Finally got off my butt and did it.
Joined the NRA this morning. I have put it off way too long. After reading a post on another forum and seeing all the pansies cry, I was prompted to do it. I'd suggest that anyone who owns a gun, is involved with shooting sports, or wants to own a gun do the same.
Brownells offers a dicounted membership. $25/year vs. $35.
So let's hear your excuse.
Brownells offers a dicounted membership. $25/year vs. $35.
So let's hear your excuse.
0
-
No excuse...life member 0 -
My excuse is that they are supporting a anti-gun bill that if it passes may have direct consequences to me with the possibility of me loseing all my guns!
I would not give them a single penny after they claimed support for that bill!0 -
Hope your ready-there's a quite a few NRA bashers/haters on here[B)] Life member here[8D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by rdcinmn
Hope your ready-there's a quite a few NRA bashers/haters on here[B)] Life member here[8D]
I personally had no problem with them untill they showed support for that one bill!0 -
Yup. I'm fed up and ready for the cry baby's.[}:)]
Gitter, I believe if you do some research you'll find that the bill in question will not infringe upon your rights, unless your'e a complete wack job, which I think you are not. It concerned me at first till I read a link somewhere on GB explaing the bill. I urge you to get involved if you have not already.0 -
I will be joining at the end of the year. The range I am a member at is a association of 23 separate clubs. I am joining another club that requires you to be a NRA member. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SCorvers
Yup. I'm fed up and ready for the cry baby's.[}:)]
Gitter, I believe if you do some research you'll find that the bill in question will not infringe upon your rights, unless your'e a complete wack job, which I think you are not. It concerned me at first till I read a link somewhere on GB explaing the bill. I urge you to get involved if you have not already.
I have looked over the bill, and to me it list too much grey area for my comfort!
I have never been adjudicated a mental defective, but I do have a rateing from the VA for PTSD.
My PTSD problem primarily manifest as sleeping problems and such. I have never once been considered a threat to anyone. And the doctors I deal with at the VA for my PTSD know about my hobby of gun collecting and shooting and they feel that it is a great thing for me as it keeps my mind off of things and gives me something productive to do.
The grey area in the bill is: Is my recieving a rateing for PTSD an adjudication?
Supporters of the bill say no, while those against it say yes!
The bill itself does not come directly out and say one way or the other and could very easily be interprited either way as it does not give a direct interpritation of what it considers adjudicated.
Untill the bill gives a direct interpritation of that one word I have to stand 100% against it and its supporters!
I am sure you can understand that![;)]0 -
if you have been diagnosed as having ptsd i gurantee somewhere in your records you have been listed as a threat to yourself or others.
Any time Gun Control anti 2nd Ammendment Brady People,senators ,and coggresspeople,and the nra officers want to get a bill passed into law there's a snake in the woodpile somewere. i'm in the same position as GRD. and i've not even had a speeding ticket since i was 19. but when this is a law i will be a criminal. along with thousands of other americans..AND, YES I AM A NRA LIFE MEMBER!0 -
Life Endoement member here.GRD if you would read the material put out by the NRA to refute what was said by mainly the GOA you will find that you are at no risk of losing your guns. Why the GOA emails out these things against the NRA all the time is strange to say the least. You would think the 2 groups would want to work together they are both after the same thing. I personally have never seen the NRA bad mouth the GOA, so I'm at a loss as to why the GOA keeps pounding on the NRA. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by rsr1950
if you have been diagnosed as having ptsd i gurantee somewhere in your records you have been listed as a threat to yourself or others.
I gaurantee I have not!
I have full copies of all my records on the subject and I have not once been considered a threat to anyone.
Any treatment I have gone through has been 100% volentary.
The only way they ever came up with a PTSD diagnossis whas from my disscussing my sleeping problems. PTSD never even crossed my mind untill one of my doctors who I had been dissussing my troubles sleeping made the conection.
From my lack of sleep I just had a major hard time doing anything and this affected my daily life as far as getting the normal things in life done because I had no energy.
Now I do take medication to help me sleep and everything fell right back to pretty much normal.
And like I said, I have never hid the fact to my doctors about my hobbies with guns and they all agree that it is good for me to be doing something that I enjoy to keep things on an even keel. Expecially now that I physically cannot work due to physical problems that I have.
But still on the bill there is a major grey area on the definition of adjudicated!0 -
quote:Originally posted by brier-49
Life Endoement member here.GRD if you would read the material put out by the NRA to refute what was said by mainly the GOA you will find that you are at no risk of losing your guns. Why the GOA emails out these things against the NRA all the time is strange to say the least. You would think the 2 groups would want to work together they are both after the same thing. I personally have never seen the NRA bad mouth the GOA, so I'm at a loss as to why the GOA keeps pounding on the NRA.
I derived at my conclution from the bill itself.
I am not a member of either of the organizations.
My problem with the bill is they need to put a direct definition of what it considers "adjudicated" directly in the bill.
If the bill 100% followes the Websters dictionary's definition of ajudicate:
ad?ju?di?cate /#601;#712;d#658;ud#618;#716;ke#618;t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-joo-di-keyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -cat?ed, -cat?ing.
-verb (used with object) 1. to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.
2. to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.
-verb (used without object) 3. to sit in judgment (usually fol. by upon).
I would have no problem with it as it would take a judges signature to make the determanation!
But the bill itself does not state who can make the determanation!0 -
No excuse here. Ain't doin it. 0 -
Now why would I join a Washington DC based lobbying group?
Join The Army of Arkadian Reparations!0 -
quote:Originally posted by brier-49
Life Endoement member here.GRD if you would read the material put out by the NRA to refute what was said by mainly the GOA you will find that you are at no risk of losing your guns. Why the GOA emails out these things against the NRA all the time is strange to say the least. You would think the 2 groups would want to work together they are both after the same thing. I personally have never seen the NRA bad mouth the GOA, so I'm at a loss as to why the GOA keeps pounding on the NRA.
That pretty much says it all. Do you expect them to admit complicity in gun-control? This bill is just one of many gun-control measures that the NRA has facilitated since the 1930's.
The GOA "pounds" the NRA on the issue of NRA support for gun-control, all the while claiming to be "pro-Second Amendment". I am quite certain that they would like to shine the bright light of day on past and present NRA actions in support of gun-control, primarily in the hope of getting gun owners to support groups that don't support gun-control.
And yes, I am considered one of the "bashers", although I am a life member.[;)] Facts are facts and you can't argue with reality, well, most people can't, but the NRA cheer squad here on GB certainly tries really hard.[}:)]
Does this make me a "whack job" SCorvers?0 -
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
quote:Originally posted by brier-49
Life Endoement member here.GRD if you would read the material put out by the NRA to refute what was said by mainly the GOA you will find that you are at no risk of losing your guns. Why the GOA emails out these things against the NRA all the time is strange to say the least. You would think the 2 groups would want to work together they are both after the same thing. I personally have never seen the NRA bad mouth the GOA, so I'm at a loss as to why the GOA keeps pounding on the NRA.
I derived at my conclution from the bill itself.
I am not a member of either of the organizations.
My problem with the bill is they need to put a direct definition of what it considers "adjudicated" directly in the bill.
If the bill 100% followes the Websters dictionary's definition of ajudicate:
ad?ju?di?cate /#601;#712;d#658;ud#618;#716;ke#618;t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-joo-di-keyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -cat?ed, -cat?ing.
-verb (used with object) 1. to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.
2. to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.
-verb (used without object) 3. to sit in judgment (usually fol. by upon).
I would have no problem with it as it would take a judges signature to make the determanation!
But the bill itself does not state who can make the determanation!
Where in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights does it provide authority for a judge to determine that a citizen forfeits their RTKBA?
Therein lies one of the problems IMO.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
quote:Originally posted by brier-49
Life Endoement member here.GRD if you would read the material put out by the NRA to refute what was said by mainly the GOA you will find that you are at no risk of losing your guns. Why the GOA emails out these things against the NRA all the time is strange to say the least. You would think the 2 groups would want to work together they are both after the same thing. I personally have never seen the NRA bad mouth the GOA, so I'm at a loss as to why the GOA keeps pounding on the NRA.
I derived at my conclution from the bill itself.
I am not a member of either of the organizations.
My problem with the bill is they need to put a direct definition of what it considers "adjudicated" directly in the bill.
If the bill 100% followes the Websters dictionary's definition of ajudicate:
ad?ju?di?cate /#601;#712;d#658;ud#618;#716;ke#618;t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-joo-di-keyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -cat?ed, -cat?ing.
-verb (used with object) 1. to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.
2. to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.
-verb (used without object) 3. to sit in judgment (usually fol. by upon).
I would have no problem with it as it would take a judges signature to make the determanation!
But the bill itself does not state who can make the determanation!
Where in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights does it provide authority for a judge to determine that a citizen forfeits their RTKBA?
Therein lies one of the problems IMO.
So you feel it is allright for a person who can be 100% proven to be a threat to others to keep firearms that would make it easy for them to carry out that threat?
That was the point I was makeing! I have no trouble keeping guns from those who are 100% known threats! I also feel that convicted sex offenders should not be allowed within an area of a school or a playground!
There are certian types of people who do need regulating!
But those areas also need to be crearly defined with no room for grey area!0 -
Opposed to the bill.......
Military Order of the Purple Heart
The American Legion
Ted Nugent (an NRA director, not afraid to speak out against the board)
Mike Huckabee (presidential candidate)
Sen. Jim DeMint
The GOA
Supports the bill.......
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Sen. Chuck Schumer
Sen. Patrick Leahy
The NRA
Those representatives names supporting it "should" be enough, to KNOW that it CAN NOT be good for gun owners.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Opposed to the bill.......
Military Order of the Purple Heart
The American Legion
Ted Nugent (an NRA director, not afraid to speak out against the board)
Mike Huckabee (presidential candidate)
Sen. Jim DeMint
The GOA
Supports the bill.......
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Sen. Chuck Schumer
Sen. Patrick Leahy
The NRA
Those representatives names supporting it "should" be enough, to KNOW that it CAN NOT be good for gun owners.
And those you are showing that are opposed to the bill are opposed for the same reasons I have stated!
There is too much grey area in the bill that could take guns out of the hands of people who have never been deemed a threat to anyone!0 -
Once my 5-yr membership expires next year, that's it for me...
I've had it with the NRA.0 -
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
So you feel it is allright for a person who can be 100% proven to be a threat to others to keep firearms that would make it easy for them to carry out that threat?Originally posted by brier-49
Life Endoement member here.GRD if you would read the material put out by the NRA to refute what was said by mainly the GOA you will find that you are at no risk of losing your guns. Why the GOA emails out these things against the NRA all the time is strange to say the least. You would think the 2 groups would want to work together they are both after the same thing. I personally have never seen the NRA bad mouth the GOA, so I'm at a loss as to why the GOA keeps pounding on the NRA.
I derived at my conclution from the bill itself.
I am not a member of either of the organizations.
My problem with the bill is they need to put a direct definition of what it considers "adjudicated" directly in the bill.
If the bill 100% followes the Websters dictionary's definition of ajudicate:
ad?ju?di?cate /#601;#712;d#658;ud#618;#716;ke#618;t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-joo-di-keyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -cat?ed, -cat?ing.
-verb (used with object) 1. to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.
2. to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.
-verb (used without object) 3. to sit in judgment (usually fol. by upon).
I would have no problem with it as it would take a judges signature to make the determanation!
But the bill itself does not state who can make the determanation!
Where in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights does it provide authority for a judge to determine that a citizen forfeits their RTKBA?
Therein lies one of the problems IMO.
That was the point I was makeing! I have no trouble keeping guns from those who are 100% known threats! I also feel that convicted sex offenders should not be allowed within an area of a school or a playground!
There are certian types of people who do need regulating!
But those areas also need to be crearly defined with no room for grey area!
My question was "Where in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights does it provide authority for a judge to determine that a citizen forfeits their RTKBA?"
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there an Amendment for a convicted sex offender to be on, or near a school or playground.
What "type" of people need regulating and who does the regulating?
No problem on several of your points, but Amendment II says what it says. How do you rectify the Fed infringing on that right under the US Constitution's constraints? Where is the authority under the Constitution for a "judge" or other authority to remove a persons RTKBA?
How about punishment of ACTS committed by individuals, not infringement of a basic and fundamental right????
Just a thought among all the hyperbole "Hegalian" nonsense being finessed by the Fed and eaten up by the flock......0 -
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
My excuse is that they are supporting a anti-gun bill that if it passes may have direct consequences to me with the possibility of me loseing all my guns!
I would not give them a single penny after they claimed support for that bill!
two words,
CHEAP SKATE
[:o)]0 -
Doesn't Benedict Arnold head the NRA now??? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
So you feel it is allright for a person who can be 100% proven to be a threat to others to keep firearms that would make it easy for them to carry out that threat?Originally posted by brier-49
Life Endoement member here.GRD if you would read the material put out by the NRA to refute what was said by mainly the GOA you will find that you are at no risk of losing your guns. Why the GOA emails out these things against the NRA all the time is strange to say the least. You would think the 2 groups would want to work together they are both after the same thing. I personally have never seen the NRA bad mouth the GOA, so I'm at a loss as to why the GOA keeps pounding on the NRA.
I derived at my conclution from the bill itself.
I am not a member of either of the organizations.
My problem with the bill is they need to put a direct definition of what it considers "adjudicated" directly in the bill.
If the bill 100% followes the Websters dictionary's definition of ajudicate:
ad?ju?di?cate /#601;#712;d#658;ud#618;#716;ke#618;t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-joo-di-keyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -cat?ed, -cat?ing.
-verb (used with object) 1. to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.
2. to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.
-verb (used without object) 3. to sit in judgment (usually fol. by upon).
I would have no problem with it as it would take a judges signature to make the determanation!
But the bill itself does not state who can make the determanation!
Where in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights does it provide authority for a judge to determine that a citizen forfeits their RTKBA?
Therein lies one of the problems IMO.
That was the point I was makeing! I have no trouble keeping guns from those who are 100% known threats! I also feel that convicted sex offenders should not be allowed within an area of a school or a playground!
There are certian types of people who do need regulating!
But those areas also need to be crearly defined with no room for grey area!
My question was "Where in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights does it provide authority for a judge to determine that a citizen forfeits their RTKBA?"
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there an Amendment for a convicted sex offender to be on, or near a school or playground.
What "type" of people need regulating and who does the regulating?
No problem on several of your points, but Amendment II says what it says. How do you rectify the Fed infringing on that right under the US Constitution's constraints? Where is the authority under the Constitution for a "judge" or other authority to remove a persons RTKBA?
How about punishment of ACTS committed by individuals, not infringement of a basic and fundamental right????
Just a thought among all the hyperbole "Hegalian" nonsense being finessed by the Fed and eaten up by the flock......
I fully understand your point of view! And I agree to a point!
But there is a very small amount of people who I feel do need to be regulated in this area even though the 2nd does not state provissions for this!
These are people who have either commited 1st degree murder (meaning premeditated), been caught trying to commit premeditated murder, or any other type of premeditated act of harming or trying to harm another person as if we just let them have firearms we are giving them a free ticket to commit thier crimes! This is to help insure the protection of inocent individuals that would otherwise be these peoples victoms!
And as you can see, the group of people that I have named would be very few in the total sceam of the population and all would have had to be convicted in a court of law for thier crimes before those rights were revoked!
I look at this type of restricktion the same way I would of a convicted sex offender being not allowed near a school or playground as it is only to protect the inocent people who might become the convicted persons next victom.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kyplumber
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
My excuse is that they are supporting a anti-gun bill that if it passes may have direct consequences to me with the possibility of me loseing all my guns!
I would not give them a single penny after they claimed support for that bill!
two words,
CHEAP SKATE
[:o)]
In all reallity I have been acused of alot of things, but being cheap is not one of them![;)]0 -
"...the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Not a complicated piece of language.
As to those Citizens who need to be "regulated": they need to be behind bars, anyway.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
"...the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Not a complicated piece of language.
As to those Citizens who need to be "regulated": they need to be behind bars, anyway.
Doug
I agree they should be behind bars or dead! But it is obvious that our system is not going to do this!0 -
I've been a Life Member of the NRA since January 1966, but I've been a little disappointed with them lately. I don't see where any gun law is necessary, and generally just a bad idea. Explanations of what a law says mean nothing. Judges go by what they think the law says. It's like the small print in a contract. It usually doesn't say what the salesman told you it says. 0 -
GRD, Your latest reply, C&P below, in the interest of space....
Quote: "I fully understand your point of view! And I agree to a point!
But there is a very small amount of people who I feel do need to be regulated in this area even though the 2nd does not state provissions for this!
These are people who have either commited 1st degree murder (meaning premeditated), been caught trying to commit premeditated murder, or any other type of premeditated act of harming or trying to harm another person as if we just let them have firearms we are giving them a free ticket to commit thier crimes! This is to help insure the protection of inocent individuals that would otherwise be these peoples victoms!
And as you can see, the group of people that I have named would be very few in the total sceam of the population and all would have had to be convicted in a court of law for thier crimes before those rights were revoked!
I look at this type of restricktion the same way I would of a convicted sex offender being not allowed near a school or playground as it is only to protect the inocent people who might become the convicted persons next victom."
_______________________________________________________________
Sir, There is no room, legitimate reason, or the lawful authority to infringe on a fundamental Constitutional Right. Regardless of any "innocent individuals", feel good reasons, or good intentions, Amendment II restrains government from taking restrictive actions relative to the RTKBA, period.
Reference your comment on such criminals having to be convicted in a court of law prior to their rights being revoked, that is ALREADY occurring. This is a whole other discussion, but since you brought it up as a justification for your position....A felony conviction generally forfeits a number of your civil rights, among them the right to vote and to bear arms. Since this is already the case, how do you reconcile your position?
As I said before, how about simply punishing bad ACTS, not attempting to "preempt" such bad acts by unlawfully restricting a fundamental right. The cold hard reality is that in a free society, sometimes bad things happen and people get hurt due to our individual liberties. This is simply the price we pay to live in such a free society. If we stayed focused on that precept and then swiftly and surely punished those who got out of line, then this whole issue would be moot.
I believe that your heart is in the right place, but it ain't about compassion, having a heart, or good wishes for all the innocent, it is about maintaining personal freedom, individual liberties and the future of our Constitutional Republic.
As it stands, we are on the fast track to tyranny, period. Most don't even have an understanding of the issue, let alone the solutions.0 -
To my way of thinking, a shrink cannot ajudicate anything. Merely saying you are nuts doesn't stop you from holding public office. Only a judge, after reviewing the testimony, can ajudicate the findings. If the judge never needs to hear a case involving you, it should not matter.
Support the NRA and sleep with a clear conscience.0 -
I enjoy my machineguns.
I like my suppressors and the childrn who learn to shoot with them are not scared of the concussion and noise.
I keep a short barrel shotgun by each door and under my bed.
The NRA does not support my owning any of them.
So PIZZ on the NRA!!
CP0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
43 comments