4 any1 not anti-NRA brainwashed yet....
For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
We still have a chance to win the gun rights war by using political means; if we all pull together. We don't need to stand on the sidelines and mock and criticize others (the NRA for example) who are trying to win that political battle and thereby avoid going to a shooting war with our own government and against many of our fellow citizens.
When reading the extreme lengthly and frequent anti-NRA posts here, ask yourself exactly what motivates those poster to spend such a HUGE amount of time and effort constantly critizing and finding little or nothing good about the NRA. Also ask yourself why, after the NRA critics spend excessive time and energy in a destructive way trying to cause the NRA to lose supporters, why don't they take just a moment to try and do something constructive? Something constructive such as telling you what they are themselves doing to HELP gun rights; or urging you to join and support at least one of the gun rights organizations that nobody can deny is out there struggling to fight for your gun rights.
In other words, figure out why the anti-NRA complainers are willing to spend so much time being destructive towards the NRA but they never seem to have the time to be constructive in trying to divert your gun rights support to another and perhaps better cause.
Also remember that the anti-gun liberal media, the anti-gun politicans, the anti-gun organizations, etc. all join the anti-NRA people here in that they all hate the NRA. Doesn't that one fact make you have just a tiny little bit of doubt about the truth of their complaints?
Also remember that the NRA is a large organization that has operated for over 100 years under many different leaders. So just as with you, the reader of this post, the NRA has made some mistakes in their lives. But your mistakes (hopefully) don't mean you are a bad person, just as the mistakes of the NRA doesn't mean it is a bad organization.
OBTW, the anti-NRA media, the anti-NRA politicans and the anti-NRA organizations are having a banquet and hope all the anti-NRA people here will attend. So contact Diane Feinsten in Calif. and RSVP as soon as you can.
We still have a chance to win the gun rights war by using political means; if we all pull together. We don't need to stand on the sidelines and mock and criticize others (the NRA for example) who are trying to win that political battle and thereby avoid going to a shooting war with our own government and against many of our fellow citizens.
When reading the extreme lengthly and frequent anti-NRA posts here, ask yourself exactly what motivates those poster to spend such a HUGE amount of time and effort constantly critizing and finding little or nothing good about the NRA. Also ask yourself why, after the NRA critics spend excessive time and energy in a destructive way trying to cause the NRA to lose supporters, why don't they take just a moment to try and do something constructive? Something constructive such as telling you what they are themselves doing to HELP gun rights; or urging you to join and support at least one of the gun rights organizations that nobody can deny is out there struggling to fight for your gun rights.
In other words, figure out why the anti-NRA complainers are willing to spend so much time being destructive towards the NRA but they never seem to have the time to be constructive in trying to divert your gun rights support to another and perhaps better cause.
Also remember that the anti-gun liberal media, the anti-gun politicans, the anti-gun organizations, etc. all join the anti-NRA people here in that they all hate the NRA. Doesn't that one fact make you have just a tiny little bit of doubt about the truth of their complaints?
Also remember that the NRA is a large organization that has operated for over 100 years under many different leaders. So just as with you, the reader of this post, the NRA has made some mistakes in their lives. But your mistakes (hopefully) don't mean you are a bad person, just as the mistakes of the NRA doesn't mean it is a bad organization.
OBTW, the anti-NRA media, the anti-NRA politicans and the anti-NRA organizations are having a banquet and hope all the anti-NRA people here will attend. So contact Diane Feinsten in Calif. and RSVP as soon as you can.
0
-
I think you could tell tr fox that the NRA Board of Directors had gone to the streets of Virginia killing babies with LaPierre in the lead, all caught on video and he would still tell you they are "The Last, Best and Only Hope we gun owners have." He will support them no matter what they have done because he has been so brainwashed like so many other Fudds in America because that's all they have ever known and don't care to look at the truth. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ruger41
I think you could tell tr fox that the NRA Board of Directors had gone to the streets of Virginia killing babies with LaPierre in the lead, all caught on video and he would still tell you they are "The Last, Best and Only Hope we gun owners have." He will support them no matter what they have done because he has been so brainwashed like so many other Fudds in America because that's all they have ever known and don't care to look at the truth.
ruger,
X-ring.[;)]
BTW, how much longer until them youngins arrive?0 -
The Doc has pushed up the delivery date so they will probably be born next week sometime by C section--thanks for asking[:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ruger41
The Doc has pushed up the delivery date so they will probably be born next week sometime by C section--thanks for asking[:D]
Keep us posted.[;)][:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
quote:Originally posted by ruger41
The Doc has pushed up the delivery date so they will probably be born next week sometime by C section--thanks for asking[:D]
Keep us posted.[;)][:D]
+10 -
quote:For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
The people here who oppose the NRA convinced me to join the NRA. The vitriolic nature of their opposition should be a warning to any clear thinking person.0 -
Obviously a very clear way of thinking. Congratulations.
You'll be notified shortly as to where to surrender your firearms.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ifticar
quote:For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
The people here who oppose the NRA convinced me to join the NRA. The vitriolic nature of their opposition should be a warning to any clear thinking person.
Personally, I assess you to be full of schite.
You are most likely a long-time NRA member/supporter and actually a willing government gun-control supporter, to whatever the degree.
You are blathering now in an attempt to deceive, when the reality is, that you are simply angry that your beloved organization has been exposed, thus exposing them and you, for being in support of gun-control.
You never considered the NRA, or yourself to be gun-controllers and you got you poor 'wittle feelers' hurt by the blunt truth.
That about sums it up, I suspect.[:)]0 -
I will admit that there are a tiny few of the NRA critics that actually are out there personally waging a fight for our gun rights and other constitutional freedoms. My observations even include a few of the CA's doing this good fight.
But still, what grates on my nerves is what I have indentified as irrational behavior by most NRA critics; at least those few NRA critics that are actually doing as I described above and, while criticizing the NRA, are still spending their own time, money and effort to fight for our rights. In short, they are doing something other than just criticizing the NRA and its supporters (me,for example.)
This irrational behavior I am describing is that the productive NRA critics is that they are not raging at their best target! Their best target being those gun owners who do absolutely nothing to help with saving our constitutional rights. Anybody who does even one small thing a year to help with gun rights should be mad as hell at the free loaders who do nothing; especially nothing but gripe.
All the majority of the gun owners and the constant complainers do is to sit on their canary ass and gripe about things. They sit on their canary ass and somehow expect someone else to save their constitutional rights. Hehe, it is almost as though they think they have a "right" to their constitutional rights.
Which, BTW, they do. But sadly, for as long as I can remember, there have been people spending THEIR time, money and effort to take away constitutional rights those people don't believe you should have; or, conversely, those same destructive people work to GIVE constitutional rights that aren't deserved or to give those rights to people that should not have them (illegal aliens for just one example.) Unfortuntely to counter that effort by our enemies, we gun owners have no choice but to ban together and pool our money, time, effort and votes to help fight our enemies. Supporting the NRA is just one way to pool our strengths.
Now, you will be glad to see this "finally" it is a proven fact that the NRA is observed frequently actually doing some good for gun rights (filing and winning lawsuits, etc.) but the vast majority of the NRA critics are usually OBSERVED DOING NOTHING BUT GRIPING!
So, which side do you want to be on?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Now, you will be glad to see this "finally" it is a proven fact that the NRA is observed frequently actually doing some good for gun rights (filing and winning lawsuits, etc.) but the vast majority of the NRA critics are usually OBSERVED DOING NOTHING BUT GRIPING!
So, which side do you want to be on?
The same question can be asked of you, because you still refuse to present a defense of the damning evidence posted about the grave damage the NRA has done to the RTKBA since the 1930s.
Well, tr; I'm waiting......
Here's the info:
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 acknowledgment 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 disassemble 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 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 had 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.
*****
Now we come to the Veterans Disarmament Act. H.R. 2640
Just looking at who was sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Why was the NRA siding WITH the Brady bunch, Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, McCarthy, etc. When every PRO-gun organization was against it, along with veterans organizations. Many members wanted to know WHY. To my knowledge, the NRA never did answer these inquires.
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). You NO LONGER have to have a court judge you adjudicated, now ANY authorized person can take your rights away. Above all, the UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.
*****
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.
And I 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, it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five.
.....end quote
*****
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
Now, tr; defend the above actions taken by your organization.0 -
quote:Unfortuntely to counter that effort by our enemies, we gun owners have no choice but to ban together and pool our money, time, effort and votes to help fight our enemies. Supporting the NRA is just one way to pool our strengths.
I generally do not poke fun at bad spellings...I am no speller.
This example is a perfect slip of the tongue exemplifying this...AND the nras...positions, however.
His continual bleatings about 'what are you doing' ignores the reality ; All the action taken in the WORLD to advance gun control, by WHATEVER degree, is destructive of our freedoms.
Better for the Second Amendment that he...AND the NRA.just shut the hell up.
Actually, the very BEST thing for the Second Amendment is for them to be REMOVED as spokespersons for `Gun Rights'.
They MUST be forced to publically announce their positions, every day ;
They stand for GUN CONTROL ;
They stand AGAINST the Second Amendment.
Perhaps that should be the answer, every time one of these hissing lips slither by ;
You are a gun controller ;
We are not.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
So, which side do you want to be on?
The way I see it, there is no side. There are not multiple ways to protect the 2A. Either you are for full RTKBA or you are against it.0 -
quote:You are most likely a long-time NRA member/supporter and actually a willing government gun-control supporter, to whatever the degree.
Look at my past posts here. I was not a member of the NRA for most of my life. I was not a member of the NRA a few months ago. I was not even considering a NRA membership a few months ago. I was not a member of the NRA until I ran into some knuckle dragging anti-NRA jerks here. I decided that if those people represented the anti-NRA faction then I wanted be on the other side. I joined the NRA.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ifticar
quote:You are most likely a long-time NRA member/supporter and actually a willing government gun-control supporter, to whatever the degree.
Look at my past posts here. I was not a member of the NRA for most of my life. I was not a member of the NRA a few months ago. I was not even considering a NRA membership a few months ago. I was not a member of the NRA until I ran into some knuckle dragging anti-NRA jerks here. I decided that if those people represented the anti-NRA faction then I wanted be on the other side. I joined the NRA.
Interesting admission, indicative of massive issues, particularly in the congnitive reasoning area.
It merely removes what would have been an unfortunate, but acceptable or sane reason.
Now and with your admission, you are simply a bonehead.
Unbelievable what some people willingly admit for all to see.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Ifticar
quote:You are most likely a long-time NRA member/supporter and actually a willing government gun-control supporter, to whatever the degree.
Look at my past posts here. I was not a member of the NRA for most of my life. I was not a member of the NRA a few months ago. I was not even considering a NRA membership a few months ago. I was not a member of the NRA until I ran into some knuckle dragging anti-NRA jerks here. I decided that if those people represented the anti-NRA faction then I wanted be on the other side. I joined the NRA.
Interesting admission, indicative of massive issues, particularly in the congnitive reasoning area.
It merely removes what would have been an unfortunate, but acceptable or sane reason.
Now and with your admission, you are simply a bonehead.
Unbelievable what some people willingly admit for all to see.
he's one of the calguns boneheads who have hard time comprehending simplest matters.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Ifticar
quote:You are most likely a long-time NRA member/supporter and actually a willing government gun-control supporter, to whatever the degree.
Look at my past posts here. I was not a member of the NRA for most of my life. I was not a member of the NRA a few months ago. I was not even considering a NRA membership a few months ago. I was not a member of the NRA until I ran into some knuckle dragging anti-NRA jerks here. I decided that if those people represented the anti-NRA faction then I wanted be on the other side. I joined the NRA.
Interesting admission, indicative of massive issues, particularly in the congnitive reasoning area.
It merely removes what would have been an unfortunate, but acceptable or sane reason.
Now and with your admission, you are simply a bonehead.
Unbelievable what some people willingly admit for all to see.
he's one of the calguns boneheads who have hard time comprehending simplest matters.
+1,000 I still like to jump over there and give a few of them a [B)] or too.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ifticar
quote:You are most likely a long-time NRA member/supporter and actually a willing government gun-control supporter, to whatever the degree.
Look at my past posts here. I was not a member of the NRA for most of my life. I was not a member of the NRA a few months ago. I was not even considering a NRA membership a few months ago. I was not a member of the NRA until I ran into some knuckle dragging anti-NRA jerks here. I decided that if those people represented the anti-NRA faction then I wanted be on the other side. I joined the NRA.
Now you support gun control codified into law by the folks who write the legislation (NRA), with your very own money, not just your gun controlling mind. I fail to understand why you would come here to brag about your ignorance?? I would humbly suggest you do not visit this website, or at least this forum, anymore, since you are opposed to gun ownership.0 -
I am a life member.I know they are not perfect but for $35 a year and you get a magazine every month,that aint expensive.They do help a little.Just think how powerfull they woud be if every legal gun owner in the country was a member. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by glyn
I am a life member.I know they are not perfect but for $35 a year and you get a magazine every month,that aint expensive.They do help a little.Just think how powerfull they woud be if every legal gun owner in the country was a member.
I shudder to think it.
If it were so, we would be legislated out of any semblance of a 'right' in short order. As it is, we are not far from it, thanks in large part to their hissing of soothing words in support of various forms of gun-control.
They use the opposite, e.g. alarmism, during certain events, or at certain times, primarily as a fund-raising tool, or to keep the true-believers on the hook in the mistaken belief that the NRA is the staunch defender of the Second Amendment.
Sad and transparent, to anyone with a semblance of cognitive reasoning ability.0 -
quote:Originally posted by glyn
I am a life member.I know they are not perfect but for $35 a year and you get a magazine every month,that aint expensive.They do help a little.Just think how powerfull they woud be if every legal gun owner in the country was a member.
Depends on how you look at it.
If you look at how much the NRA has contributed to the damage done to the RTKBA since 1934, the price is staggering.
Point #2:
Some folks are willing to exchange their RTKBA for $35, a magazine, and some Chinese trinkets.
I'm not.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
I support the NRA but have frequent heart burn with what they do. That said, they are playing politics as the game is played today. Until we replace politicans with Statemen who are REALLY intersted in something other than padding their own campaign funds, we will not makc the progress we need.
FLUSH THEM ALL IN 2010! And MORE in 2012!!! And again and again until they get the message.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Explorer1
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
I support the NRA but have frequent heart burn with what they do. That said, they are playing politics as the game is played today. Until we replace politicans with Statemen who are REALLY intersted in something other than padding their own campaign funds, we will not makc the progress we need.
FLUSH THEM ALL IN 2010! And MORE in 2012!!! And again and again until they get the message.
I do not totally approve of the NRA's actions either. But the NRA is the biggest game in town. It can do more for gun rights BY ACCIDENT than all the other progun rights can do ON PURPOSE.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Explorer1
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
For anyone still left on this forum who has not fallen under the constant onslaught of anti-NRA propaganda, please consider this when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
I support the NRA but have frequent heart burn with what they do. That said, they are playing politics as the game is played today. Until we replace politicans with Statemen who are REALLY intersted in something other than padding their own campaign funds, we will not makc the progress we need.
FLUSH THEM ALL IN 2010! And MORE in 2012!!! And again and again until they get the message.
I do not totally approve of the NRA's actions either. But the NRA is the biggest game in town. It can do more for gun rights BY ACCIDENT than all the other progun rights can do ON PURPOSE.
Yep, I agree.
The NRA has facilitated irreparable damage to Amendment II by its compromise, its teaching of a perverted version of what the 2A means and by their abject failure to acknowledge the founding father's only reason and their only intent of Amendment II, along with the NRA's drafting and outright support for anti-constitutional gun laws and enforcement.
All the other organizations, put together, could not make a concerted effort that is more damaging than the NRA has been.0 -
Captain Jeff ;
Nicely done.
I was going to get to that..but you strung it together so very well as to leave little to say.0 -
I bailed on the NRA for the same reason(s) I bailed on the RNC.
They stopped representing me and the Constitution.
The NRA supports my ability to request permission to own a firearm.
I am a Constitutional Conservative. I believe in what the Founding Father gave us, not the current perversion that a bunch of global collectivists are forcing upon us.
The GOA and RMGO more closely represent what I believe.0 -
quote:Originally posted by losttrail
I bailed on the NRA for the same reason(s) I bailed on the RNC.
They stopped representing me and the Constitution.
The NRA supports my ability to request permission to own a firearm.
I am a Constitutional Conservative. I believe in what the Founding Father gave us, not the current perversion that a bunch of global collectivists are forcing upon us.
The GOA and RMGO more closely represent what I believe.
Yours is a fine position and nobody could criticize it. However, your above in red does make me wonder. Do you just mouth the words, or do you actually spend any time, money and effort to help GOA or RMGO suceed? Because as you know, sadly it takes money to fight for our constitutional rights. Yeah, yeah, I know our constitutional rights should just be served up to us on a silver platter each day. But the real world does not work like that. Freedom really is "not free." It is unfortunate but that means we have to constantly work, fight and spend money to do the best job we can keeping our constitutional rights.
There are many here who loudly reject working within the system trying to reform it. They also reject people like me who are still willing to work peacefully within the system. They also reject the various, for example, pro-gun rights organizations that work within the system. So what it comes down to, regarding those people here who seem to reject everything but hoping for civil war to "take back our country" is that their position gives them supposely moral cover for them to do nothing! Do nothing but sit around and gripe, complain, brag and pose as the only true Americans to be found.
So, sir, which are you?0 -
Nobody objects you working within the system, fox...NOBODY !!
What is so very objectionable about people like you and the nra is your support of gun laws...anti-Constitutional is what you are...along with being anti PRO-Constitutional folks.0 -
In case some of you have forgotten the bigger historical picture, here's a synopsis refresher. Remember that Jefferson was rebuffed when he wanted to add 12 Amendments dealing with "personal freedoms" to the Constitution. The authors (Federalists all) felt it was perfect the way it was written. People were already conflicted about gun ownership even then.
1791
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." gains final ratification.
1837
Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.
1865
In a reaction to emancipation, several southern states adopt "black codes" which, among other things, forbid black persons from possessing firearms.
1871
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is organized around its primary goal of improving American civilians' marksmanship in preparation for war.
1927
Congress passes a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.
1934
The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.
1938
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.
1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 - "...was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence." -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms The Act regulates imported guns, expands the gun-dealer licensing and record keeping requirements, and places specific limitations on the sale of handguns. The list of persons banned from buying guns is expanded to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs.
1972
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is created listing as part of its mission the control of illegal use and sale of firearms and the enforcement of Federal firearms laws. ATF issues firearms licenses and conducts firearms licensee qualification and compliance inspections.
1977
The District of Columbia enacts an anti-handgun law which also requires registration of all rifles and shotguns within the District of Columbia.
1986
The Armed Career Criminal Act (Public Law 99-570) increases penalties for possession of firearms by persons not qualified to own them under the Gun Control Act of 1986.
The Firearms Owners Protection Act (Public Law 99-308) relaxes some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales and establishes mandatory penalties for use of firearms during the commission of a crime.
The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (Public Law 99-408) bans possession of "cop killer" bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.
1989
California bans the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons following the massacre of five children on a Stockton, CA school playground with a station wagon and an illegal SKS rifle from Oregon.
1990
The Crime Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) bans manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. "Gun-free school zones" are established carrying specific penalties for violations.
1994
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns. (ATF's Brady Law web site.)
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) bans all sale, manufacture, importation, or possession of a number of specific types of assault weapons.
1997
The Supreme Court, in the case of Printz v. United States, declares the background check requirement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act unconstitutional.
The Florida Supreme Court upholds a jury's $11.5 million verdict against Kmart for selling a gun to and intoxicated man who used the gun to shoot his estranged girlfriend.
Major American gun manufacturers voluntarily agree to include child safety trigger devices on all new handguns.
1998 - June
A Justice Department report indicates the blocking of some 69,000 handgun sales during 1977 while Brady Bill pre-sale background checks were required.
1998 - July
An amendment requiring a trigger lock mechanism to be included with every handgun sold in the U.S. is defeated in the Senate.
But, the Senate approves an amendment requiring gun dealers to have trigger locks available for sale and creating federal grants for gun safety and education programs.
1998 - October
New Orleans, LA becomes the first US city to file suit against gun makers, firearms trade associations, and gun dealers. The city's suit seeks recovery of costs attributed to gun-related violence.
1998 - November 12
Chicago, IL files a $433 million suit against local gun dealers and makers alleging that oversupplying local markets provided guns to criminals.
1998 - November 17
A negligence suite against gun maker Beretta brought by the family of a 14-year old boy killed by an other boy with a Beretta handgun is dismissed by a California jury.
1998 - November 30
Permanent provisions of the Brady Act go into effect. Gun dealers are now required to initiate a pre-sale criminal background check of all gun buyers through the newly created National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) computer system.
1998 - December 1
The NRA files suit in federal court attempting to block the FBI's collection of information on firearm buyers.
1998 - December 5
President Clinton announces that the instant background check system had prevented 400,000 illegal gun purchases. The claim is called "misleading" by the NRA.
1999 - January
Civil suits against gun makers seeking to recover costs of gun-related violence are filed in Bridgeport, Connecticut and Miami-Dade County, Florida.
1999 - May 20
By a 51-50 vote, with the tie-breaker vote cast by Vice President Gore, the Senate passes a bill requiring trigger locks on all newly manufactured handguns and extending waiting period and background check requirements to sales of firearms at gun shows.
1999 - August 24
The Los Angeles County, CA Board of Supervisors votes 3 - 2 to ban the the Great Western Gun Show, billed as the "world's largest gun show" from the Pomona, CA fairgrounds where the show had been held for the last 30 years. (Typical Gun Show Rules& Regulations)0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Nobody objects you working within the system, fox...NOBODY !!
What is so very objectionable about people like you and the nra is your support of gun laws...anti-Constitutional is what you are...along with being anti PRO-Constitutional folks.
Generally, I do not support gun laws. In fact, I don't support any gun laws at all if those gun laws are obviously only going to impact the already peaceful, lawful citizen.
But just consider if I was illegally held as a prisoner in some prison. (Aren't most of us Americans already illegally held "captive" by our government?) Say I didn't agree with me illegally being imprisoned and I certainly didn't agree with the gruel I was served and expected to eat for meals. Yet during the time WHEN I COULD DO LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT IT, I would eat that gruel (rather than weaken and starve) and I would be a model prisoner. But at the same time I would work within the system in an effort to get out of prison or, by having eaten that gruel and at least maintained my strength, I WOULD LOOK FOR A REASONABLE CHANCE TO OVERTHROW THAT PRISON.
In that respect, I don't feel me and people like you, Highball, are that much off the same page. In fact, it would strengthen your army if you would find a way to at least present a united front with you, me and other people who have the basic beliefs but don't have exactly the same beliefs. Then you could wait until we overthrew the prison and THEN you and I could address our differences.
Why go to war, with people that at least until the war is over, will basically be fighting on your side? Save your energy for the enemy that you actually will be fighting. Like I told lt246 once, if a line was drawn in the sand and all Americans were forced to stand on one or the other side of that line, I would be standing with you and the other yellow canary asses. Although I would stand as far apart as reasonably possible due to all the hostility you guys feel towards me.0 -
Were I in prison...oh, I am...I would be attempting to find people that hated the prison, would be actively planning to escape that prison, or scheming to throw OUT the prison administration in order to free the REST of the political prisoners in that prison.
What I would NOT be doing is allowing the Wardens pet bootshiner into my circle of 'schemers and plotters'..as long as he was telling us in private that the warden is not REALLY such a bad guy, after all...after all, he is giving us the gruel to keep us alive, and after ALL..he could well just decide to starve us ALL to death....
No...the man that 'works the inside' needs to be even STRONGER supporting freedom then we that chose to not enter the Wardens quarters.....0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
63 comments