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
NRA
joshmb1982
Member Posts: 8,929
Standing Guard: Vote For The Second Amendment
In just a few days, on November 4, gun owners will be presented with a very clear choice of a pro-Second Amendment versus an anti-Second Amendment Presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama and Joe Biden represents a stark contrast for the future of our freedom.
In that choice, one fact is foremost:
The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of our Right To Keep and Bear Arms.
The landmark Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court--which struck down the D.C. gun ban and its attendant criminalizing of armed self-defense in the home--was decided by a one vote margin, in a 5-4 decision. The court's decision was aided by briefs filed by Congress and states--briefs signed by John McCain and by Palin's state of Alaska.
The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden refused to sign in support of the Second Amendment. But for President George W. Bush's two high court nominations, it could easily have gone the other way. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel Alito truly made the difference. Keep in mind that Barack Obama and the man who is now his running mate, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, voted against confirming both.
And Biden, one-time chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, was radically opposed and used every trick in the book including the threat of a filibuster to kill the confirmation process.
Gun owners have U.S. Sen. John McCain to thank for quashing Biden's filibuster moves and brokering the Senate agreement that allowed confirmation. If Biden had his way, the Senate could have stalled indefinitely, leaving two vacancies unfilled, and creating a seven-member court dominated by the very justices who opposed the Second Amendment as protection for a broad, individual right.
Biden told the NAACP during his own losing primary bid for the Democratic presidential nomination:
"The next president is likely to name at least one, if not three new Supreme Court justices. We should start this national debate by recognizing the truth--that Roberts and Alito have turned the court upside down . . I guarantee you that will change."
Turning "the court upside down ." As in upholding the Second Amendment.
Biden's pledge came in an important context. With funding from globalist gun-banner George Soros, the NAACP filed the most onerous litigation de-signed by our enemies to drive America's firearm industry into bankruptcy.
That suit, argued before Brooklyn, N.Y., U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, claimed that virtually all elements of the federally regulated and lawful firearm industry were collectively responsible for the totally unrelated illegal acts of armed, violent criminals. The suit ultimately was a loser, but cost consumers millions of dollars in legal fees. It was one of a string of serial, punitive lawsuits brought before lifetime-appointee Weinstein.
And on that score, the last such lawsuit before Weinstein was thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled the litigation violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the NRA-backed 2005 law--a law vehemently opposed by Obama and Biden.
If the Obama and Biden team has its way, the nation will again be flooded with hundreds of such suits creating what one gun-ban lawyer called "death by a thousand cuts." Under an Obama-Biden administration, the lower federal courts would resemble cloned versions of Weinstein's Brooklyn star chamber.
During the remarkable Saddleback forum, Obama attacked the nominations of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, author of the brilliant Heller decision. Counted with his "no" votes against Roberts and Alito, that's an Obama thumbs down for four of the five justices who rendered the Supreme Court's definitive decision upholding the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right and recognizing the right to armed self-defense in the home.
In this last column before we go to the polls I must make an additional point. While we have disagreed in the past with Sen. McCain on a few specific issues, these disagreements pale in comparison to what the future would be like for gun owners if an Obama-Biden regime were to control all organs of federal power and land a one-two punch against freedom.
John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an NRA Life member, life-long gun owner, hunter and staunch Second Amendment supporter. She is an electrifying force for preservation and expansion of all the gains we have made in the past decades.
I found it remarkable that in every story announcing her selection she was described as a "lifetime" member of the NRA. She is indeed proud of her Life membership. Suddenly the phony poses of Obama and Biden wrapping themselves around the Second Amendment are stripped to their essence--a semantic trick designed to fool gun owners. You can't let that happen.
Your vote is a remarkable power that you must wield to preserve the Second Amendment. With all of this, there is a simple message. Vote. Get your friends, family and co-workers to vote. And vote for the only ticket that will uphold our Freedom. Vote for the Second Amendment. Vote for the McCain-Palin ticket!
In just a few days, on November 4, gun owners will be presented with a very clear choice of a pro-Second Amendment versus an anti-Second Amendment Presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama and Joe Biden represents a stark contrast for the future of our freedom.
In that choice, one fact is foremost:
The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of our Right To Keep and Bear Arms.
The landmark Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court--which struck down the D.C. gun ban and its attendant criminalizing of armed self-defense in the home--was decided by a one vote margin, in a 5-4 decision. The court's decision was aided by briefs filed by Congress and states--briefs signed by John McCain and by Palin's state of Alaska.
The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden refused to sign in support of the Second Amendment. But for President George W. Bush's two high court nominations, it could easily have gone the other way. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel Alito truly made the difference. Keep in mind that Barack Obama and the man who is now his running mate, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, voted against confirming both.
And Biden, one-time chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, was radically opposed and used every trick in the book including the threat of a filibuster to kill the confirmation process.
Gun owners have U.S. Sen. John McCain to thank for quashing Biden's filibuster moves and brokering the Senate agreement that allowed confirmation. If Biden had his way, the Senate could have stalled indefinitely, leaving two vacancies unfilled, and creating a seven-member court dominated by the very justices who opposed the Second Amendment as protection for a broad, individual right.
Biden told the NAACP during his own losing primary bid for the Democratic presidential nomination:
"The next president is likely to name at least one, if not three new Supreme Court justices. We should start this national debate by recognizing the truth--that Roberts and Alito have turned the court upside down . . I guarantee you that will change."
Turning "the court upside down ." As in upholding the Second Amendment.
Biden's pledge came in an important context. With funding from globalist gun-banner George Soros, the NAACP filed the most onerous litigation de-signed by our enemies to drive America's firearm industry into bankruptcy.
That suit, argued before Brooklyn, N.Y., U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, claimed that virtually all elements of the federally regulated and lawful firearm industry were collectively responsible for the totally unrelated illegal acts of armed, violent criminals. The suit ultimately was a loser, but cost consumers millions of dollars in legal fees. It was one of a string of serial, punitive lawsuits brought before lifetime-appointee Weinstein.
And on that score, the last such lawsuit before Weinstein was thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled the litigation violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the NRA-backed 2005 law--a law vehemently opposed by Obama and Biden.
If the Obama and Biden team has its way, the nation will again be flooded with hundreds of such suits creating what one gun-ban lawyer called "death by a thousand cuts." Under an Obama-Biden administration, the lower federal courts would resemble cloned versions of Weinstein's Brooklyn star chamber.
During the remarkable Saddleback forum, Obama attacked the nominations of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, author of the brilliant Heller decision. Counted with his "no" votes against Roberts and Alito, that's an Obama thumbs down for four of the five justices who rendered the Supreme Court's definitive decision upholding the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right and recognizing the right to armed self-defense in the home.
In this last column before we go to the polls I must make an additional point. While we have disagreed in the past with Sen. McCain on a few specific issues, these disagreements pale in comparison to what the future would be like for gun owners if an Obama-Biden regime were to control all organs of federal power and land a one-two punch against freedom.
John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an NRA Life member, life-long gun owner, hunter and staunch Second Amendment supporter. She is an electrifying force for preservation and expansion of all the gains we have made in the past decades.
I found it remarkable that in every story announcing her selection she was described as a "lifetime" member of the NRA. She is indeed proud of her Life membership. Suddenly the phony poses of Obama and Biden wrapping themselves around the Second Amendment are stripped to their essence--a semantic trick designed to fool gun owners. You can't let that happen.
Your vote is a remarkable power that you must wield to preserve the Second Amendment. With all of this, there is a simple message. Vote. Get your friends, family and co-workers to vote. And vote for the only ticket that will uphold our Freedom. Vote for the Second Amendment. Vote for the McCain-Palin ticket!
Comments
Thanks
Attn: Wayne LaPierre - Exec. VP
11250 Waples Mill Rd.
Fairfax VA 22030
I have been a member of the NRA since 1991, and a life member since 1998. I have supported the NRA both vocally and monetarily in their efforts, but no more. I have stood idly by for the last few years and watched as more and more restrictions have been signed into law. Meanwhile, the NRA has appeared to do little or nothing to fight these restrictions, and even went as far as supporting the most recent legislation, HR 2640.
It was this support of HR 2640 that was the proverbial "nail in the coffin." I know that any legislation with support from the likes of Sen. Schumer and Rep. McCarthy cannot be good for firearms owners. It doesn't surprise me when they support restrictive legislation, but for the organization, that supposedly represents me and my RTKBA supports it, I find it appalling. HR 2640 was nothing more than the typical "knee-jerk" reaction to a terrible tragedy; ironically, an incident that may have been prevented had it not been for previous legislation declaring school property and college campuses as "gun-free" zones. Do not bother with replying to me singing the praises of this legislation, and touting it as being pro-gun. It's not. When I was a kid, my grandfather used to tell me, "Shane, you can take a hog. You can clean and wash him up. You can put a ribbon around his neck; but you know what? He's still a hog." The NRA fell for this garbage hook, line, and sinker. They bought-in to the argument that HR 2640 was "common-sense" regulation. The NRA believed the government of the United States, and what they were saying. A little study in history will show that is a very risky thing to do. The NRA should also cease its mantra of "enforce, enforce, enforce the existing laws." _ of the existing firearms laws now are unconstitutional. How about "repeal, repeal, repeal?"
I also take issue with the NRA on its action, or lack thereof, in this election year. We have a candidate vying for the Presidency this year that has openly stated his support for the Constitution / RTKBA, and has backed it up with his action in the U.S. House of Representatives. His record leaves no question as to his passionate support of the 2nd Amendment. He has consistently voted for pro-gun legislation and has consistently voted against further restrictions on our RTKBA. I would think that an organization as influential as the NRA would be exhausting all efforts in encouraging support for Rep. Ron Paul. In your literature, you are always using the example of "Lexington Green" and the "shot heard round the world." Well, it is time you take some of you own medicine and follow the example of the famous patriot Paul Revere. You should be "hanging lanterns in the bell tower" and "riding through the night" to inform gun owners about Rep. Paul, and doing everything you can to garner support for him in his bid for the Presidency, but I have witnessed none of this. No email alerts. No mailers. No columns in the American Rifleman. No phone calls. Nothing but the chirping of crickets. Why? I surmise that you have taken the same position as the mainstream media, and believe Rep. Paul is a non-viable candidate, i.e. unelectable. You will choose your "golden-boy" candidate to endorse, even though that candidate will not be as strong a supporter of the Constitution as Rep. Paul. We have started choosing candidates on "electability" or "the lesser of two evils." I have always despised that logic because your conscience should determine whom you support, and voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still a vote for evil. Whatever happened to doing the right thing because it is right? It may not be popular, but it is right, nonetheless.
Because of the two issues I have mentioned, with particular emphasis on the first one, you, the NRA, have alienated gun owners. Many of them are members of your organization. Many of them are former members of your organization. I have been a "hold-out" so far. I believe everyone is subject to making bad decisions, and I believe in giving them a chance to redeem themselves. Many of your former members will disagree, and believe you have established a pattern of the aforementioned behaviors. I am inclined to agree with them. I believe you may be able to save face if:
1) You issue a formal apology to all firearms owners for supporting this most recent legislation (HR2640), as well as the other "common-sense" restrictions you've stood behind.
2) Immediately begin a campaign to not only block further restrictive legislation, but to repeal most of the legislation in place. You should be familiar with it, because you gave your stamp of approval on much of it.
3) Endorse Rep. Ron Paul as your candidate for President of the United States. You know of all the candidates, he is the strongest supporter of the RTKBA, and has the record to prove it.
Do this, and it will show the gun owners in this country that you have some integrity left. However, continue on the path you have been on, and you will leave me with no choice. I will be mailing my membership card back to you, and withdrawing from your organization. I will not give my vocal support to you when I am among other gun owners, and will point them to organizations such as GOA and JFPO. I will give you no monetary support to put in the bag with your "thirty pieces of silver" either. And do not make the mistake of thinking, "He's just one member; it doesn't matter." There are many other of your members that feel just as betrayed as I do. Many have left, and unless there is a change of direction, many more will leave, including myself. Do what is right.
Sincerely, Shane Draughn
Scathing, but I had to send it to them. They brought it upon themselves.
First of all, welcome aboard!
There are several good, no compromise groups out there, such as GOA and JPFO. If you want info on what the NRA has or has not done, do a search on the forums for "NRA". There is a wealth of information out there, posted by some good folks on here.
As for ranges requiring NRA membership, MANY do, including ones around here. I am "slowly" trying to change their minds. Throw too many facts in their face all at once, and they have a tendency to refuse to listen to ANYTHING. Same as some of the members here.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=287342
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=263795
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=292203
i see on hear a lot of you down talking the nra. weather through ignorance or anything else i am unaware of why this would be so. what do they do that is so bad? and also i live connecticut. manye of the ranges here require a nra membership to join. so unless yuour a member you need to have or have a good buddy who has enough land for a 100yrd range to shoot that is outside city limits. which here in ct isnt the easiest thing to accomplish. there are indoor 25 yrd ranges that will let anyone in but what good is that for honing your skills with a rifle? if not jopining the nra what other groups are there that would be helpful in this?
will try to explain the NRA by a hypothetical proposition.
Suppose you and a few neighbors write a contract (constitution)
about how to handle community business.
You all want the contract to be easily understood(thou shall not )
so it is written simply .
Everybody signs and things go well for decades.
Suddenly someone says "I think the wording has a totally different
meening .
Turmoil comes into play ,and a mediator(NRA) comes in to fight the battle for you .
Now he says that he knows that the wording is correct ,but the best deal he can get is about 85% of the original contract (constitution).
The next thing you know ,someone else wants to modify the contract a little further .
The Mediator (Self proclaimed)again steps in and comes back saying that the best deal is now 75% of the original.
Now this progression continues on and on until you have very little of the original left .
At some point you have to ask yourself who this bozo is really working for .
And that is the way a lot of us feel about the NRA.
I think I would call what they are doing COLUSION.
I am an NRA member myself in order to belong to my club .
I hate it !
If you have to join ,pay the money and tell them to kiss off .
#1 no extra money !
#2 Don't call me !
Pay dues in any way to get a discount(go to the Grand American and join(two free boxes of shot shells)
#3 if your club has a lifetime membership ,Take that option as you may not have to be a member at that time .
Paying them anything over would be like hiring your enemies brother as a lawyer.
I am not trying to be a smart * but this is how I feel about the (job) they have done .
so what are some organizations that would be recomemnded to join and how do i go about it?
You haven't read far enough.
I ask nothing of anyone save a fair, open-minded reading of the facts presented by other posters.
I lived thru many of those events .. since 1968 I have been convinced that we are on the long slide to oblivion of freedom.
Some of the bitterest arguments on these forums.and in real life .. center around gun owners that support gun control.
Mostly these people resist harsh, speedy justice for vicious criminals .. and I place them in the same camp as Dodd/Shumer/Fiendstein/Kennedy.
The PROBLEM, of course...is that the general public puts them in OUR camp .. those of us that support the Constitution.
Those that support government gun control do NOT ... CANNOT ..even pretend that they do...when challenged by some one with the balls to hold them to the subject.
I hope you continue to study the subject. It is of VITAL importance in the coming years.
Damn we are getting good.[;)]
congrats Josh.[:D]
Well now, look here folks. Here is a man who took the time to read the facts presented, then on his own, made a decision.
congrats Josh.[:D]
Here are the two reasons I belive that make his decision possible:
1 He is younger and OPEN minded. He is willing to listen, because he doesn't "know it all".
2 He is an INDEPENDANT thinker. He doesn't just follow the "herd" because he is TOLD to do so.
Those two things ALSO may well apply to REAL freedom minded folks.
x-ring.
The NRA is far from being perfect. Come to think of it NOTHING is perfect. There are some other orgnizations worth looking at. That being said, If the NRA had never existed this forum would not exist because we would have been a gun free country many years ago. In my opinion, which for the most part is not shared on this fourm, all gun owners who want to continue to be gun owners should be NRA members.
LMAO at the rediculousness of your simple minded post.
OUR rights EXIST because of GOD and the CONSTITUTION, NOT because of the NRA. Wake up would you.......
The NRA is far from being perfect.
The NRA is not even close to being "good".[:(!]
Come to think of it NOTHING is perfect. There are some other orgnizations worth looking at.
And joining, because they refuse to compromise, unlike the NRA. GOA comes to mind.
That being said, If the NRA had never existed this forum would not exist because we would have been a gun free country many years ago.
You must be joking. If the brave men who founded this Republic had never existed, we would be a gun free country. The reason we still have the RTKBA is the sheer number of gun owners in this country, coupled with the fact those in power believe the false assumption that most gun owners are die-hard patriots. We know that is not the case. If those in power realized the true level of apathy among gun owners, they would have gone for the death blow long ago.
In my opinion, which for the most part is not shared on this fourm, all gun owners who want to continue to be gun owners should be NRA members.
No, gun owners need to be patriots first. Were that to occur, you would see NRA membership dwindle.
Having said that, I am forced to admit I do not have the "dog in this fight" that I thought I did. Having been a gun enthusiast my entire life, I had thought for many years that the NRA was THE voice in support of 2A. After reading though the proffered information of past threads, I am no longer convinced of that. Having seen what they have supported in the past under the guise of "reasonable" ( the phrase "reasonable restriction" makes me want to projectile vomit[xx(] ) has left me feeling more than a little betrayed. I can say of a certain I will no longer send in my money, as I had been accustomed to on several occasion in the last few years. What I will be doing, is more research into alternative organizations who are more in tune with my absolute belief in the right to keep and bear arms.
You have discovered the truth.
Nor will I...a life member since the early eighties. See..as humans, we make mistakes. The ability to ADMIT those mistakes is what separates the men from the boys.
Even better is the activity that helps OTHERS not commit those same mistakes.
I was told (in the mid-ninties) by a NRA field rep. that life members that chucked in their membership were reported to the government agencies engaged in internal spying..some of the multitudes of alphabet goons we fund at the point of a gun.
At the time..I did not feel I could afford another strike against me.
Today..it pleases me that it costs them a couple of bucks every month to send me that mainly useless rag they send out.
Some day, gather up one of the 1950-60s Rifleman..full of how-to-do-its, gunsmithing, teardowns...today, it mostly is advertising for the latest, newest wonder gun out there.
Simple minded post? I gave up name calling in grade school. Adults should be able to discuss issues without lowering themselves to kid games like name calling. I am of the opinion that everyone in this country is entitled to their own opinion. Something called the First Amemdment to the Constitution. Sometimes this forum is like trying to reason with my Democrat friends and relatives.
freemind
Simple minded post? I gave up name calling in grade school. Adults should be able to discuss issues without lowering themselves to kid games like name calling. I am of the opinion that everyone in this country is entitled to their own opinion. Something called the First Amemdment to the Constitution.
Everyone (even slumlord44) has a right to their opinion.
Agree or disagree.
Name calling IS unnecessary.
Everyone (even slumlord44) has a right to their opinion.
Agree or disagree.
Name calling IS unnecessary.
Pick,
I agree, but slum all but called freemind a "Democrat". That's just as bad as being called a "Republican."[:D]
And besides .. my opinion is that those people rank right there with democrats/republicans and other Quislings...
Unless they are fully cognizant of what the NRA represents...
Is "Quisling" calling names.for people that have infiltrated the gun movement and worked tirelessly for gun control ?
If it gets personal, it is not, and will get the thread locked or poofed.
Even if I happen to AGREE with the name-caller.