bill, they will work a "Compromise" and support that. Either way it goes down "WE" lose!!! I have come to the conclusion that if the NRA suffered that lose of clout, it would be a good thing. First because the anti-gun crowd would lose their go-to gun owner crowd!! Secondly, they would be forced to do battle with the GOA or RTKABA, just to name two that would fill the void, that are NOT as likely to make any compromise.
Is that direct and specific enough for you?
"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?"
Say goodbye to Alice, pull your head out of that hole, and think about what you just ask me!!!
"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."
I've obviously been giving you more credit than is deserved. Once again you make unwarranted suppositions to support your feeble defense. My "Group" could have been privately owned. It could just as well been a members-only investment fund, a mutual fund or any number of publicly owned companies or corporations traded on the stock market!! Sh22, it could have been the group of old ladies down the street using an accountant as their "CEO". I didn't specify!! You've come to that conclusion on your own just to present another flimsy and faulted defense for the failures of the NRA. Is it so hard to admit that you have been deceived???
Call me stupid if you like but I'm unaware of the fact that most investment firms, Co-ops, Credit Unions etc.. Don't hold elections. In most of these investment groups an individual investor can work his/her way to the top positions. All it takes, of course, is money and clout. Not one bit different from the NRA. EXCEPT, a legitimate investment "Group" that is guarding your investment will pay dividends, your investment will grow and your future financial security will be better off for it. You get a warm fuzzy that all is good.
Can you HONESTLY say that your "investment" in the NRA has made your future as a gun owner, or even better yet, as an American Citizen, any more secure?? Or, that the next generation will even be AUTHORIZED the present Permissions you've been granted?? Do you have that warm fuzzy feeling that the NRA will support your 2nd Amendment rights without further incremental capitulation or compromise??
"So, how about it. How about a direct, specific answer."
Your turn.
You may be the best one to write it,......now that I think about it.
I am being totally serious, and not joking about this. It is time for us that question, to find out if by trying, we can have any influence, or at the least, get a legitimate response from them.
I am sure you have had the same experiences as I have.
I am ready to let it all go,.......and let the s**t settle where it does. But if enough of you are into this,.....I am too.
I am flattered that would even ask. However, I am no longer a dues paying member of the NRA and any Correspondence they receive in petition form should originate from membership. The threat of a massive pullout by dues paying members, accentuated by a second list of others whom already quit may at least get you a special letter or personal response. It worked with Zumbo.
I would be more than happy to sign a petition as an EX-member.
I think ex-members would be okay, probably even better since it would represent the membership they have ALREADY lost. I was thinking TR might be a good primary author because he is an active member in good standing, and has been so for a long time. If we can craft a letter that outlines some legitimate grievances, it will have more weight coming from current and former members. I suggest we all include our membership ID numbers, past or present. I bet even Highball could find his membership number, should he choose to join us.
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.
I answered it in a separate post on this thread. Here it is C&P for your reading pleasure;
"TR,
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."
Now you answer mine, which just happens to be your own question asked back at you, with the facts I put up in mind.
I love dialog and am not shy about getting into it, but you have your own question to answer and methinks you are not going to be able to do so easily, since it fits you more than you thought it fit me.[;)]
I will wait with baited breath sir.
IMHO It496 or pickenup would be the better, active member, choice simply because they would be less likely to write in a "compromise" to complete withdrawal.
"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?"
Lt496 replied:
"TR, same question, right back at you."
And lt496 followed that with:
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.
Then TR replied:
"if you are going to answer my question with a question there is no chance for a meaningful dialogue."
lt496 responds with:
TR,
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.
lt496 asks TR again to answer his own question:
"Now you answer mine, which just happens to be your own question asked back at you, with the facts I put up in mind.
I love dialog and am not shy about getting into it, but you have your own question to answer and methinks you are not going to be able to do so easily, since it fits you more than you thought it fit me.
I will wait with baited breath sir."
The challenge still hangs out there TR:
I am still waiting on the "specific answer" that you requested from some of us. I put my answer forward.
I would really like to see an honest answer from you, to the very question you posed TR.
In many cases, NRA actions absolutely make the anti-gun crowd happy, so does it register on YOUR mind and is there something wrong with YOU?
I am still waiting on the "specific answer" that you requested from some of us. I put my answer forward.
I would really like to see an honest answer from you, to the very question you posed TR.
In many cases, NRA actions absolutely make the anti-gun crowd happy, so does it register on YOUR mind and is there something wrong with YOU?
_________________________________________________
You do have the courage to answer your own question, don't you? Either step up and defend your position, or admit you were off base.
I guess you could just ignore it, but where is the "meaningful dialogue" you wanted to have?
I'd rather you be a fellow 2A warrior in the Bill of Rights battle, instead of a lost cause TR. I know your heart is in the right place, just need to get your head there to make it complete.[;)][:o)]
He's busy writing a grievances list for the NRA Petition. Or else his head is stuck in that hole and he can't hear ya'.
I know, cheap shot. But I say it in a joking manner, with a smile on my face. We've all been the victims of product loyalty before. Some just can't identify with or admit that there ARE defective brand names. We just keep on buying the same ol' stuff, knowing there is better, higher quality stuff on the market. OBTW: Anyone know where I can buy a New Edsel or maybe a Studebaker??
lt496:
He's busy writing a grievances list for the NRA Petition. Or else his head is stuck in that hole and he can't hear ya'.
I know, cheap shot. But I say it in a joking manner, with a smile on my face. We've all been the victims of product loyalty before. Some just can't identify with or admit that there ARE defective brand names. We just keep on buying the same ol' stuff, knowing there is better, higher quality stuff on the market. OBTW: Anyone know where I can buy a New Edsel or maybe a Studebaker??
WW,
Yeah, I plan on letting it go now, just had to get a last dig in.
That's a character flaw that I have.[:I]
I can't imagine that TRFox, would not respond to your question,........or to our "endeavor", on the other thread.
I hope all is well with him.
I kind of expected an answer when I asked him basically the same thing but, I'm not holding my breath. He's a proud man and it's hard to admit when you're wrong. Been there, but I hope I've out grown it.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around lately. I picked up a couple of them myself in the last few years. Getting to be a real smart A## in my old age. I thought I out grew that a long time ago also. I guess not. You reckon there's any hope for us??
Man,.......I may as well turn myself in for a prison sentence now!
I have a "rep", of being that way, although I don't believe I have shown it here,.......yet![;)]
lt496:
I kind of expected an answer when I asked him basically the same thing but, I'm not holding my breath. He's a proud man and it's hard to admit when you're wrong. Been there, but I hope I've out grown it.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around lately. I picked up a couple of them myself in the last few years. Getting to be a real smart A## in my old age. I thought I out grew that a long time ago also. I guess not. You reckon there's any hope for us??
Wagon Wheel,
Doubtful, particularly in my case. I am a consummate smart a*s myself and, although I don't like to admit it, am getting the "old age" thing too.
TR, if you read this, consider it my official "let you off the hook" statement. I know you can't really answer the question and save face, so don't answer it at all.
Let peace and harmony reign among us....can I have an Amen on that Brothers and Sisters?[:o)] At least until the next time.[;)]
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.
People who are in the NRA but quit in disgust aren't loking to cut and run, they are looking for real representation. As the NRA's membership shrinks, GOA's membership grows. THIS MAKES ME HAPPY< THIS MAKES ANTI_GUNNERS VERY UNHAPPY. They would much rather see people stay with the group they can lead around by the nose.
That something was missing.
The pieces that are missing are the fact that the NRA has supported many gun laws
.only the DEGREE of this or that law has been the main divergence of agreement between the two " sides ".I use that word loosely.because the NRA is NOT on MY `side'.
I believe that the Anti-gunners are delighted with the paper tiger the NRA is.and the massive amounts of money wasted by them.
Money better spent for arms and ammo, laid by against the day of need.
quote:Originally posted by Wagon Wheel
lt496:
I kind of expected an answer when I asked him basically the same thing but, I'm not holding my breath. He's a proud man and it's hard to admit when you're wrong. Been there, but I hope I've out grown it.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around lately. I picked up a couple of them myself in the last few years. Getting to be a real smart A## in my old age. I thought I out grew that a long time ago also. I guess not. You reckon there's any hope for us??
Wagon Wheel,
Doubtful, particularly in my case. I am a consummate smart a*s myself and, although I don't like to admit it, am getting the "old age" thing too.
TR, if you read this, consider it my official "let you off the hook" statement. I know you can't really answer the question and save face, so don't answer it at all.
Let peace and harmony reign among us....can I have an Amen on that Brothers and Sisters?[:o)] At least until the next time.[;)]
Let me offer to you a "hook" of my own.
But first, in any debate there are sometimes those debaters who will offer/provide references/links to information which provides specific information (names, dates, actions, etc) that supports their side of the debate. I appreciate and respect those debaters for doing that. However, since I am not getting paid for my time to defend the NRA, I cannot expend the time and effort to research and refute an ocean of negative NRA information. And while I am not saying that is the case with the pro/anti NRA debate, one way to win a dishonest argument is to drown your opponent in an ocean of bogus, negative "information."
But to try and cut this debate down to a manageable size, I wish to ask the anti-NRA people here two questions. I will do this in two seperate posts because my second question will largely be framed according to the answers I get to my first question. So here is the first question.
"Who here believes the NRA has NEVER been good for gunowners like yourself?"
Now while I would not try and pressure anyone to answer, it will be difficult for me to continue the pro/anti-NRA debate if I do not have an answer from each member.
dishonest
bogus
DISHONEST ???
BOGUS ???
A typical liberal tactic, avoid the issue, slander the messenger. [V]
Disprove ANY of it.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
dishonest
bogus
DISHONEST ???
BOGUS ???
A typical liberal tactic, avoid the issue, slander the messenger. [V]
Disprove ANY of it.
Geez pickenup, don't fall into your old habit of over-reacting. Read my disclaimer (copied below) where I clearly state I am not referring to the ongoing NRA debate. Then try and calm down.
"And while I am not saying that is the case with the pro/anti NRA debate, one way to win a dishonest argument is to drown your opponent in an ocean of bogus, negative "information."
I admire your persistence but, do you really wish to beat this dead horse again???? I had decided to drop it. Give you a pass. Again, agree to disagree, and leave it at that. But if you insist, then I must Demand An Answer, from YOU, in response to the previous question YOU posed. I responded honestly, Posted - 05/19/2007 : 6:36:27 PM and Posted - 05/19/2007 : 6:40:25 PM on Page 3 of this thread. Those are my terms and I now (again) await the same consideration from YOU.
If you wish further debate this issue then I too must have your answer to formulate my further platform for debate. Now, doesn't that statement just ring with stupidity on my part? It almost sounds as if I need your input to formulate my own opinion or a viable debate? Not so.
The facts are the facts. Just because I THOUGHT what they were doing was supporting my 2nd Amendment Rights and I supported them, just made me the fool, and I take responsibility for that error in judgment. There are good things done (Legislative Alerts) by the NRA but historically their record speaks more for hunters' rights than 2nd Amendment Rights. They DO NOT seem to be able to differentiate between the two and give hunting a higher priority than the 2nd Amendment. Compromising away the 2nd to ensure hunting survives. 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. As I responded earlier, I have supported the NRA. I was bamboozled into thinking (or just ignorant of the facts) they were doing my business. So, an HONEST Answer to your newest question would be; NO I can't!! But it doesn't mean I haven't changed my mind.
Today, you must see that this positive response from me can give Your argument NO credence. Unless of course your argument is that all NRA members are Sheeple, all NRA members have been misled, all NRA members joined before they knew there was a difference between Hunting Rights and 2nd Amendment Rights or maybe that they publish a couple nice magazines.
After I retired I allowed ALL memberships I held to expire. So, that's all ancient history, but a relevant question for which I cannot give a specific number. However, just guessing, probably many more times than your name appeared on a ballot.
Now, When can I expect an answer rather than more questions?????
I let you off the "hook" in an earlier post, reference a question you asked and I answered. I requested an answer from you, specifically to your own question and I received no reply.
As a refresher, here is the question you posed that I would like you to answer:
"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?"
Now you return, not answering the very question you posed, but asking a new, unrelated question. Your stated condition is that an answer needs to be forthcoming before you continue the debate/discussion.
WTH is up with that?
If you want any further discussion with me on this topic, answer the question as challenged earlier. I am ready, willing and able to renew discussion, but as I said in an earlier post, methinks your own question fits you far more than it does I, or others.
How about a little "intellectual honesty" and intestinal fortitude?
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
dishonest
bogus
DISHONEST ???
BOGUS ???
A typical liberal tactic, avoid the issue, slander the messenger. [V]
Disprove ANY of it.
Geez pickenup, don't fall into your old habit of over-reacting. Read my disclaimer (copied below) where I clearly state I am not referring to the ongoing NRA debate. Then try and calm down.
"And while I am not saying that is the case with the pro/anti NRA debate, one way to win a dishonest argument is to drown your opponent in an ocean of bogus, negative "information."
You are clearly inferring it.
DISHONEST ???
BOGUS ???
How is this for another example of defending the 2nd amendment?? How many Sheeple will just blindly take this advice and attend or ignore the process because these are "PRO-GUN" Bills???? Would they be refering to H.R. 1022 OR MAYBE H.R. 297 ????
In the interest of civility, I've already removed all my sarcastic and smarta** comments to save pickenup the job. But just let your imagination run wild for about 2 seconds and you might get the idea.
From their own newsletter:
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 14, No. 21:
MAKE YOURSELF HEARD AT TOWN HALL MEETINGS! Congress will be on its Memorial Day District Work Period next week. During this time, your Senators and Representative will be back home in their states and districts.
Many lawmakers use this time to hold town hall meetings, and take questions from their constituents. These meetings offer a tremendous opportunity for you to personally voice your strong support for a number of pro-gun bills pending in Congress.
tr fox:
DISHONEST ???
BOGUS ???
How is this for another example of defending the 2nd amendment?? How many Sheeple will just blindly take this advice and attend or ignore the process because these are "PRO-GUN" Bills???? Would they be refering to H.R. 1022 OR MAYBE H.R. 297 ????
In the interest of civility, I've already removed all my sarcastic and smarta** comments to save pickenup the job. But just let your imagination run wild for about 2 seconds and you might get the idea.
From their own newsletter:
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 14, No. 21:
MAKE YOURSELF HEARD AT TOWN HALL MEETINGS! Congress will be on its Memorial Day District Work Period next week. During this time, your Senators and Representative will be back home in their states and districts.
Many lawmakers use this time to hold town hall meetings, and take questions from their constituents. These meetings offer a tremendous opportunity for you to personally voice your strong support for a number of pro-gun bills pending in Congress.
Wagon Wheel,
Methinks tr is MIA on this topic.[;)]
Some rounds we were firing were hitting way to close to the bullseye. No rational point, or response to the direct questions can be made, so.........
He decided to resurrect the debate. I can't help his AWOL Status but, I will take every opportunity to bring to his, and everyone else's, attention when I note an APPARENT Contradiction in the NRA claim to be Advocates of 2nd Amendment Rights. This one is a blatant example of that disparity!!! Talk about Misleading, BOGUS AND downright Dishonest use of membership dues!!!
Am I out of the loop or something,..........I don't recall hearing about any.
lt496:
He decided to resurrect the debate. I can't help his AWOL Status but, I will take every opportunity to bring to his, and everyone else's, attention when I note an APPARENT Contradiction in the NRA claim to be Advocates of 2nd Amendment Rights. This one is a blatant example of that disparity!!! Talk about Misleading, BOGUS AND downright Dishonest use of membership dues!!!
Yes sir, it is indeed.[;)]
Actually Ron Paul (SUPRISE.....NOT) did introduce a pro-gun bill a little earlier this year. While it's not a lot, at least it's a step in the right direction. My question would be, why have we NOT heard ANYTHING about THIS bill from the NRA?
Oh wait, I know, this is a PRO-gun bill, and the fact that they don't like Ron Paul. [V] Nevermind....
Bill #
H.R. 1096:
The "Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007"
Text of bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1096:
P.S.
Marc, from what I've seen, I'm glad you stuck around. [;)]
I read your link,.........probably too much common sense involved, for that Bill to get anywhere.
Plus it is too short,.......politicians need a bill to be hundreds of pages, so they can use their "legal" abilities to describe it one way, to the public, and then after one passes, it gets interpreted differently.[}:)]
First state issued CCW was in Fla in about 1989 and was the result of the actions of a woman Marion Hammer, member and past president of THE NRA.
[/quote]
I got my first permit in GA in 1965, It was called "Gun Toters License" and was gun specific. The make of the handgun and serial # was printed right on there. Don't know when GA started issueing them but it was before 1965 because my brother in law got his a year earlier.
UPDATE: On Tuesday, 8 May, 2007, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, declined to review the decision in Parker v. District of Columbia--the case in March that upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. The decision not to review the case means that an earlier ruling by the three-judge panel will stand. SO, THE NRA WAS SUCCESSFUL in their derailment process and it will never be heard by the Supreme Court!!!!!
tr fox:
UPDATE: On Tuesday, 8 May, 2007, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, declined to review the decision in Parker v. District of Columbia--the case in March that upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. The decision not to review the case means that an earlier ruling by the three-judge panel will stand. SO, THE NRA WAS SUCCESSFUL in their derailment process and it will never be heard by the Supreme Court!!!!!
Please do not let your rabid hatred of the NRA cause you to make foolish comments. The pro-gun side of this case WAS VERY, VERY SUCCESSFUL. So in that regard, how and why do you throw any blame at the NRA? Besides, the city of Washington, D.C., the anti-gun losing side BTW, will probably appeal the pro-gun decision to the US Supreme Court. Of course, if D.C. doesn't appeal the case I am sure you, and many others here, will find some way to blame the NRA.
quote:Please do not let your rabid hatred of the NRA cause you to make foolish comments. The pro-gun side of this case WAS VERY, VERY SUCCESSFUL. So in that regard, how and why do you throw any blame at the NRA? Besides, the city of Washington, D.C., the anti-gun losing side BTW, will probably appeal the pro-gun decision to the US Supreme Court. Of course, if D.C. doesn't appeal the case I am sure you, and many others here, will find some way to blame the NRA.
"Rabid Hatred"???? Nothing could be further from the truth!!!! IF you knew me, you would realize that I am the most laid-back person you will EVER meet. I can get along with anyone, even stupid. The world of "Rabid Hatred" is reserved for fanatics. I don't even "Hate" them. I empathize with them. They are the product of years of conditioning, brainwashing and propaganda; weak, mindless, followers of Powerful People with an agenda
No, what I have is, what some would label, a character flaw. I analyze the facts. I delve into trends, compare them with current events and avoid the `Talking Points" used to make an argument. I think for myself. I have a propensity to avoid the gray areas. Grey is the realm of the elites and politicians. Rather, a wise man will look at the overall picture and SEE the black or white for what it is. The gray interpretation, those for public consumption, will inevitably leave out the most important details, the down side, the things they don't want you to know. Grey is the tool of deceit and divisiveness!! You and I can't afford to live there!!! None of us can!!!!
Given Gray, YOU see the White in the D.C. case, using it as an example of a victory for D.C. gun owners. IF only viewed in the short term, with blinders, I can see how you could come to that conclusion. A SMALL Victory that will benefit D.C. gun owners and has the anti's running for cover.
I on the other-hand see the BLACK in this "Victory". By derailing a review by the Supreme Court this "Victory" will NEVER, and this would be the best chance, result in the 1st TRUE precedent to uphold the 2nd Amendment for what it is, an individual Right!!! So, once again, a compromise that benefits the few, at the expense of the majority!!! AND, Now, all those guns/gun-owners in D.C. can/will be accounted for. And, OBTW, the anti's aren't running, they just moved on to greener pastures!!
The NRA is not alone in this and my real question is why did they expose their hand and try to derail the appeal in the first place? An appeal to the Supreme Court will/would, most likely not happen anyway, for many reasons. The anti's find this one too difficult to defend if the Supreme reviews it. They can make an argument all day long, for gun registration and background checks however, they are at a lose to defend denying an individual the right to protect themselves. And that was the basis of the suit. I think D.C., under pressure from the left, will suck this up, just rewrite their laws, and never file their appeal. The backlash would devastate the grand successes, now being perpetrated throughout the country under the guise of current law.
I haven't seen the NRA demanding the return of firearms in Illinois or speaking out against the obvious violations involved in this confiscation process. AND YOU NEVER WILL!! WHY???? Because they have supported EVERY ONE of the Unconstitutional Laws that made these confiscations possible!!!!
I have said it, of myself, before, at times I lack tact and diplomacy. The reason? I have a rule that I live by; "If I can't speak frankly to my friends, and likewise, then we are not friends." My friends know they will not hurt my feelings by telling me the truth, and likewise. Disagreement can spawn healthy debate and dispose of hidden resentments. Brutal Honesty is the best policy, as it makes you come face to face with your inadequacies. I, personally, have no grand illusions because I have good friends. As is human nature, it prevents you from placing yourself on a pedestal. The NRA sits atop a very high pedestal, of deceit. I feel no animosity toward you for your stand in support of the NRA, I just don't agree. And, if I didn't consider you a friend I wouldn't waste my time trying to make you see the error in the blind confidence you have that every victory is something good. We're still taking about an infringement on the 2nd Amendment!!
Blind Allegiances, to any cause, is reason for concern. Healthy skepticism must be applied to everything that comes from lobbyists and the Government, because they have an agenda that, in the long term, is only "Self-serving", rather than for the public good. We The People must wake up and do some thinking for ourselves and quit relying upon the Interpretations (The Gray) offered up by the Lobbyists and the Government Elites. They are leading us, willingly in most instances, down the path of self-destruction.
My call is not for the demise of the NRA. I, instead, would rather piss-off the membership by letting them know they have been deceived and betrayed. The case for misrepresentation by the NRA, as a 2nd Amendment Advocate/Supporter, is very hard to deny. They have a long history that either attests to the fact that they have no understanding of the 2nd Amendment OR that is NOT their main agenda. Either way; Not someone I want as my mouthpiece. The ultimate success or failure of the NRA can only be decided by its membership. They either unite under ONE FLAG (Protect ALL guns and the 2nd Amendment) AND DEMAND a change in policy OR they seek other representation. I've made mine.
The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment is an easy target. The politico's can get away with just about anything they want and have willing accomplices to boot. The even greater danger is that it all goes unchallenged and, written into these unconstitutional laws, are infringements on other Amendments. Upon other Rights, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Amendments that, otherwise, would be off limits and if attacked directly would create a public outcry. Throughout their history, and all the elections you mentioned, why has there never been a Ron Paul in charge? Could it be that the nomination and election process is as corrupt as that in the Federal Government?? Ignorance, indifference, self-gratification and the ME first mentality WILL be our Demise.
Up-Dates to D.C. Gun Ban.
9 May 2007
Click here for details
17 May 2007
Click here for details
Web Search Page With More Information and Background:
Click here for details
Do you think any of this would be possible without NRA support????
Confiscation of Registered Guns Begins in Illinois [Free Republic]
Submitted on: July 17, 2001 Story and comments:
Click here for details
Confiscation of Registered Guns Begins in Illinois September 8 2004
Click here for details
Registered GUN CONFISCATION BEGINS - Herald-Mail Forums
Click here for details
Confiscation of Registered Guns Begins in Illinois
Illinois State Rifle Association ^ Story and comments:
Posted on 04/27/2007
Click here for details
Confiscation of Registered Guns Begins in Illinois
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007
Click here for details
(Edited to shorten links ONLY)
This is a powerful piece by Wagon Wheel. Trying to read it was a nightmare.
'Grey areas'..so loved by those seeking to destroy freedom..and a well said rebuttal of them. I have grown to despise grey areas...and the people that use them to justify WHATEVER they are pushing today.