Disgusted with the NRA......
They'll never get another dime from me......the authors of the following article successfully challanged D.C's gun ban.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030722-093717-6859r.htm
Battle of the gun ban
By Robert A. Levy/Gene Healy
Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican. The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Mr. Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses.
Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Mr. Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council Member Kathy Patterson (Democrat of Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Mr. Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal.
Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun-owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest Mr. Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker vs. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.
In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.
Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.
Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Mr. Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Mr. Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Thankfully, on July 8, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Mr. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Mr. Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Mr. Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Mr. Ashcroft when he is so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."
Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun-owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.
***Edit: Redice, does that help***
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030722-093717-6859r.htm
Battle of the gun ban
By Robert A. Levy/Gene Healy
Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican. The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Mr. Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses.
Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Mr. Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council Member Kathy Patterson (Democrat of Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Mr. Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal.
Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun-owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest Mr. Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker vs. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.
In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.
Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.
Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Mr. Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Mr. Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Thankfully, on July 8, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Mr. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Mr. Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Mr. Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Mr. Ashcroft when he is so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."
Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun-owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.
***Edit: Redice, does that help***
0
-
Well, well, well...it is indeed as some of us suspected.
Vindication is such a sweet morsel.
Just like the Republicans...you'all keep on keeping on supporting the NRA....they depend upon ignorance to keep the dollars flowing to their golden coffers.0 -
While I do understand the NRA's stance on some issues, as in knowing the bill is going to pass so try and get it down sized as much as possible, the NRA is still pro gun control. Way to many people look at the political party of a person rather than the agenda of the person they vote for. There are as many repigs out there for guncontrol as there are dims. Not to mention the things these repigs support that hurts the avarage citizen that causes the avarage citizen to vote for a more socialist candidate, but that is an entirely different discussion than this. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
W
You'all keep on keeping on supporting the NRA....
Do I smell a membership give away-0 -
Levy is the main lawyer arguing the Parker case. He's nt some smuck opinion writer. I'm inclined to believe him. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
When we informed the NRA of our intent,
we were advised to abandon the effort.
Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good.0 -
Could someone abbreviate that into laymen's terms and tell me why he is disgusted with the NRA, I started to read it but its so jumbled up I don't feel like it. 0 -
An imperfect NRA is better than a fragmented, weakened NRA. I would rather try to keep the NRA on course than to weaken them by discouraging membership.
Let the NRA be challenged by requesting they respond to the criticisms.0 -
quote:Originally posted by redice
Could someone abbreviate that into laymen's terms and tell me why he is disgusted with the NRA, I started to read it but its so jumbled up I don't feel like it.
The NRA did not want the case to be appealed. They asked them to stop it. Then the joined it to get it bogged down in the bureaucracy of the court system. Now they are working for a federal law to remove the D.C ordinance before the case gets to the SCOTUS. Case can't go to the Supreme Court if the law does not exist.
Article does not speculate why the NRA does not want this case around.0 -
It's TOO SIMPLE; The NRA is trying to ensure that the 2nd Amendment gets a fair hearing by delaying the Supreme's case until there are MORE PRO-GUN jurists on the Court. Currently, there are 4 justices that hate the fact that the 2nd Amendment is even a part of our Constitution, and when GW appoints a replacement this year; WE will have a much better chance that they will rule in OUR FAVOR.
There have been numerous chances to take a case to the Supremes to decide the fate of the 2nd Amendment in the last 5 years, but the Court is still infested with anti-gun-owner justices who feel the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to the National Guard (created some 40 years after the Amendment was written), or that feel it covers only militias (whatever THOSE ARE).
So you "enlightened" masses who read everything through your filter of "The NRA only wants money or glory" can relax the gnashing of teeth and wailing against the NRA for a little while, take a breath, and see what happens this year. Who knows, you might be surprised to see something good come of all of this yet.0 -
I fear the Supreme Court won't get any more conservative than it is today. If a liberal gets into office in 2008 Justice John Paul Stephens will retire and be replaced by another ACLU lawyer like Ginsburg. With the exception of Stephens, no one is going to retire in the near future. He is the last of the old guys. After Stephens retires we could easily go another 8-10 years without a justice being replaced.
I think our chances are excellent with this court. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are rock solid Constitutional constructionist. Only Kennedy has to be swayed, and it is doable. If a Second Amendment case isn't pushed know, We could be easily waiting another 20-30 years. By the time this case does get to the Supreme Court it will be almost 70 years since the Miller case.
Miller wasn't near the perfect case either. The current Parker case is about honest law abiding citizens wanting to own firearms for protection. If I recall correctly, Miller was a hoodlum in Chicago that desired to form a private millitia. He could be compared to the modern ALSadr. I don't understand how the NRA could find a case more perfect than Parker. The D.C. laws are also the worst in the nation. This case is about honest citizens against an oppressive government.
If the NRA wants to wait for the "perfect case" before the "perfect court" , when do they truly expect to achieve this point. Actually, I question the NRA's true motives. Perhaps they fear that their membership and funds will drop dramatically without an enemy with a cause. Perhaps the rantings of the Brady Bunch does more to drive the NRA membership than any positive marketing the NRA does. Maybe, everytime NBC refers to the NRA lobby in Warshington, more people see it as a positive review of the NRA's strength in Warshington. Without the antigun lobby, the NRA doesn't have much of a cause.
Perhaps the NRA needs an AWB.0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
It's TOO SIMPLE; The NRA is trying to ensure that the 2nd Amendment gets a fair hearing by delaying the Supreme's case until there are MORE PRO-GUN jurists on the Court. Currently, there are 4 justices that hate the fact that the 2nd Amendment is even a part of our Constitution, and when GW appoints a replacement this year; WE will have a much better chance that they will rule in OUR FAVOR.
First of all, what makes you think GW is going to appoint another justice this year. Even if he does, what makes you think a conservative judge will be confirmed by the now-democrat sentate?
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
So you "enlightened" masses who read everything through your filter of "The NRA only wants money or glory" can relax the gnashing of teeth and wailing against the NRA for a little while, take a breath, and see what happens this year. Who knows, you might be surprised to see something good come of all of this yet.
You might as well face the the facts. The NRA has hosed us....
For too long, I've listened to the apologists whine that if only more gun owners joined the NRA......if only they had just a little more money, all our rights would be protected. I bought into the hype for awhile....I even left TRFox talk me into joining the NRA
In the Parker case we have one man.....ONE MAN funding and fighting this. The NRA has had 30 years to fight this and they haven't done a damn thing for the good citizens (the ones who are left, anyways) of D.C.
When the suit appeared to have a chance, the NRA done its damnedest to torpedo the whole thing......Why? Because they know whats best for America and for my constitutional rights........
What a load of garbage.....0 -
The right to defend your own life is a God given right. Doing anything else is suicide and prohibited by God.
They don't want to trample my religious rights. [:D]0 -
I'm not impressed with the NRA. They do get the $35 a year, but no more. I've often thought the Firearms manufacturers and distributers carried more weight in Washington than the NRA, GOA, etc., they're well heeled Corporate entities. Those who have the gold make the rules. Maybe, just maybe, it's the anti gun crowd that's getting only lip service on their demands from the government. 0 -
I am very suspicious about the motives of members of this forum who jump on the NRA like a pack of wolves the minute something happens that they don't understand.
I worry that this place is packed by shrills whose job it is to try to divide the progun crowd. I doubt that you have second amendment rights as your personal agenda.
I hope the majority of the members of the forum can see this for what it is and think for themselves.
The "shrills" offer no solution to the problem. They support no progun organizations, in many cases. They just take sniper shots and then move on to the next topic. Try to focus folks! Work for a solution!
If you don't like the NRA start your own group or sue the City of Chicago or New York for infringement of second amendment rights. Step up to the plate and do something positive.
Gee, if all 70 million of you filed a lawsuit in every jusisdiction in the US I guess the court system would be bogged down and Congress would think you were quite serious about your interpertation of the Constitution.
Solution Number 1: All gun owners join a progun organization.
Solution Number 2: Gun owers file lawsuits in every jurisdiction in the country. Class actions stuff maybe. Got the bucks, file the lawsuit.
Solution Number 3: All gun owners hit the streets in Washington DC at a specified time for a protest.
Solution Number 4: Take a trip to Washington DC meet with your Congressmen and stress gun rights.
Solution Number 5: Letter writing to all your elected officials. I am not sure how successful this is anymore because they know that GOA or NRA is behind it and many times the letters are form letters or e-mails.
Solution Number 6: ????????????? Your turn.0 -
I never joined the NRA because i didn't like how much crap they were sending me in the mail. It's almost like they were begging me to join. Once somebody tries to Force something down my throat or in this case UP MY A-- i usually back away instead. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by renneck
I never joined the NRA because i didn't like how much crap they were sending me in the mail. It's almost like they were begging me to join. Once somebody tries to Force something down my throat or in this case UP MY A-- i usually back away instead.
I throw that crap in the trash.
I recognize they are by far the first line of defense for you to keep your gun rights. They are small but do a lot for you folks.
Most folks don't have a half of a clue what they do, the lawsuits they are working currently and won't do the research to find out.0 -
I am a Life Member of the NRA and have been since Slick Willy got re-elected.
I have written to them to ask if the information in this thread is true or not.
I'll keep you posted.0 -
Well, Sig, ol buddy, ol pal...YOUR method of operation (NEVER question the NRA)...has brought us 20,000++++ gun laws.
The 'divide and conquer" stratagy has indeed
worked well...most of you are so ignorant of the Second Amendment..you STILL think that the NRA upholds it.
Sig...ol buddy...did you..or WILL you ..take the Libetarium pledge? It is written in little words that are really hard to twist around so we can justify "Project Exile"....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Well, Sig, ol buddy, ol pal...YOUR method of operation (NEVER question the NRA)...has brought us 20,000++++ gun laws.
The 'divide and conquer" stratagy has indeed
worked well...most of you are so ignorant of the Second Amendment..you STILL think that the NRA upholds it.
Sig...ol buddy...did you..or WILL you ..take the Libetarium pledge? It is written in little words that are really hard to twist around so we can justify "Project Exile"....
Always the talker, never the do'er. Oddball, you must be an agent provocateur. I'm sure you would have been right at home in Vichy France during the war.0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
It's TOO SIMPLE; The NRA is trying to ensure that the 2nd Amendment gets a fair hearing by delaying the Supreme's case until there are MORE PRO-GUN jurists on the Court. Currently, there are 4 justices that hate the fact that the 2nd Amendment is even a part of our Constitution, and when GW appoints a replacement this year; WE will have a much better chance that they will rule in OUR FAVOR.
There have been numerous chances to take a case to the Supremes to decide the fate of the 2nd Amendment in the last 5 years, but the Court is still infested with anti-gun-owner justices who feel the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to the National Guard (created some 40 years after the Amendment was written), or that feel it covers only militias (whatever THOSE ARE).
So you "enlightened" masses who read everything through your filter of "The NRA only wants money or glory" can relax the gnashing of teeth and wailing against the NRA for a little while, take a breath, and see what happens this year. Who knows, you might be surprised to see something good come of all of this yet.
Spot on.
To the anti-NRA mouths posting here.....
Just what are you going to do if SCOTUS rules that cities, towns and municipalities can indeed ban guns? Are you going to run your mouth some more?
The NRA has for many years said that SCOTUS is the last resort. The best plan of action is to work in Washington through elected officials to get good laws. If a restrictive law is going to pass the best policy is to have it diluted as far as can be then fight to change it later. Gee, just like the AWB had a sunset clause......
Think before you jump off the cliff.0 -
quote:Originally posted by renneck
I never joined the NRA because i didn't like how much crap they were sending me in the mail. It's almost like they were begging me to join. Once somebody tries to Force something down my throat or in this case UP MY A-- i usually back away instead.
Your ignorance is showing....
All you need to do is call and ask them not to send it. They will stop sending it; I get maybe 4 mailings a year and I've been a Patron Member for 30 years.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
Just what are you going to do if SCOTUS rules that cities, towns and municipalities can indeed ban guns? Are you going to run your mouth some more?
The NRA has for many years said that SCOTUS is the last resort. The best plan of action is to work in Washington through elected officials to get good laws. If a restrictive law is going to pass the best policy is to have it diluted as far as can be then fight to change it later. Gee, just like the AWB had a sunset clause......
Think before you jump off the cliff.
Even the staunchest NRA supporters around here agree that the NRA is fighting a retreating action.....I have yet to see any NRA supporters on this forum say that the NRA has the money, clout, membership, ect. to go on the offensive. According to these supporters the NRA is only capable of doing is giving ground, albeit slowly....
The war in Iraq is going to destroy the Republicans in '08. Unless a miracle occurs, a liberal Democrat will be our next President. The Dems will most likely hold congress too. Guess what that means....liberal judges appointed by a liberal president will be confirmed by a liberal congress.....
We have two choices.......Get it into SCOTUS now, while we have at least an even shot or do nothing and watch as our rights are slowly pissed away......
If there is going to be a gun ban, let it happen sooner rather than later......0 -
There is a Chinese proverb that says something like "When you form an opinion, you stop learning."
I'll enter this with an open mind. I'm curious what the NRA does in the courts and in legislation. I'll dig the internet off and on over the next couple of weeks and see what the NRA is doing in regards to the courts and legislation. I'm beginning to understand why there are so few Second Amendment cases heard by the SCOTUS. Perhaps ho one wants it. Perhaps, the left and right don't want to lose and the Justices would rather not make the decision.
I've been roaming around the NRA's legal website. Mostly press releases. They did have one about lifting the D.C ban through federal legislation, but no mention of their motives (obviously). Yes, I want to know what the NRA actually does besides a mere reputation.
I'll be curious how many Democrats vote FOR this bill. If there are a lot of them, then it tells me, the left would rather make this small concession rather than risk losing big in courts. If things go down this way, I would find this rather ironic. Liberal democrats voting to remove the most restrictive gun control laws in the land. It would tell me the democrats want this court case to die.0 -
To everyone on here who is bashing the NRA...
How do you suggest we enact more favorable gun laws in this country? By sending letters in the mail to our senators and reps? If the senator or rep hates guns, his secretary is just going to crumble up the letter and through it in the trash. If it somehow manages to make it to his desk, he will put the envelope through a shredding machine, and burn your letter with a cigarrette lighter. And... if you're a constituent, he'll send you a nice autoreply; "thanking you for your opinion" But not giving a flying frick about it.
Over 95% of politicians don't give a crap about what the people who elected them think... they only have their own agenda in mind.
And if the congressman or woman in question is in favor of guns, you're only wasting your breath and money on postage.
But perhaps the NRA however, is somehow able to secretly get people to bribe or blackmail undiserable legislators into voting for favorable gun laws... That accomplishes what I think most of the people on this forum want, less gun control.
Besides, the NRA publishes annual reports on how their funds are spent anyhow. Which varies from range development to education. They are accountable to the IRS too you know... And I'm sure the IRS takes a closer look at their income than most other companies.0 -
I do know that the NRA has recognized the need to find women of like minds and bring them into the organization. This has slowly been happening over the last 15-20 years.
The last board of directors that I voted for included a ever increasing number of women. This is a big step because people like Rosie, Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein and many others get their chairs pulled out from under them when Suzanna Gratia-Hupp goes before Congress and explains how her parents were killed in Luby's resturant in Texas by a madman. Carolyn McCarthy needs to go head to head with Suzanna, Suzanna was there and Carolyn was not. I believe Carolyn's husband was killed on the train incident in the NY area by a madman. Carolyn wants all guns banned, Suzanna wants all folks to have the option of being armed if they choose to do so. Suzanna had her gun in her truck but could not carry it under the then current Texas law.
My point is that the NRA is ever changing with the winds of the times. I agree with the new Congress and a Democrat in the White House we will most likely loose a lot of ground that we have gained under Bush. If Gore or Kerry had won we would not have gun rights today.
There are Democrats that support gun rights, not many but they are out there, find them and get them on the ticket.0 -
..take the Libetarium pledge? It is written in little words that are really hard to twist around so we can justify "Project Exile"....
Little words have to be spelled correctly in order for people with little minds to grasp their meaning...as in; NRA needs members more than some phony third party of mouthy rabble rousers.
Numbers mean a lot to the slow-witted Dimocrats; that's why they run polls almost every minute of every day on almost every subject. Trouble is, they poll the same exact bunch every time.0 -
quote:Just what are you going to do if SCOTUS rules that cities, towns and municipalities can indeed ban guns? Are you going to run your mouth some more?
GUESS WHAT!! There are cities and communities already banning guns.0 -
quote:Originally posted by redice
Could someone abbreviate that into laymen's terms and tell me why he is disgusted with the NRA, I started to read it but its so jumbled up I don't feel like it.
Thought for Today: "News is what a chap who doesn't care much
about anything wants to read. And it's only news until he's read
it. After that it's dead." -- Evelyn Waugh, English author
(1903-1966).0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Well, Sig, ol buddy, ol pal...YOUR method of operation (NEVER question the NRA)...has brought us 20,000++++ gun laws.
The 'divide and conquer" stratagy has indeed
worked well...most of you are so ignorant of the Second Amendment..you STILL think that the NRA upholds it.
Sig...ol buddy...did you..or WILL you ..take the Libetarium pledge? It is written in little words that are really hard to twist around so we can justify "Project Exile"....
Just to set you straight, I am a believer in questioning anything I put my name on. I think the NRA is open and wants to hear from its members, you will hear back also. They may not agree with you but I agree with you that it is important to let them know how you feel if you feel they need to adjust their thinking. Same with our State and Federal senators and congressmen. I like the Libetarium no nonsense approach but Its my opinion that the folks out there will not sign up for that.
When half of the voters out there vote for Gore and Kerry I think it is clear that there is a huge portion of the population that has joined the socialist movement. Worked in Italy, worked in France, Worked in Canada, Germany, Australia and other old line counties.
People like to hate the wealthy, want Government handouts for free and will trade their freedom for the goodies. I have heard that one in five in the state of California received some kind of assistance or a paycheck from the state or federal government.
The Democrats have allowed all the state and federal workers to Unionize and that brought all them over to the democratic side of the voter ledger. The Unions pump million of dollars of union dues to support Democratic candidates in local and national elections.
"WILL you ..take the Libetarium pledge?" I don't think there is any chance that the majority of the population will sign on to the Libetarium pledge. I am amazed at all the folks in Portland that spend their time chatting about Global Warming, stop the war effort, rip out the dams on the Columbia River to save the Salmon, protect the wolves, cougars, bears so they can eat the hikers. I know a lot of the hippys from all over California and the rest of the country settled up here in the 1960-70s. The term Libetariam would give them cardiac arrest.0 -
for what it's worth...
I am also a Life Member NRA-I'll let you know that up front.
In Michigan, a similar thing happened when we tried to get our ccw law passed. I thought our representative had sold us out when he didn't push for a vote on it instead of trying to get legislation signed by our governor.
He told me that he thought it would be better to wait a few more months and try again to get the governor to sign the bill that to try to force the issue at a time when it was questionable. He told me that we could hurt our efforts more than help. There are a lot more details and I don't even recall all of them but it ended up in him being correct. The very next legislative session, we got our CCW bill to pass and now citizens can carry.
I know (and agree) that many of you will argue that this is something guaranteed by the constitution anyway, but the fact of the matter was that you could still be charged with a 5 year felony if you carried without a permit.
Many anti-gun lawmakers know the wrath of gunowners and their biggest fear is when the NRA is able to get gunowners united and active. Other pro-gun groups are great and we should support all that we can afford, but the NRA is most feared by the anti-gun lawmakers. Many are still afraid of what happened the last presidential election because without the NRA, we would have John Kerry as our president right already. The fact that so many states have carry laws now and crime rates dropped in those areas is a major frustration to the anti-gun people.
The most positive thing we can do is to appear united and strong. When you call or write your representatives, don't threaten. Tell them you will work diligently on behalf of candidates that support your views. Even better is to speak with them while being dressed properly for the occasion. A man wearing a shirt and tie or a suit is looked at as being much more influential than a guy in a t-shirt and jeans or flannel.
If you doubt what I am saying, the next time you have the occasion to dress up, (like for a wedding or funeral) go into some stores and shop before (or after if you are not intoxicated[:D]) and see how differently people speak to you. If you haven't done this much before, try it out-I assure you, you will be surprised at how much better you are treated and respected.
Just some thoughts....0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
33 comments