The NRA's new campaign...
The NRA is pushing a new membership drive. They have made available these dealer packets to encourage new membership. A couple of my wholesalers sent out emails promoting the material. Problem is, I don't think I can in good conscience, encourage folks to join the NRA. From what I've seen over the years, the NRA does more behind the scenes to compromise our rights away than they do to protect them. They have sold the American people out. They do still accomplish some good, but I am beginning to believe that is just a smoke screen to cover up another adgenda. I don't think I'll be able to display their promotional material in our shop.
0
-
Good Man !!
Stick to your guns !!
Pun intended.
Doug0 -
It does appear that there is another adgenda. If there is no hidden adgenda, then it is just plain old incompedence and they should be fired. If they were to be fired I am sure the brady bunch would come to their aid. 0 -
There are better organizations out there...I hope some of them end up having the same clout that the NRA once had. 0 -
WTG Eric! I call BS when and where I see it, matters not where it comes from. 0 -
WTG Eric, I think you are dead on. Join GOA. 0 -
If there is another agenda, IMO it is make some of the NRA bigshots RICH. But I still think defending the 2nd and gun rights is on the table as a 2nd priority. 0 -
it has fallen the way of big business, salaries and money is now the driving force, they do sponsor shooting events and training but do very little to curb gun control anymore, as long as they can compromise a proposed law, they pat themselves on the back for us to still have what 2nd amendment rights that we are entitled to have anyway
where are they in Illinois? we are under attack this very minute by sb1007, and a .50 cal ban in December0 -
Join The Army of Arkadian Reparations! 0 -
It saddens me to see people so cynical, distrusting and downright hateful towards the NRA. IMO the organization isn't perfect, nothing is perfect and nobody is going to agree with anyone or any group 100% of the time. But the NRA has done far more good than harm over the years and remains THE most powerful lobbying group defending the Second Amendment (and I do truly believe the NRA defends the 2nd).
I am just as much of a staunch defender of the 2nd as any of you. I belong to or have belonged to many gun rights groups, have written hundreds of letters to media outlets and politicians defending the 2nd, I have participated in rallies and protests, I have attended local council meetings to protest proposed laws, and I have given thousands of dollars to pro-gun candidates and lobbying groups. Yet I don't see the NRA the same way so many of you do. I don't understand how we can look at the same organization and see such different things. I see the group as less than perfect but still working hard for our beliefs while you see traitors, thieves, and scam artists.
You are free to shun the NRA if you choose. Just like you can shun a candidate who is only 95% of what you want and by God you are holding out for that 100% candidate, but I think you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.0 -
SaxonPig-
I agree.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
It saddens me to see people so cynical, distrusting and downright hateful towards the NRA. IMO the organization isn't perfect, nothing is perfect and nobody is going to agree with anyone or any group 100% of the time. But the NRA has done far more good than harm over the years and remains THE most powerful lobbying group defending the Second Amendment (and I do truly believe the NRA defends the 2nd).
I am just as much of a staunch defender of the 2nd as any of you. I belong to or have belonged to many gun rights groups, have written hundreds of letters to media outlets and politicians defending the 2nd, I have participated in rallies and protests, I have attended local council meetings to protest proposed laws, and I have given thousands of dollars to pro-gun candidates and lobbying groups. Yet I don't see the NRA the same way so many of you do. I don't understand how we can look at the same organization and see such different things. I see the group as less than perfect but still working hard for our beliefs while you see traitors, thieves, and scam artists.
You are free to shun the NRA if you choose. Just like you can shun a candidate who is only 95% of what you want and by God you are holding out for that 100% candidate, but I think you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Absolutely well stated.
But, don't forget. You're not supposed to compromise. The Second Amendment is absolute! If the PTB take away our Second Amendment rights, we at least know that we didn't do anything to help them along by joining a group that is only 90% good instead of waiting around for the one that is 100% good.0 -
quote:It saddens me to see people so cynical, distrusting and downright hateful towards the NRA.
You call us cynical? What about those at the top of the NRA making multi-millions yearly?
Bah! You can keep them.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
It saddens me to see people so cynical, distrusting and downright hateful towards the NRA. IMO the organization isn't perfect, nothing is perfect and nobody is going to agree with anyone or any group 100% of the time. But the NRA has done far more good than harm over the years and remains THE most powerful lobbying group defending the Second Amendment (and I do truly believe the NRA defends the 2nd).
I am just as much of a staunch defender of the 2nd as any of you. I belong to or have belonged to many gun rights groups, have written hundreds of letters to media outlets and politicians defending the 2nd, I have participated in rallies and protests, I have attended local council meetings to protest proposed laws, and I have given thousands of dollars to pro-gun candidates and lobbying groups. Yet I don't see the NRA the same way so many of you do. I don't understand how we can look at the same organization and see such different things. I see the group as less than perfect but still working hard for our beliefs while you see traitors, thieves, and scam artists.
You are free to shun the NRA if you choose. Just like you can shun a candidate who is only 95% of what you want and by God you are holding out for that 100% candidate, but I think you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Believing doesn't make it so sir.
Where in Amendment II of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, does it provide the government any authority to impose "infringements" such as :
*waiting periods
*instant checks,
*government permission to carry
*excluding certain persons from ever possessing firearms based on "mental health" history
*"assault weapons" restrictions
*bans on full autos
*Federal licensing
*The National Firearms Act
*The 1968 Gun Control Act
and on, and on, and on........
The NRA Supports gun-rights, but only gun-rights where hunting, target shooting, recreational shooting, "sporting purposes" and government regulated self-defense are in play.
The NRA does NOT support the Amendment II that is in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. That Amendment II restricts government from infringing on the rights of Americans to own, possess and use firearms of all types, including those personal weapons in use by military forces. It also provides a last line of defense from tyranny in government.
Pretty hard to defend against tyranny in government, or for a citizen to participate in offensive/defensive operations against an outside threat, when we are restricted from possessing, owning or using the very arms guaranteed under the US Constitution, now isn't it?
Might I add that most of these restrictions, or "infringements" have been passed with the support, facilitation, assistance, "selling to the American gun-owner" and/or outright authoring of the very legislation that restricts the RTKBA, BY THE NRA itself.
So Saxon, how does your "true belief" stack up against the cold hard facts??
Support the NRA all you want, but do so with the full knowledge of their actual actions, not what positions or activity they TELL you that hold or that they do.
It is what it is and they are what they are.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mcaso
It does appear that there is another adgenda. If there is no hidden adgenda, then it is just plain old incompedence and they should be fired. If they were to be fired I am sure the brady bunch would come to their aid.
[:D] Stranger things have happened.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
It saddens me to see people so cynical, distrusting and downright hateful towards the NRA. IMO the organization isn't perfect, nothing is perfect and nobody is going to agree with anyone or any group 100% of the time. But the NRA has done far more good than harm over the years and remains THE most powerful lobbying group defending the Second Amendment (and I do truly believe the NRA defends the 2nd).
I am just as much of a staunch defender of the 2nd as any of you. I belong to or have belonged to many gun rights groups, have written hundreds of letters to media outlets and politicians defending the 2nd, I have participated in rallies and protests, I have attended local council meetings to protest proposed laws, and I have given thousands of dollars to pro-gun candidates and lobbying groups. Yet I don't see the NRA the same way so many of you do. I don't understand how we can look at the same organization and see such different things. I see the group as less than perfect but still working hard for our beliefs while you see traitors, thieves, and scam artists.
You are free to shun the NRA if you choose. Just like you can shun a candidate who is only 95% of what you want and by God you are holding out for that 100% candidate, but I think you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You might have a point on the 100% perfection holdout theory, Sax - but if that is the case, then lots of people here would/should know Earl, and that might be a bit far fetched.0 -
He Dog- Those are paid positions in a huge corporation. How much does the CEO of Shell Oil make? Or Sears? If the NRA wants to hire and keep good executives they have to pay competitive salaries. Heston refused a salary as NRA president but he did so because he is a wealthy man who didn't need the money and did the work out of his convictions. The other executives in the NRA need to make a living and those sorts of jobs pay well. That's the reality and it doesn't make them thieves.
IT496- I believe the NRA supports the 2nd because of the evidence I have seen. It's not just wishful thinking on my part. I believe because I am convinced it's true.
Also, you make it sound as if the NRA was responsible for those laws. It's the fault of the Congresses that passed those bills and the various presidents who signed them into law. There's only so much the NRA can do to fight bad legislation and several of the laws you blame the NRA for were enacted before the NRA was politically active (didn't happen until after the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed and then many members complained that the NRA shouldn't be political so they can't win). Many people believe they do nothing, more believe they don't do enough, but I am convinced that they make efforts on our behalf even if we don't always agree with the plan.
Of course the NRA is big on hunting and sport shooting. But the NRA also pushes hard for concealed carry reform and strongly defends the ownership of semi-auto rifles labeled "assault weapons" by those who would destroy the Second Amendment. Yes, that one idiot board member spoke against such guns several years ago but his stupid comment doesn't reflect the entire NRA.
I agree that a rock-solid, no compromise position is what most of us want. But those who lobby Congress say that sort of attitude will get a 100% gun ban in short order. Politicians react negatively to threats and no compromise stances. Like it or not, we are playing politics. I know, I know... we shouldn't play politics with the Bill of Right but in the real world that's exactly what happens. If you barge into a Congressman's office and pound your fist on the desk and demand that he vote a certain way you can pretty much be assured you lost his vote.
We should think like the Liberals. Their plan is to take WHAT they can... WHEN they can... then come back for more later. If they don't get all they want the first time around they don't get upset because they know they will be back to try again. If we have to compromise to get something we want we can come back later when the political winds are more in our favor and try to change the deal.
My position remains the same. The NRA isn't perfect and I disagree with the leadership on a regular basis. But the NRA is still the most effective ally we have in D.C. and it's the only organization that the politicians fear and respect at all. The others simply are not big enough and don't wield enough political clout.
I think the Brady Bunch, Chuck Schumer, and the other gun banners must take great delight in seeing us so divided. If you dislike the NRA, you are siding with Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, et al because they also dislike the NRA.0 -
Might as well add this to this thread too.
First,
I am an NRA member, and a gun owner. I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment,
AS IT WAS WRITTEN.
What part of,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
The right to keep and BEAR arms,
is hard to understand???
Second,
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Or are some so "afraid" of the "WHOLE" truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?
It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative about the NRA. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional, and NEEDS to have members WORKING TO CHANGE which laws they support. Ya, lets KILL the messenger.
Third,
Am I advocating withdrawing your membership from the NRA......NO.
Work within the system to CHANGE it, if you don't agree with what they are doing. I DO. LET THEM KNOW if you don't agree with their actions. They CAN'T FIX IT, IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S BROKEN. (which by the way, neither can the members) VOTE the bad guys OUT. VOTE the good guys IN.
Only problem is "as with politicians" if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting "MANY" of them passed.
Fourth,
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win "some" if they didn't, that 3-4 million membership number would fade away quickly. We have had almost 2 terms of a republican president. How many gun laws has the NRA even TRIED to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a "Vermont/Alaska style" CCW law in? How many states have they turned a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT (to bear arms) into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE (CCW) with the government deciding on who is ALLOWED to bear arms. (once the - fee - is paid, of course)
I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?
*****
Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the "compromise" in this?
*****
What HARM can they do / have they done?
Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act of 1932" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.
The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934 was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby "starting" an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements. Not so, the NRA was first.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
*****
The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what it really is.
The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep and hide arms" or "to keep and lock up your arms" or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.
*****
"Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
*****
Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???
*****
LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
*****
First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out PRO-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.
*****
It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.
Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. The NRA started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.
Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.
Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.
From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT`S OUR BILL in five years.
*****
Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. The "Parker v. District of Columbia" case. First by trying to have the case consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, which would have drug this case out for YEARS. When that failed, the NRA got behind, and was pushing for the "DC Personal Protection Act" bill, which would, in effect, remove the law that the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case was based upon. Thereby preventing the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case from going before the supreme court.
Why would they try to derail a case that ultimately DID overturned a gun ban, and potentially settle the long disputed "individual right v. the right of the militia" to keep and bear arms? Because they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the supreme court? A supreme court (considering the make up of it at present) where we have the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?
And when was the NRA fighting for our rights in this way? Oh ya...2007.
*****
Lets look at ANOTHER bill backed by the NRA. H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" Admittedly, as always, there are some "supposedly" pro-gun people that are in favor of this. For me, to see the first red flags thrown up, are to look at who is sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Carolyn McCarthy along with Barbara Boxer. Nevermind the far reaching implications, with the potential of opening a Pandora's box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has seen some kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc). The UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.
Oh, and this again IS happening in 2007
*****
Lets not forget the NRA BOARD MEMBER (Joaquin Jackson) who "indicated" that "assault rifles" should only be in the hands of the military and/or law enforcement. But since they ARE legal for civilians to own, then civilians should be limited to 5 round magazines.
quote:I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you. if you. it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five.
*****
While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."
In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.
CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills
TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.
Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?
In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.
In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.
In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS...NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???
In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ?
In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.
In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.
*******
John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term "jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?
NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.
Can't forget the "help" we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer.
The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time
Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!
In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?
From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.
The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.
Admittedly, some of this information is "historical" in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. (as in 2007) Does this information show a distinct pattern? An agenda? If so, it's one that I'm not happy with at all.
Is this the kind of "representation" that YOU want/expect? There are more anti 2nd amendment bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.
Why is it, that some NRA supporters will not accept the truth (even when presented with facts) about how the NRA has been selling our gun rights down the river for a VERY long time.
I believe that everyone would agree, that the NRA is recognized as the 800 lb. Gorilla, in the fight for our gun rights. This is the very same organization that the NRA supporters have been paying money to for YEARS. Paying big bucks to be a "Life Member" Signing up their children/grand-children, almost as soon as they are born. Everyone KNOWS who the NRA is.
They are relying on the NRA to be supportive in the fight for our gun rights. They consider the NRA to be the last bastion of hope. If they find that the NRA is NOT actually on our side, then is there really.any hope?0 -
There's really too much in that post to respond to all of it, but like I said, mistakes are made and the NRA is not perfect and there are some highly placed members who need to be kicked out.
As for backing anti-gun pols, well sometimes the opponent is even worse so they go with the lesser of two evils hoping to get concessions from the victor in not being so anti-gun in exchange for their support. Not everyone agrees with such tactics but that's politics.
I still think it's better to be involved and try to effect change from within rather to abandon the most effective lobby group we have. If you disagree and simply can't abide by the politics and compromises that occur then you should separate yourself from the organization.
Once again, I have to say any organization that is hated by Sarah Brady and Diane Feinstein must be doing something right in my book.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
There's really too much in that post to respond to all of it, but like I said, mistakes are made and the NRA is not perfect and there are some highly placed members who need to be kicked out.
As for backing anti-gun pols, well sometimes the opponent is even worse so they go with the lesser of two evils hoping to get concessions from the victor in not being so anti-gun in exchange for their support. Not everyone agrees with such tactics but that's politics.
I still think it's better to be involved and try to effect change from within rather to abandon the most effective lobby group we have. If you disagree and simply can't abide by the politics and compromises that occur then you should separate yourself from the organization.
Once again, I have to say any organization that is hated by Sarah Brady and Diane Feinstein must be doing something right in my book.
I agree! +1 Well said Mr. Saxon!0 -
I hate the sight of Wayne LaPierre,.......someone would have to convince me that this "stuffed suit", has even shot a firearm.
I am sick to death of seeing him, and Sigler, having their pics taken getting their latest "haul" from the manufacturers. They BOTH, look like retired lawyers, that are simply sucking up the gifts, and a huge salary, for doing nothing.
I am a member until 11/08,.......after that, they will have to prove something to me, for me to continue.
Yes,.....I have joined GOA.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
He Dog- Those are paid positions in a huge corporation. How much does the CEO of Shell Oil make? Or Sears? If the NRA wants to hire and keep good executives they have to pay competitive salaries. Heston refused a salary as NRA president but he did so because he is a wealthy man who didn't need the money and did the work out of his convictions. The other executives in the NRA need to make a living and those sorts of jobs pay well. That's the reality and it doesn't make them thieves.
IT496- I believe the NRA supports the 2nd because of the evidence I have seen. It's not just wishful thinking on my part. I believe because I am convinced it's true.
Also, you make it sound as if the NRA was responsible for those laws. It's the fault of the Congresses that passed those bills and the various presidents who signed them into law. There's only so much the NRA can do to fight bad legislation and several of the laws you blame the NRA for were enacted before the NRA was politically active (didn't happen until after the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed and then many members complained that the NRA shouldn't be political so they can't win). Many people believe they do nothing, more believe they don't do enough, but I am convinced that they make efforts on our behalf even if we don't always agree with the plan.
Of course the NRA is big on hunting and sport shooting. But the NRA also pushes hard for concealed carry reform and strongly defends the ownership of semi-auto rifles labeled "assault weapons" by those who would destroy the Second Amendment. Yes, that one idiot board member spoke against such guns several years ago but his stupid comment doesn't reflect the entire NRA.
I agree that a rock-solid, no compromise position is what most of us want. But those who lobby Congress say that sort of attitude will get a 100% gun ban in short order. Politicians react negatively to threats and no compromise stances. Like it or not, we are playing politics. I know, I know... we shouldn't play politics with the Bill of Right but in the real world that's exactly what happens. If you barge into a Congressman's office and pound your fist on the desk and demand that he vote a certain way you can pretty much be assured you lost his vote.
We should think like the Liberals. Their plan is to take WHAT they can... WHEN they can... then come back for more later. If they don't get all they want the first time around they don't get upset because they know they will be back to try again. If we have to compromise to get something we want we can come back later when the political winds are more in our favor and try to change the deal.
My position remains the same. The NRA isn't perfect and I disagree with the leadership on a regular basis. But the NRA is still the most effective ally we have in D.C. and it's the only organization that the politicians fear and respect at all. The others simply are not big enough and don't wield enough political clout.
I think the Brady Bunch, Chuck Schumer, and the other gun banners must take great delight in seeing us so divided. If you dislike the NRA, you are siding with Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, et al because they also dislike the NRA.
Saxon,
I appreciate the good natured give and take, however it seems as if you are like many of the gun owning, NRA supporting members of this board and in fact like most of the 4 million NRA members. You simply can't confront the truth about your organization.
In the face of some light reading at:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=175
Please comment after you take the time to actually look at the possibility of NRA insidiousness. Lots more available that is even more enlightening.
If, either after researching a little bit or if you know the facts and choose to disregard them, you still feel the same way about how the NRA affects the managed relationship, managed legislation, managed direction and managed control of the arguments between the American people and the government relative to firearms, face the fact that you agree with and accept the governments right to regulate firearms, contrary to the US Constitution.
One final point on your quote in red above. That is a bullsnit statement and is not worthy of you. Methinks it seems to be a frantic diversion tactic, of the type commonly used when no good counter argument is available, particularly when one is confronted with an opposing argument that rings a bit too true.[;)] Beyond that, I will pass comment on it since it is there for all to see and judge.0 -
The point I was trying to make is that if the NRA is as bad as you say, why do the anti-gun politicians despise it so much?
Besides, it's not a bogus statement at all. If you hate the NRA you agree with the people I cited (in regards to feelings about the NRA). Is that not a fact?
I looked at that web site and it's what I expected. Hard liners who hate the NRA. It's their right... and yours... to hate the NRA.
As for accepting that the government can regulate firearms, well yes it can. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that no right is absolute and whether you agree or not the government can and will make laws regulating firearms just as it makes laws regulating everything else. We supposedly have the right to free speech but try to say Carlin's "Seven Words" on TV or radio and see what kind of fine is leveed by the FCC.
By maintaining that the 2nd is an absolute right and accepting nothing less you are not being realistic and you won't win unless you can manage to overturn Congress and the Supreme Court. Not that it's a bad idea, mind you, but not very likely to happen.0 -
quote:If you hate the NRA you agree with the people I cited (in regards to feelings about the NRA). Is that not a fact?
That is an incredibly stupid statement.
People can have issues with the NRA, and not for the same reasons.
I have disagreements over the waste of my dues, and the constant compromising.
Schumer, and his ilk, simply hate them because they want to have a total "gun ban", and the NRA puts up a bit of an obstacle, and they are tired of making deals with them. In other words meeting "middle ground" between the NRA, and Schumers types.
Edit: Saxon,....the first amendment has been broadened like a hot air baloon, beyond its original intent.
It was meant to give a citizen the right to protest against the government, without fear of prison, or death.
It has come to include profanity, pornography, artwork made of "filth",.........things that were never intended.
All the while this has been happening, our second amendment rights have been shrinking, unlike the huge expansion of the first.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
The point I was trying to make is that if the NRA is as bad as you say, why do the anti-gun politicians despise it so much?
Besides, it's not a bogus statement at all. If you hate the NRA you agree with the people I cited (in regards to feelings about the NRA). Is that not a fact?
I looked at that web site and it's what I expected. Hard liners who hate the NRA. It's their right... and yours... to hate the NRA.
As for accepting that the government can regulate firearms, well yes it can. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that no right is absolute and whether you agree or not the government can and will make laws regulating firearms just as it makes laws regulating everything else. We supposedly have the right to free speech but try to say Carlin's "Seven Words" on TV or radio and see what kind of fine is leveed by the FCC.
By maintaining that the 2nd is an absolute right and accepting nothing less you are not being realistic and you won't win unless you can manage to overturn Congress and the Supreme Court. Not that it's a bad idea, mind you, but not very likely to happen.
Your earlier quote sir: "If you dislike the NRA, you are siding with Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, et al because they also dislike the NRA."
Now you attempt to change that into you now saying that if one hates the NRA, one "agrees with" the anti-gunners. Both are bullsnit, period. No, it is not a fact sir. Disagreement with the NRA's FACTUAL actions (not hate) does NOT translate into agreement with and/or support of those communists you list, at least not in the real world.
As to your "looking" at the link, did you read any of the information?
If so, please refute it in some manner, rather than tossing out the blanket "bunch of hardliners" mantra in an attempt to discredit the information.
Your point about government regulation and its intrusions into the Bill of Rights is correct. Government does regulate/infringe. Explain, based on the US Constitution, where they have the authority to do so? The fact that they do does not make it right, nor does it signal to the American people that the government has the right to do so. Such intrusions must be resisted at all points, not accepted or encouraged as in the case of NRA actions.
I do maintain that Amendment II is an absolute right and I do not accept anything less. That is the way Amendment II was designed. People who DO accept that it it NOT an absolute right and who DO accept and support government infringements, are the problem in my world.
Those who accept government infringements, tend to dilute and marginalize the efforts of those of us who do not.
We can certainly disagree about the NRA sir.
I maintain that they do NOT support the Amendment II enumerated in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. You maintain that they do. I simply challenge you to provide some evidence of your position, not diversion tactics designed to discredit the source of factual information.
If you are alright with and/or supportive of gun-control, whether facilitated, compromised into existence, or otherwise sold to you by the NRA, fine. It is what it is. Just don't try to fool me into thinking it is anything other than gun-control. Don't try to fool yourself either, it's kind of embarrassing to those who read it.
Stand up and be proud of your position in support of government regulation of the purportedly "un-infringeable" fundamental RTKBA.0 -
ECC, I support your decision 150%! You ARE doing th right thing, even by your OWN conciense. It is good to see people think on their own and not following the bleating of an organization blindly. 0 -
We gun owners that actually support the Constitution MUST draw a bright line between those perfectly content to accept and agree with government controls and those of us unwilling to.
We MUST stop marginalizing the Second..allowing the compromisers to define the terms for us.
EVERY TIME they sit down to the table with the Beast..we lose. They proudly sally forth with a bundle of talking points...and the typical gun-owner cheers and send them another bundle of cash..and submits to yet MORE gun control.
Where, gentlemen, has honor, courage, and the love of freedom vanished to ?0 -
I have stated my opinion and I see nothing I need to change. You are free to disagree (as I know you do).
It's impossible to refute opinions. That web site bases its commentary on the perspective of people who share your view; the NRA is awful and we need to repeal every single gun law. I can't argue with their opinions any more than I can argue with yours or you can argue with mine.
I am not proud of supporting government intervention because I do not support it. But I do recognize the inevitability of there being laws and the reality that government exists to exercise control and unless we eliminate the government there will be laws. Do you seriously believe there is any chance that Congress will ever agree to simply erase all gun laws? I think this is an exercise in futility and an unreasonable expectation. But don't let me stop you from trying. I wish it would happen but I am sure that it won't.
I don't know why you are getting so angry. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. We will simply have to accept the fact that we see this issue differently and leave it at that.0 -
IMO i dont think it really matters, when the time comes and the goverment wants your firearms you will either give them to them or fight to your death.which i plan to do 0 -
Truth is as truth does.
MOST NRA members agree with gun controls..either the background check, or the waiting period, or whatever.
I find THAT position MUCH closer to the position of Shumer/Fiendstein/Kennedy...then the position of those of us supporting the Second.
Trying to turn the facts around to blame an opponent for the things YOU are doing may work with the weak-kneed we are surrounded by..but will NEVER work with anyone with a back-bone.0 -
How about we quit bashing pro gun organizations and start bashing the heads of law enforcement that don't crack down on Real criminals that ultimately are the leading cause of gun control[?][;)]
Funny Not ONE post here blames criminals, drug runners, organized crime and or federal law enforcement for the erosion of gun control.
You guys crack me up sometimes- News head lines everyday "Four time felon with gun sparks new gun control measures"
It's all very simple,Get bad apples in the bucket and we all pay. But yet a person kills 10 people with a car? WTH is the ban on cars?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
41 comments