In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Hypocritical NRA Bashers?
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
I have long been astounded by the high level of NRA bashing I see on GB.com. I can understand anti-NRA sentiment, but when I see the extreme, constant, rabid NRA bashing on a gun forum, I am very surprised. Especially when the bashers urge us to destroy the NRA yet they don't urge us to put something in place of the NRA. Kinda like urging us to put down our guns and give up during a firefight. The anti-gun crowd could not even afford to pay people to go out and do the high level of NRA bashing I see done here for free (I assume it is being done for free).
But anyway, isn't it at least a tad hypocritical to come onto a gun forum, that displays an NRA symbol, at the bottom right of the home page screen, that says "Join the NRA here" and then as you enter as a guest of GB.com, you loudly and longly bash the NRA?
If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
But anyway, isn't it at least a tad hypocritical to come onto a gun forum, that displays an NRA symbol, at the bottom right of the home page screen, that says "Join the NRA here" and then as you enter as a guest of GB.com, you loudly and longly bash the NRA?
If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
Comments
You bring the exact same flawed 'logic' to your latest attack that you use to typically defend the NRA.
Go look up the definition of "Hypocrite"..you will find the NRA nestles comfortably within that discription..not those of us strongly defending the Second.
Sorry.try again someday.
You are, as always, free to despise those us that insist that compromise is flat out killing the Amendment that made the rest possible.
But anyway, isn't it at least a tad hypocritical to come onto a gun forum, that displays an NRA symbol, at the bottom right of the home page screen, that says "Join the NRA here" and then as you enter as a guest of GB.com, you loudly and longly bash the NRA?
No
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
An excellent example of hypocrisy can be found by looking at the NRA's actions regarding Parker vs. D.C
Don't try it if you are ever a visitor in my home.
Oh yeah, I forgot "rude". Isn't it somewhat rude, as well as hypocritical, to be a guest on someones website, a website that clearly announces that website is an NRA supporter and for some visitors to continually bash the NRA?
Don't try it if you are ever a visitor in my home.
Fox-
The AHSA claims it is a hunting organization, while toting gun kontrol of all makes and models. Unfortunately, the NRA has done this, also, though not to the same extreme.
I would expect, by now, that you would have excepted the idea that the NRA, like most organizations, is not perfect, and does not have a membership of 4 million people, all with the exact same interests in mind. Some of the interests of the hunter caste of the NRA are diametrically opposed to the paramilitary caste the I represent. Until the NRA fixes this problem, those members of the militia caste will always abhor the hunter caste, that cowardishly fed us to the lions to save their own sorry hides.
Any proposed solutions, other than bowing down to the imperfect NRA god???
-gunphreak
The day the site requests I leave..that is the day I leave. Their ball...their court.
Because some individual members get upset at having to review the facts now and again means absolutely nothing to me.
Truat me on this...I would not stay here 15 moments were I barred from expressing my opinions on Gun Control...I have no time at all for small talk.
The NRA is NOT pro 2nd, they are pro hunter.
I suppose it COULD be considered 'rude' to point out the turd in the punch bowl..but that never stopped me from pointing it out.
The day the site requests I leave..that is the day I leave. Their ball...their court.
Because some individual members get upset at having to review the facts now and again means absolutely nothing to me.
Truat me on this...I would not stay here 15 moments were I barred from expressing my opinions on Gun Control...I have no time at all for small talk.
Highball - it would only be considered rude if YOU deposited the turd in the punch bowl !
Here we go again. [V]
[:D][:D] Right now I don't have the energy to have at it again. Maybe before the thread goes psyco i'll jump in.
The facts are in TR, and you need to find a clue. You want to BLINDLY support an organization that works to remove OUR constitutional rights, so be it, I do NOT. However when/if the day comes of a total ban, better be man enough to accept that YOU contributed to it. It WILL be the fault of supporters like you, that never question their great defenders ( I feel a bit of throw up in my throat using that word). The blame WILL lay squarely on the rightful shoulders. Comprimise is for the weak and corrupt. Which one are you TR?
I hope my post makes your blood boil. You make ours boil when you act the fool and get on the NRA soapbox. It really wouldn't matter if ol' Wayne himself told you what we have been saying all along, you have made up your mind and you will remain on that soapbox to the bitter end, like a fool, because you are so stubborn and refuse to be proven wrong.
I find it quite "rude" for someone to claim they are a supporter of the BOR's, yet defend an organization to which they pay dues to, that works to remove those rights. I find it rude that we make suggestions to organizations which do NOT comprimise, yet this rude person figure it is not worth the effort "cause they ain't big enough" (see JFPO, GOA, or the 2nd amendment foundation, ect). I find it "RUDE" when evidence is presented in support of removing support of the NRA, yet this "village idiot" of the NRA prances and dances to the NRA's tune every time calling the proof hogwash.
The facts are in TR, and you need to find a clue. You want to BLINDLY support an organization that works to remove OUR constitutional rights, so be it, I do NOT. However when/if the day comes of a total ban, better be man enough to accept that YOU contributed to it. It WILL be the fault of supporters like you, that never question their great defenders ( I feel a bit of throw up in my throat using that word). The blame WILL lay squarely on the rightful shoulders. Comprimise is for the weak and corrupt. Which one are you TR?
I hope my post makes your blood boil. You make ours boil when you act the fool and get on the NRA soapbox. It really wouldn't matter if ol' Wayne himself told you what we have been saying all along, you have made up your mind and you will remain on that soapbox to the bitter end, like a fool, because you are so stubborn and refuse to be proven wrong.
[;)] Don't clutter up the NRA issue with provable facts to show NRA support, complicity, facilitation and outright assistance in the drafting of anti-gun legislation. All this is contrary to what the NRA is SUPPOSED to stand for.
As the NRA cultist chant continues....Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne...
quote:Originally posted by freemind
I find it quite "rude" for someone to claim they are a supporter of the BOR's, yet defend an organization to which they pay dues to, that works to remove those rights. I find it rude that we make suggestions to organizations which do NOT comprimise, yet this rude person figure it is not worth the effort "cause they ain't big enough" (see JFPO, GOA, or the 2nd amendment foundation, ect). I find it "RUDE" when evidence is presented in support of removing support of the NRA, yet this "village idiot" of the NRA prances and dances to the NRA's tune every time calling the proof hogwash.
The facts are in TR, and you need to find a clue. You want to BLINDLY support an organization that works to remove OUR constitutional rights, so be it, I do NOT. However when/if the day comes of a total ban, better be man enough to accept that YOU contributed to it. It WILL be the fault of supporters like you, that never question their great defenders ( I feel a bit of throw up in my throat using that word). The blame WILL lay squarely on the rightful shoulders. Comprimise is for the weak and corrupt. Which one are you TR?
I hope my post makes your blood boil. You make ours boil when you act the fool and get on the NRA soapbox. It really wouldn't matter if ol' Wayne himself told you what we have been saying all along, you have made up your mind and you will remain on that soapbox to the bitter end, like a fool, because you are so stubborn and refuse to be proven wrong.
[;)] Don't clutter up the NRA issue with provable facts to show NRA support, complicity, facilitation and outright assistance in the drafting of anti-gun legislation. All this is contrary to what the NRA is SUPPOSED to stand for.
As the NRA cultist chant continues....Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne...
Well, i am an NRA member, and I do not support everything they do. I bomb them constantly with new ideas, and gripes about things like the NICS requirement bill of McKarthy's.
I think it better to try to change the way the group thinks than to divbomb it... at least up to this point.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by freemind
I find it quite "rude" for someone to claim they are a supporter of the BOR's, yet defend an organization to which they pay dues to, that works to remove those rights. I find it rude that we make suggestions to organizations which do NOT comprimise, yet this rude person figure it is not worth the effort "cause they ain't big enough" (see JFPO, GOA, or the 2nd amendment foundation, ect). I find it "RUDE" when evidence is presented in support of removing support of the NRA, yet this "village idiot" of the NRA prances and dances to the NRA's tune every time calling the proof hogwash.
The facts are in TR, and you need to find a clue. You want to BLINDLY support an organization that works to remove OUR constitutional rights, so be it, I do NOT. However when/if the day comes of a total ban, better be man enough to accept that YOU contributed to it. It WILL be the fault of supporters like you, that never question their great defenders ( I feel a bit of throw up in my throat using that word). The blame WILL lay squarely on the rightful shoulders. Comprimise is for the weak and corrupt. Which one are you TR?
I hope my post makes your blood boil. You make ours boil when you act the fool and get on the NRA soapbox. It really wouldn't matter if ol' Wayne himself told you what we have been saying all along, you have made up your mind and you will remain on that soapbox to the bitter end, like a fool, because you are so stubborn and refuse to be proven wrong.
[;)] Don't clutter up the NRA issue with provable facts to show NRA support, complicity, facilitation and outright assistance in the drafting of anti-gun legislation. All this is contrary to what the NRA is SUPPOSED to stand for.
As the NRA cultist chant continues....Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne...
Well, i am an NRA member, and I do not support everything they do. I bomb them constantly with new ideas, and gripes about things like the NICS requirement bill of McKarthy's.
I think it better to try to change the way the group thinks than to divbomb it... at least up to this point.
Nice thought, however, the NRA has been facilitating, supporting and assisting in the writing and passing of anti-gun legislation from at least the 1930's.
What people need to understand is that the NRA supports a different Second Amendment than that which is in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
The NRA's Second Amendment is all about gun ownership for hunting, shooting sports, "sporting uses", "sporting purposes" and even self defense, BUT with the stipulation that it be REGULATED, APPROVED and/or CONTROLLED by the government.
The NRA's Second Amendment does not seem to recognize or support the bedrock purpose of the real Amendment II. Which is that the Citizens of America not be prevented or regulated from the ownership, use or possession of the same type personal firearms as those used by military forces and that this is to provide us the ability to fight tyranny, even if from government, period.
The NRA's Second Amendment does not seem to recognize or support the bedrock purpose of the real Amendment II. Which is that the Citizens of America not be prevented or regulated from the ownership, use or possession of the same type personal firearms as those used by military forces and that this is to provide us the ability to fight tyranny, even if from government, period.
10 ring.
Do they do some good, yes, but when it counts, they fold.
Don't pee on my foot and tell me it's raining.[V]
My problem with the NRA is, they've taken my money, given me promises, then sold me out every time the going gets tough. They don't even walk close to the line, they step over it and trample all the good work that has already been done.
Do they do some good, yes, but when it counts, they fold.
Don't pee on my foot and tell me it's raining.[V]
Thats the problem the NRA has been doing just that for several years now. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
And I'm in this thread.
I have long been astounded by the high level of NRA bashing I see on GB.com. I can understand anti-NRA sentiment, but when I see the extreme, constant, rabid NRA bashing on a gun forum, I am very surprised.
If you "understand" then WHY are you surprised?
Some people want to get the TRUTH out, to the uninformed.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Especially when the bashers urge us to destroy the NRA yet they don't urge us to put something in place of the NRA.
Guess someone hasn't been paying attention.
The following have CONTINUALLY been suggested alternatives.
The Second Amendment Foundation.
http://www.saf.org/
Gun Owners of America.
http://www.gunowners.org/
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.jpfo.org/index.htm
Armed Females of America.
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/
And of course, one of my personal favorites.
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.
http://www.rmgo.org/
Along with others.
If one or more of these groups had 3-4 million ACTIVE members, there would be no need for these discussions.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
But anyway, isn't it at least a tad hypocritical to come onto a gun forum, that displays an NRA symbol, at the bottom right of the home page screen, that says "Join the NRA here" and then as you enter as a guest of GB.com, you loudly and longly bash the NRA?
If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
Don't try it if you are ever a visitor in my home.
I wouldn't want to be in someone's home, that doesn't believe in the 1st amendment, as well as the 2nd. If I am NOT ALLOWED to inform the occupant of the true facts about an organization that CLAIMS to champion his rights, who while taking his money with one hand, stabs him in the back with the other. If a homeowner will NOT ALLOW an intellectual or philosophical debate in his home, he doesn't have to show me the door. I'll willingly find it on my own, and I wouldn't let it hit me in the * on the way out.
quote:I wouldn't want to be in someone's home, that doesn't believe in the 1st amendment, as well as the 2nd. If I am NOT ALLOWED to inform the occupant of the true facts about an organization that CLAIMS to champion his rights, who while taking his money with one hand, stabs him in the back with the other. If a homeowner will NOT ALLOW an intellectual or philosophical debate in his home, he doesn't have to show me the door. I'll willingly find it on my own, and I wouldn't let it hit me in the * on the way out.
THAT, friend Pickenup...is simply splendid !!
I have been trying for several days to say something like this..it just kept coming out boorish, rude, and laced with entirely too much profanity to last here in the forum.
THANKS for saying it for me.
Years ago, I had this type of dicussion with a non-gun owing peson..to the effect that they would not allow a 'gun-toting redneck' inside their home.
My reply at the time..(social setting) was that I would never wish to darken the door of someone distrusting me personally to that extent.
Oddly enough..we became friends and I was invited many times to break bread with he and his family..and the subject was only discussed relative to "What gun is best to carry" ?
Here is a link
http://www.nrapublications.org/president's column/Index.asp
Ha! What hipocits!
Yeah, I agree we DO NOT need government to regulate our freedoms. Too bad the NRA didn't ACT that way.
Wanna see something so hipocrical , that I fell outta my chair laughing when I read it in Boar Hunter Mag?
Here is a link
http://www.nrapublications.org/president's column/Index.asp
Ha! What hipocits!
Yeah, I agree we DO NOT need government to regulate our freedoms. Too bad the NRA didn't ACT that way.
Yep, more NRA lies, deceit and hypocracy. The unmitigated gall of him to say that compromise is bad, the right to keep and bear arm is fundamental and no American should have to prove anything to the government before exercising the RTKBA, when that is EXACTLY what the organization has been doing since at least the 1930's.
This bullsnit is exactly what most of the 4 million NRA members think is going on. They buy it hook, line and sinker, then go ape snit when some of us try to point out the facts.[V]
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by freemind
I find it quite "rude" for someone to claim they are a supporter of the BOR's, yet defend an organization to which they pay dues to, that works to remove those rights. I find it rude that we make suggestions to organizations which do NOT comprimise, yet this rude person figure it is not worth the effort "cause they ain't big enough" (see JFPO, GOA, or the 2nd amendment foundation, ect). I find it "RUDE" when evidence is presented in support of removing support of the NRA, yet this "village idiot" of the NRA prances and dances to the NRA's tune every time calling the proof hogwash.
The facts are in TR, and you need to find a clue. You want to BLINDLY support an organization that works to remove OUR constitutional rights, so be it, I do NOT. However when/if the day comes of a total ban, better be man enough to accept that YOU contributed to it. It WILL be the fault of supporters like you, that never question their great defenders ( I feel a bit of throw up in my throat using that word). The blame WILL lay squarely on the rightful shoulders. Comprimise is for the weak and corrupt. Which one are you TR?
I hope my post makes your blood boil. You make ours boil when you act the fool and get on the NRA soapbox. It really wouldn't matter if ol' Wayne himself told you what we have been saying all along, you have made up your mind and you will remain on that soapbox to the bitter end, like a fool, because you are so stubborn and refuse to be proven wrong.
[;)] Don't clutter up the NRA issue with provable facts to show NRA support, complicity, facilitation and outright assistance in the drafting of anti-gun legislation. All this is contrary to what the NRA is SUPPOSED to stand for.
As the NRA cultist chant continues....Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne...
Well, i am an NRA member, and I do not support everything they do. I bomb them constantly with new ideas, and gripes about things like the NICS requirement bill of McKarthy's.
I think it better to try to change the way the group thinks than to divbomb it... at least up to this point.
Nice thought, however, the NRA has been facilitating, supporting and assisting in the writing and passing of anti-gun legislation from at least the 1930's.
What people need to understand is that the NRA supports a different Second Amendment than that which is in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
The NRA's Second Amendment is all about gun ownership for hunting, shooting sports, "sporting uses", "sporting purposes" and even self defense, BUT with the stipulation that it be REGULATED, APPROVED and/or CONTROLLED by the government.
The NRA's Second Amendment does not seem to recognize or support the bedrock purpose of the real Amendment II. Which is that the Citizens of America not be prevented or regulated from the ownership, use or possession of the same type personal firearms as those used by military forces and that this is to provide us the ability to fight tyranny, even if from government, period.
I know that as well as you do.
They listen to their members, and unfortunately, many of them have sold us out.
But the pendulum is shifting, and we are rising once more and with twice as much strength.
The NRA listens to its members, because without members, it gets no dues. What do you think would happen to the NRA if 4 million people like us became NRA members demanding that the 1986 FOPA machine gun clause be stripped out of the bill?? Do you think their response to us would be "That just doesn't seem feasible, so, we'll try more attainable goals."?
I would say they would not be willing to lose dues from that many people.
Pipe dream? Perhaps. One never knows what the future may hold.
But, if anything, it speaks to either the practical reasoning of the member's of this forum to not drink from the turd laden punch bowl, or we are all merely 3% lunatic extremists that will likely be locked up soon or eradicated by the government.
My NRA membership was up in August and I have not renewed for the first time in 6 years. I just realized that the latest issue of American Rifleman is not in the recycle bin... oh well.
Keep trying TR. If this forum was entirely full of fringe lunatics then it would get very boring.
One desperately seeking a middle road between all-out gun bans..and the Founders Way.
Trfox is doing a job that SOMEBODY has to.attempting to gain some redress from the tyranny stalking us.
The Founders tried for 15 years or so.and better him then I, for that job. My reaction to lying, sleazy politicians would be a belt across the chops.not a sweet smile of understanding.
Much better that I no longer wish to be in the company of the stinking maggots that comprise the government today.
I do not believe that Trfox has joined the Beast. I think rather he wishes to believe what the Beast says.
Dillon is a longterm NRA member/supporter to the point that in each of his monthly newsletters he provides, at his expense, a $10.00 discount for joining the NRA. In other words he puts his money where his mouth is.
Now, I am faced with who to believe when judging the NRA. The blowhards here who have at best a modestly successful job or Dillon who has a wildly successful business.
Let me think on that and I'll get back to ya'.
Michael J. Dillon, the inventor of the Dillon reloading press, is a nationwide, longterm gun guy. He strongly believes in the 2A and almost absolute firearm ownership freedom. His beliefs include fully automatic firearm ownership as evidenced by some of the articles he has printed in his monthly newsletter "the Blue Press".
Dillon is a longterm NRA member/supporter to the point that in each of his monthly newsletters he provides, at his expense, a $10.00 discount for joining the NRA. In other words he puts his money where his mouth is.
Now, I am faced with who to believe when judging the NRA. The blowhards here who have at best a modestly successful job or Dillon who has a wildly successful business.
Let me think on that and I'll get back to ya'.
Oh TR, you are well and truly an ignorant man on this issue.
Here is a novel concept....How about gathering factual information and then judging the NRA yourself, not "believing" or "disbelieving" someone else.
There is a wealth of information out there about the NRA's complicity in the continuing erosion of Amendment II. Much of this has been provided by some here, along with sources to research and verify.
Don't "believe" those providing the source material? Look it up yourself. Unless of course, you are afraid of what you may discover. Frantic and fanatical denial is so, so much better than finding out the truth isn't it TR?
As i've said before, it is kind of like finding out that your wife has been secretly cheating on you since you were dating.
Tough stuff, but it is what it is.
Pretty pathetic using another NRA supporter to try to make a definitive statement about the truth of the NRA. Maybe Mr. Dillon is also ignorant about their history. Maybe he simply chooses to ignore the history because he thinks more good can come of continuing support for them.
Who knows and who cares. We can each choose to support whichever groups we want to and we are all free to decide these things for ourselves.
The frustration comes when those like yourself, those who seemingly desperately cling to the "illusion" of the NRA, or the "self-proclaimed champion" status that the NRA graces itself with, when you refuse to acknowledge what is obvious. It is what it is sir. Denial don't change it, period.
At least be honest and admit what they are.
You can still support them, but don't try to pee in my cornflakes, all the while telling me it is milk. [;)]
Thanks for the opportunity tr fox.
First,
I am an NRA member, and a gun owner. I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment,
AS IT WAS WRITTEN.
What part of,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
The right to keep and BEAR arms,
is hard to understand???
Second,
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Or are some so "afraid" of the "WHOLE" truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?
It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative about the NRA. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional, and NEEDS to have members WORKING TO CHANGE which laws they support. Ya, lets KILL the messenger.
Third,
Am I advocating withdrawing your membership from the NRA......NO.
Work within the system to CHANGE it, if you don't agree with what they are doing. I DO. LET THEM KNOW if you don't agree with their actions. They CAN'T FIX IT, IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S BROKEN. (which by the way, neither can the members) VOTE the bad guys OUT. VOTE the good guys IN.
Only problem is "as with politicians" if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting "MANY" of them passed.
Fourth,
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win "some" if they didn't, that 3-4 million membership number would fade away quickly. We have had almost 2 terms of a republican president. How many gun laws has the NRA even TRIED to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a "Vermont/Alaska style" CCW law in? How many states have they turned a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT (to bear arms) into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE (CCW) with the government deciding on who is ALLOWED to bear arms. (once the - fee - is paid, of course)
I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?
*****
Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the "compromise" in this?
*****
What HARM can they do / have they done?
Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act of 1932" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.
The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934 was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby "starting" an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements. Not so, the NRA was first.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
*****
The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what it really is.
The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep and hide arms" or "to keep and lock up your arms" or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.
*****
"Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
*****
Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???
*****
LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
*****
First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out PRO-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.
*****
It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.
Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. The NRA started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.
Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.
Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.
From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT`S OUR BILL in five years.
*****
Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. The "Parker v. District of Columbia" case. First by trying to have the case consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, which would have drug this case out for YEARS. When that failed, the NRA got behind, and was pushing for the "DC Personal Protection Act" bill, which would, in effect, remove the law that the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case was based upon. Thereby preventing the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case from going before the supreme court.
Why would they try to derail a case that ultimately DID overturned a gun ban, and potentially settle the long disputed "individual right v. the right of the militia" to keep and bear arms? Because they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the supreme court? A supreme court (considering the make up of it at present) where we have the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?
And when was the NRA fighting for our rights in this way? Oh ya...2007.
*****
Lets look at ANOTHER bill backed by the NRA. H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" Admittedly, as always, there are some "supposedly" pro-gun people that are in favor of this. For me, to see the first red flags thrown up, are to look at who is sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Carolyn McCarthy along with Barbara Boxer. Nevermind the far reaching implications, with the potential of opening a Pandora's box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has seen some kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc). The UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.
Oh, and this again IS happening in 2007
*****
Lets not forget the NRA BOARD MEMBER (Joaquin Jackson) who "indicated" that "assault rifles" should only be in the hands of the military and/or law enforcement. But since they ARE legal for civilians to own, then civilians should be limited to 5 round magazines.
quote:I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you. if you. it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five.
*****
While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."
In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.
CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills
TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.
Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?
In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.
In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.
In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS...NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???
In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ?
In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.
In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.
*******
John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term "jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?
NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.
Can't forget the "help" we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer.
The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time
Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!
In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?
From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.
The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.
Admittedly, some of this information is "historical" in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. (as in 2007) Does this information show a distinct pattern? An agenda? If so, it's one that I'm not happy with at all.
Is this the kind of "representation" that YOU want/expect? There are more anti 2nd amendment bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.
Why is it, that some NRA supporters will not accept the truth (even when presented with facts) about how the NRA has been selling our gun rights down the river for a VERY long time.
I believe that everyone would agree, that the NRA is recognized as the 800 lb. Gorilla, in the fight for our gun rights. This is the very same organization that the NRA supporters have been paying money to for YEARS. Paying big bucks to be a "Life Member" Signing up their children/grand-children, almost as soon as they are born. Everyone KNOWS who the NRA is.
They are relying on the NRA to be supportive in the fight for our gun rights. They consider the NRA to be the last bastion of hope. If they find that the NRA is NOT actually on our side, then is there really.any hope?
"Might as well get this info out again, since this thread cries for it. Thanks for the opportunity tr fox."
Let the games begin again.[:o)][;)]
Glad you took the time to do it again pickenup. I was feeling too disgusted to go that far, but am happy to see you did it.
For those who are modern day "holocaust" (read NRA history) deniers, how do you refute the facts, historical contemporary and present day, hmmm???
Support the NRA all you want. No one wants to take that away from you. However, face up to the reality, not the NRA's carefully managed and dressed up image.
You can put lipstick, rouge, perfume and a nice dress on a pig and call it your girlfriend, but it is still a pig when all is said and done.[;)]
How is this legitimate criteria for judging the organzation? Who cares what his opinion is? Do they do what they claim to do? NO.
Judgement complete, Now verdict, Support them? NO.
Somebody has MONEY ? Surely to God they are smart and wouldn't mislead us...would they ?
Now, I am faced with who to believe when judging the NRA. The blowhards here who have at best a modestly successful job or Dillon who has a wildly successful business.
Ohh brother. Now thats just plain stupid.
I find it increasingly difficult to hold that position.
Ignorance I can tolerate, up to a point.
There reaches a point, however, where the absolute weight of evidence and facts reaches such a level, that refusal to acknowledge those facts indicates pure stupidity.
Either that..or collusion with those seeking to ban firearms.
Stick to the issue(s)
Might as well get this info out again, since this thread cries for it.
Thanks for the opportunity tr fox.
.......
I believe that everyone would agree, that the NRA is recognized as the 800 lb. Gorilla, in the fight for our gun rights. This is the very same organization that the NRA supporters have been paying money to for YEARS. Paying big bucks to be a "Life Member" Signing up their children/grand-children, almost as soon as they are born. Everyone KNOWS who the NRA is.
They are relying on the NRA to be supportive in the fight for our gun rights. They consider the NRA to be the last bastion of hope. If they find that the NRA is NOT actually on our side, then is there really.any hope?
Thanks, pickenup!! My parents and grandparents were all NRA members, and I grew up thinking exactly what you are saying in your last paragraphs - that the NRA was gun rights and gun education. I have only been a member for a short time now, and have really been surprised at the venom expressed by many here towards the NRA. I have read many of tr's posts and wondered why so many disagree with him so strongly. I have honestly been aghast that all here are not vehement supporters like tr clearly is. I had no idea the level of complicity on the part of the NRA. Now, I feel betrayed and dismayed. Thanks to your post, I now have the answers to all those questions, save one: if not the NRA, then WHO?
I'm off to remove those little stickers from my cars.
But even at that, if you are losing faith in the NRA please don't do as others here do and leave us hanging. Instead tell us what it is you DO support or where you advise us to take our support in an effort to continue the never ending gun rights war. Because to sow doubt about any pro-gun rights organization and then just walk away is basically doing what a "stealth" anti-gun person would do.
You continue to accuse the strongest "Pro-gun" people I know as being somehow anti-gun.
Let me ask you again, just to clear the air.
Which gun control is it that you support, again ?
I am getting the impression that when the ban comes, you will agree with it..as long as you and a few NRA members get to keep your single-shot shotgun...