NRA...revisited
(Posted over on Gun Rights;)
wsfiredude
Starting Member
USA
21 Posts
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 8:32:23 PM
National Rifle Association of America
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.
wsfiredude
Starting Member
USA
21 Posts
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 8:32:23 PM
National Rifle Association of America
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.
0
-
I can see them backing Romney.
But then again, I can remember them backing Spencer Abraham.......0 -
Yeah, if only they'd endorse some lunatic, no way to get elected, so far from reality, unknown even in the state he was elected to represent, OPEN BORDERS nutcase like ol' Ron Paul; that would solve the whole problem. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
Yeah, if only they'd endorse some lunatic, no way to get elected, so far from reality, unknown even in the state he was elected to represent, OPEN BORDERS nutcase like ol' Ron Paul; that would solve the whole problem.
Please gime me a reference to your "open borders" comment.0 -
Maybe it is from his website?
quote:The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
Keep on believing what the MSM is telling you......0 -
Took about 30 seconds to research:
Quote:
In 1987, he wrote that the United States should not have a national immigration policy and "should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work."
Paul's campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton, said Paul has changed his position on immigration over the past two decades, now backing government action such as building a fence on the border.
That 1987 quote really sounds like something liberals, Bushbots, and Neocons would say. What about protecting American jobs?
So I looked up Paul's voting record according to "Americans for Better Immigration" (http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TX14&VIPID=787) in order to check on the claims made by the Liberty Post article above. I was surprised to find that Ron Paul has:
1. Voted to nearly double H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998 (H.R. 3736)
2. Voted against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437)
3. Consistently voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in multiple bills over the years. One in particular is in 2005 (H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815)
4. Voted against bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005 (H.R. 418)
5. Voted against amendment to fund program to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2005 (H. Amdt. 144 to H.R. 2360)
6. Voted in favor of an immigration provision in 2002 that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years later. (H RES 365)0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
Took about 30 seconds to research:
Quote:
In 1987, he wrote that the United States should not have a national immigration policy and "should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work."
Paul's campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton, said Paul has changed his position on immigration over the past two decades, now backing government action such as building a fence on the border.
That 1987 quote really sounds like something liberals, Bushbots, and Neocons would say. What about protecting American jobs?
So I looked up Paul's voting record according to "Americans for Better Immigration" (http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TX14&VIPID=787) in order to check on the claims made by the Liberty Post article above. I was surprised to find that Ron Paul has:
1. Voted to nearly double H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998 (H.R. 3736)
2. Voted against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437)
3. Consistently voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in multiple bills over the years. One in particular is in 2005 (H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815)
4. Voted against bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005 (H.R. 418)
5. Voted against amendment to fund program to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2005 (H. Amdt. 144 to H.R. 2360)
6. Voted in favor of an immigration provision in 2002 that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years later. (H RES 365)
What was your position in 1987?
Funny, they give him a B+, VS McCains D..............0 -
BC-APNewsAlert,0027
HAVANA (AP) -- State media says former CIA agent-turned-U.S.
critic Philip Agee has died in Cuba.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments