Gun Owners of America

pickenup

December 08, 2007 17:36

DocBAE

and

daveald

You are new here and might not have read this yet.
A little light reading for your pleasure.

http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=263795

0

Highball

December 08, 2007 18:34

Thanks, Pickenup;
We shall soon see if the good Doc has a pair...or donated them to the NRA....

0

Permanently deleted user

December 08, 2007 18:53

quote:Originally posted by pickenup
DocBAE

and

daveald

You are new here and might not have read this yet.
A little light reading for your pleasure.

http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=263795

Appreciate it pickenup.

I just can't muster the energy some days to rehash the plethora of easily obtainable information available. Maybe one of you who have more sympathy and who are a bit more caring can address this guy.

I may or may not come back to this and take another stab at it.

0

fideau

December 08, 2007 19:30

Belong to whatever org. you want. More is better. I am a voting member of NRA. Nothing against any other, but I ask you this: When have you heard a politician say, "The _ _ _ cost us this election".

Bill Clinton, and the letters are NRA

0

DocBAE

December 08, 2007 20:19

Pickenup, thank you! Finally someone at least leads me to a specific incident, or at least a discussion that included particular incidents, for me to look into on my own. If you guys will read my posts word for word, you'll see that's what I was asking for all along.
Yes I am new to these forums. I occasionally browse the auctions briefly, but rarely have time to look at forums.
I am sorry, but what several of you treat as common knowledge among yourselves, comes as quite a shock to me that it would even be said, much less actually be true. Now that I have a place to look, rest assured that I will find the time to look into this much deeper.
Give me a couple of days to dig and look, it'll take a bit to research the incidents mentioned, but you can get a lot out of public records. If I'm wrong, and you're right, I'll come back and eat crow for everyone to see.

Kodiak and Sharpshooter, yes I would be glad to discuss or debate things with you, but as I said, give me a couple of days as all this is really new to me.

Highball, I have not donated them, although my wife may occasionally hold them hostage. What I have donated are large sums of money and time over the years, and if I'm wrong I'll be damn mad and feel completey had. But I'll say so.

jpwolf, you kind of sound like that other guy. You too could have given me something to look for, but you assume that everyone knows what you're talking about.

See ya'll in a day or two.

0

watrulookinat

December 08, 2007 21:31

All I can say is WOW!! We all just need to get along with eachother! If you think about it, we are on the same side. The fight shouldn't be in here...it should be out there where it counts. We are all gun owners and want our rights protected. People join differant orginizations for the same reasons....to try and protect the Second Amendment. And sometimes we just need to be educated on this. Any info that someone has... will always help the cause and maybe steer the person in the right direction. I hate to see this... on these forums when we are suppose to be on the same side. Let's just try an educate eachother with eachothers experiences and knowledge and help with the cause, instead of all this hate and discontent against our fellow countymen. That's all I have to say.

0

pickenup

December 08, 2007 21:50

Doc,
First
Welcome to the forum.

Please do look into it yourself.

For years (decades) I was a staunch supporter of the NRA. With the advent of the internet, I started hearing rumors, so I did a little research for myself. I found one incident that lead to another, and another, and another, and so on, which accumulated in the post you just read.

Talk about shell shocked. I was. [:0]

I did not want to admit that the funds, time, support, etc. that I had given for so long, had been mis-used in this way. The evidence uncovered, left me with no choice, but to concede. I admit, that for MANY years, I was paying someone else to do a job.

A job that I SHOULD have been doing myself, using the same old excuses for not doing it. Time, didn't have enough of it. Inclination, I believed what I was being told by the NRA, why should I involve myself, when they were doing the job. Trust, I trusted that they were fighting for our rights.

No more, While I am a dues paying member of a number of "gun rights" organizations (yes, the GOA, to keep this inline with the original question that started this post) I ALSO do the job myself. I try to keep track of current proposed bills. My representatives are probably sick to death of hearing from me.

I look forward to your comments.

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 06:24

For the guy that first attacked the messenger, by saying he was full of it, merely for posting his views:

Among some of my own arguments there are pages of reference information, so don't skip it all because of personal observations.
____________________________________________________

I'll sum up the below series of information on the NRA as follows:

"Excluding more people and or clarifying "which" of America's Citizens may be forbidden to buy, possess and carry firearms is not progress in "gun-rights" IMHO. It is another clear "infringement" on the RTKBA, in direct contradiction to Amendment II of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights."
______________________________________________________

First, the NRA as I see it:

THE PROBLEM IS OUTLINED BELOW.

The NRA takes a different view and supports a "different" Second Amendment, e.g. "their version" is different from that enumerated in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment according to the NRA seems to be pointedly supportive of the following, although not all inclusive list:

* Hunting
* Sporting purpose firearms
* Competition shooting
* Shooting sports
* Firearms safety training
* Youth firearms education
* Range development
* Etc......

All these things are good.

Sadly, the NRA's version of the Second Amendment recognizes, allows for and actually promotes government regulation of firearms. They promote self-defense, but government regulated self-defense. They support the "privilege" of keeping and bearing arms, not the "right" to do so without government infringement. These points are not arguable.

If you are alright with all this twisting, pandering, compromise and the outright acceptance and support of government regulations on all things firearms, then the NRA is the organization for you.

The NRA's Second Amendment looks nothing like the Amendment II enumerated in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

That Amendment II recognizes the "right" of an American Citizen to keep and bear the same or similar personal firearms as are used by the modern military. The real Amendment II was put in place to afford the American Citizen the right and the means to defend self, family, community and country against harm and against tyranny, even tyranny from our own government and yes, even to overthrow that government in extreme cases.

Sorry folks, but the NRA's Second Amendment does not recognize or support this core concept and does NOT guarantee that citizens are propery knowledgeable and armed to carry this off if necessary.

The NRA does NOT support or promote that position. The NRA supported and still supports bans and restrictions of select-fire firearms. I just watched NRA-ILA "spokes-model" Chris Cox last night on Glenn Beck's show. He clearly stated that "machine guns" are not meant to be owned by and/or authorized for citizens to have.

The NRA does not educate gun-owners to this factual information. The NRA conditions America's gun-owners to accept government regulation of firearms in direct contradiction the Amendment II. This conditioning has most gun-owners thinking that government regulations are constitutional and proper and that only the NRA will preserve "our Second Amendment rights", when in fact, the organization is willingly facilitating the slow erosion of these rights through their subtle "reeducation" of gun-owners.

Again, you can dress up a pig by putting a nice skirt, lipstick, rouge, perfume and a pretty wig on it, then calling it your sweetheart, but after all is said and done, it is still a pig.

I am absolutely opposed to the direction the NRA is leading America's gun-owners because it is so insidious, purposefully or not. Doesn't matter which.

It is what it is, period.

--AND--

One must remember that the NRA has been a large part of "American Culture" and has had the status of an "American Institution" since the late 1800's. As such, it is ingrained into the fabric of American Society. Case in point, look at the "red haze of hate" that comes over many who feel strongly about the positive force they believe the NRA to be, simply because some want to show what the NRA has become and what actions they ACTUALLY take, not what they say they do.

I see this phenomenon as similar to finding out that ones wife has been steadily cheating on you since before you even got married.

As a historical organization and an "American Institution", the NRA has access to the trust and "institutional support" that goes along with its status. The NRA has people purchasing memberships for their children, their friends, as gifts etc.. All this is based on the TRUST and the historical perspective that the NRA enjoys with the American people.

In my opinion, therein lays the problem. Since the NRA is so well entrenched with Americans and since most of our fathers, mothers, grandfathers etc have been proud NRA Members, we follow along in the same belief, trust and faith that America has always had in the NRA.

Sadly, the NRA has proven to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, whether intentional as I believe, or unwittingly by originally starting down the compromise road with good intentions.

Doesn't really matter which historical road they took. It is what it is.

Most of the other "newer" gun-rights organizations sprang up DUE TO the truth about the NRA. Many saw that the NRA was talking a good game, but that they were actually facilitating and assisting in the slow erosion of Amendment II. These "new upstart" groups, have NONE of the institutional entrenchment and generational historical support that the NRA enjoys.

Many Americans see that the NRA is a danger to true Amendment II rights, through their insidious deals and acceptance of government regulation of all things firearm. My personal opinion is that the NRA is and has been in cahoots with a predatory government for many years and that their role is to "sell" slow infringements of the RTKBA to the American People. What better organization than an American Institution, that has the trust and respect of America's gun owners, to facilitate and assist in gaining the acceptance of the American people in total government regulation of firearms?

It is a testament to the TRUTH about the NRA that the membership in some of these groups is over 500,000. Not sure of the exact membership figures, but it is illustrative of a growing awakening and acknowledgment of the truth of NRA complicity in gun-control and in NOT supporting the Second Amendment as enumerated in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

I calls them like I sees them. This is how I see it.
_______________________________________________________

New U.S. Senator opposing H.R. 2640, and a detailed rebuttal of the NRA's defense of gun control.

National Association for Gun Rights ^ | 10/10/2007 | NA

Posted on 10/17/2007 7:01:18 PM PDT by neverdem

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) is now publicly telling constituents he is opposed to HR2640, which means steam is gathering against this gun control scheme.

This is terrible news for the anti-gun forces in Congress -- including House Sponsor Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) -- and good news for the NRA, as they are now starting to realize that this gun control bill will be seen largely as their creation.

One of the problems with trying to understand what H.R. 2640 really means is that the whole truth is not always being told. So, here are some important points to consider.

The NRA claims:

H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons."

What Section 3 Definitions of H.R. 2640 states:

"(2) Mental health terms.--The terms ``adjudicated as a mental defective'', ``committed to a mental institution'', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act."

The Truth:

Existing law states a prohibited person has to be "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution". These terms have not yet been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). But, pro-gun forces and most lower court precedents say "adjudicated" means a ruling by a court of law where due process rights are protected. However, the BATFE has written regulations defining "adjudicated" to be a ruling by "a court, board, or other lawful authority", not just a court of law where due process rights must be protected. The BATFE regulations include more people than does the plain wording of the law because the words "board or other lawful authority" could include school psychologists who determine your child has ADD, VA psychiatrists who diagnose returning veterans with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which almost invariably includes some element of possible danger to ones self or others), or a psychologist appointed by the court to evaluate a child custody dispute. The validity of the BATFE regulations have not yet been decided by the SCOTUS. H.R. 2640 would turn the BATFE regulations into law, which is a loss for the pro-gun side. Thus, more people would be prohibited from possessing firearms under H.R. 2640 than would be prohibited under existing law if the BATFE regulations were found to be an improper interpretation of the law - which is likely. So, who do you think is telling the truth on this point?

Also, Section 102(b)(3) of H.R. 2640 states:

"(3) Clarification.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), States shall endeavor to provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."

As it currently stands, most of the records for misdemeanor criminal domestic violence from many years ago are not in the system. Many years ago, "no fault" divorces could not be gotten. So, many times a husband and wife who wanted a quicker divorce would claim there was spousal abuse just to qualify for a divorce. Then, years or decades later, the Lautenburg amendment was passed that imposed a lifetime firearms disability retroactively to include these people. H.R. 2640 will catch these people when they go to apply for a hunter's license or to buy a gun, and it will turn them into felons. Thus, the practical effect is that more people will be denied the right to keep and bear arms because of H.R. 2640 than were being denied the right before. So, who do you think is telling the truth on this point?

The NRA claims:

"H.R. 2640-for the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill."

The Truth:

Under the law, reports are to be made upon conviction. Expungement is a process that occurs long after conviction. So, this claim from the NRA rings hollow because most people would still need to seek a relief from disabilities determination since the expungement comes at a much later date than the adjudication.

Also, the NRA is not being accurate when it infers the ability to get relief from the adjudication is something that is new to H.R. 2640. Such relief has been available since 1986, as described by Joseph R. Simpson, MD, PhD in the J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 35:3:330-338 (2007).

Dr. Simpson is a Staff Psychiatrist at the VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, and a Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Southern California (USC) Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. Dr. Simpson wrote:

"In contrast to provisions for other prohibited categories such as felons, the 1968 laws made no provision for an individual who is prohibited from owning a firearm based on a history of mental illness to regain the privilege. The discrepancy was eliminated by a section of the Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986, which granted the same right to petition for relief that had been afforded convicted felons."

The NRA claims:

"Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek "relief from disabilities" through either state or federal programs. Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person "adjudicated" incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm."

The Truth:

The McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 has provided veterans a way to have their rights restored for almost twenty years. The procedure for doing so is contained in 18 USC 925(c). The problem is that Congress has refused to fund the department responsible for processing restoration of rights applications since 1992, which - not coincidentally - is the 15 year time period that the NRA refers to in their claim above. So, the problem is Congress' failure to fund the restoration of rights, not the non existence of a procedure to have rights restored.

The NRA claims:

"FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an "adjudication" or "commitment." Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an "adjudication" to include a decision by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority." They claim any doctor could potentially be a "lawful authority." They are wrong. Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position."

The Truth:

In U.S. v. Waters, U.S. v. Waters, 786 F.Supp. 1111 (N.D. N.Y. 1992), a federal district court ruled that under New York law a two-physician certification procedure constitutes a formal commitment. Judicial review of the commitment was not a requirement.

If the proponents of H.R. 2640 were not trying to expand the scope of the law, then why not simply amend the bill to limit "adjudication" to a court proceeding and thus put to rest this issue of concern?

Since at least one court has already ruled to validate the concerns of opponents of H.R. 2640, and the proponents of H.R. 2640 refuse to amend H.R. 2640 to specifically state what they tell us the bill "really" means, then how could any reasonable person believe that the words "other lawful authority" in H.R. 2640 will not be interpreted to include psychologists, psychiatrists, and review boards that do not provide the same due process that a court of law would provide.

Remember, the best predictor of future actions is to look at past actions.

There has been a restoration of rights procedure available for many years. It is found in Section 925(c) of the United States Code of Laws. But, Congress has refused to fund the process since 1992. In an attempt to have his rights restored, Thomas Bean submitted an application to have his rights restored. The BATFE returned his application without processing it. Bean then went to court to have his rights restored. The trial court ruled in Bean's favor. The US government appealed. The appeals court ruled in Bean's favor. The US government appealed again. The United States Supreme Court ruled against Bean on the grounds that Bean's application for restoration of rights must first be processed by the BATFE before Bean had a right to resort to the courts. The fact that Congress refused to fund the restoration of rights process and thus denied Bean the opportunity to ever have his application processed did not matter. United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002).

Interestingly, Section 101(c)(2)(A) of H.R. 2640 states that "relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code." So, what makes the NRA think that Sen. Schumer and his ilk won't deny funding to any other restoration of rights process in H.R. 2640 just as they have done for the last 15 years? Is this empty promise worth adding tens of thousands of people to the prohibited list?

Last, but not least, look at who is on each side of this issue.

Those known to oppose H.R. 2640:

The American Legion
The Order of the Purple Heart (opposed to H.R. 2640 because it will harm veterans)

Gun Owners of America
National Association for Gun Rights
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
National Association for Gun Rights
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
GrassRoots North Carolina
GrassRoots South Carolina
Oregon Firearms Federation
Wisconsin Gun Owners
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition
New Hampshire Firearms Coalition
Alan Korwin (author of Gun Laws of America)
Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition

Those actively pushing for H.R. 2640:

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY),
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
...and the NRA.

One might want to ask why virtually every pro-gun rights organization in America opposes H.R. 2640, while the NRA is siding with Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.

Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912813/posts
_____________________________________________________________

A view of gun-control legislation from the NRA and one of the "other" gun-rights groups. See the difference?:

The NRA View

This bill, cosponsored by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and others, would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers. It also addresses concerns over past implementation actions by the FBI, prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for background checks on gun buyers, and directs the General Accounting Office to audit and report to the Congress on past expenditures for NICS record improvements.

Many of the problems encountered in recent legislative debates over gun control-especially the 1999 debate on gun show regulation-center on the inadequacy of NICS records. Inaccurate or incomplete records delay firearm purchases and result in wrongful denials of law-abiding buyers.

This bill would help fix those problems. It sets specific goals and timetables and details the records improvements that are required. Unfortunately, the language in the original Brady Act may have allowed the previous $200 million intended for this purpose to be spent on largely unrelated projects-an issue addressed by the GAO audit provision.

Importantly, H.R. 297 provides for the removal of disqualifying records on individuals who are no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm. For instance, if a person was at one time committed to a mental institution, but was then found not to have any mental illness, that record should be removed from instant check databases. Additionally, in non-mental health areas, NRA is aware of a number of cases where arrest or conviction records have been left on file even after charges were dropped or rights were restored.

The core of the bill is a requirement that federal agencies and states provide all relevant records to the FBI for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens. It also requires removal of records that are incorrect, or irrelevant to determining a person's eligibility to receive a firearm.

The bill also requires transmittal of records of those people defined under federal law and regulations as having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Under current federal law, the requirement does not apply to records of voluntary commitments or commitments for observation, and the bill makes clear that all information is subject to applicable privacy rules. The Attorney General is directed to work with state agencies and the mental health community to develop additional protocols for privacy of records.

If a state does not provide 60% of the required records within two years, the Attorney General may penalize the state by withholding up to 3% of the state's Byrne Grant funds. If a state does not provide 90% of required records within five years, the Attorney General shall withhold 5% of Byrne Grant funds. (A waiver is allowed based on "substantial evidence" of the state's "reasonable effort" to comply.)

As an incentive for compliance, three years after the enactment of the act, states may receive waivers (for up to 2 years) of the 10% matching requirements for Criminal History Improvement Grants, if they provide 90% of the required information.

$750 million is authorized over three years to assist states in improving their databases relevant to NICS, or developing their own instant check capabilities. Another grant program would authorize $375 million over three years to state courts to improve and transmit their disposition records to NICS.

-vs-

The GOA view:

The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership.

On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it than were their predecessors.

This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."

Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records.

NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill.

For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.

Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense.

The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.

The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.

Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill.

This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.

Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future.

The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.'

Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised.

Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens.

Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?

In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we've already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D."
These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights.

Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact, the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report" entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows Criminals to Get Guns."

This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years, look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts.

The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights.
_____________________________________________________

The below is a long read, but worth the time. Use it as a basis for your own research and make up your own mind.

NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934

(This page was copied in its entirety off of Keep and Bear Amrs. Original Page can be found here).

In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."

by Angel Shamaya
Founder/(Former) Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com

March 29, 2002

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

-NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

INTRODUCTION

When I recently used the term " NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record - to prove my claim and inform others.

I agree that blaming today's NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did - and they have for a very long time.

Don't take my word for it.

KeepAndBearArms.com - The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.

As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.

To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" - elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.

Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman - NRA's premier magazine, then and now - and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.

First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." -American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later - decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.

The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)

The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch - a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.

"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)

That's one form of registration.

"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)

That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.

In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:

"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"

That's a registration list.

"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"

That's another registration mechanism.

"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;"

Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.

"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"

That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."

"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"

"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service - another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.

"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)

What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?

At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:

"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."

Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.

and

"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]

Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has - over 70 years ago.

Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)

"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)

"Worthwhile gun legislation"?

The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder - their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.

Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:

"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."

-NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source )

NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you'd like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)

BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION

WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws

By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN

"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."

-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.

Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.

"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."

-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.

Here is the record over the years:

Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.

Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.

Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.

Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.

"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."

-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:

The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.

The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.

In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.

The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.

NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:

1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.

2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.

3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.

4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the

CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)

purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;

b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;

c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;

d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;

e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;

f. increasing penalties for violation.

Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:

"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."

The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.

When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these

terms:

NRA Secretary Daniel

"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."

The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.

Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.

END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION

Many other documented accounts of NRA management's support of gun control at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/NRA and http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Exile.
____________________________________________________

Recent activity surrounding the D.C. "Parker" Case:

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.
_____________________________________________________________

A little past give and take after some "expose" information on the NRA:

quote:Originally posted by sig232

Folks don't buy into the claims by distractors. Their agenda is clear!

The NRA has done 95 % good stuff and 5 % mistakes. They are not the "God" of the pro-gun movement. They work with Congress to make sure the least damaging bills are passed and in that way many times they get their way and hold off the continued onslaught of gun graber bills.

I wonder about folks on this forum that pick out a few mistakes that are made and turn it into a NRA agenda. This is a twist of the truth similar to the work that the Democratic Liberal system is working on us now and has for many years.

I see no posting about the success of the NRA which number 1000 to 1 to the issues that you hang your hat on.

The Parker Case: I have not seen any proof that the NRA has blocked that action. But I do know that they have been waiting for the court to be complete with justices that will vote in favor of the second amendment. To take a case to the Supreme Court of the land that is not a strong case that stands a chance to win could put us behind the eight ball if a ruling comes down in favor of the anti-gun crowd. Then that ruling becomes the law of the land and we are screwed. Wayne L. has stated in public that he is behind the Parker Case to be taken to the Supreme Court.

To spin a negiative pictue of the NRA has but one purpose in my opinion, to embolden that enemy and strengthen the anti-gun crowd. The NRA is the only gun in our arsonal at present with any clout! So what is your real intent?????
If you are truly pro-gun then join other groups, there are many. Form your own group. But to blow up the NRA at this time is like Nancy Polosi going to Syria and cuddling up with the enemy in the middle of the war. How cool is that?

The NRA is in battle on many fronts as we speak, many court cases, all in our favor. None of them are to restrict gun ownership!

We need Unity now not fragmentation of our pro-gun forces.

I hope others on this forum step up to the plate and see this for what is really is!!

Reply.....

What is it "really"???

Many of the assertions above, are just plain incorrect and seem to have been pulled out of someone's proverbial a ss. Seems like nothing but an emotional response to the subject and to the possibility that the NRA may actually support gun control.

Remember, an infringement is an infringement, a restriction is a restriction and Amendment II says what it says and all that superfluous rhetoric and nonsense.

It's kind of like finding out your wife has been sleeping around, isn't it?.

None of this is a personal attack on anyone, so don't get all shook up, it is just information, to use, or not to use, as you see fit.

The hyperbole is mildly amusing.
__________________________________________________________

Posted previously by pickenup and well said I might add:

Why doesn't the NRA fight for a Vermont or Alaska style concealed carry law? I would go along with that. You know, where if you can legally BUY a gun, you can legally CARRY a gun. Considering that Alaska's law was passed in recent years, the argument about it not happening in this day and age, doesn't hold water.

You can praise the NRA for "expanding" our gun rights all you want. On the other hand (as stated) when they HELP (as well as support) the government taking a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT, and turning it into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE, "ALLOWED" by the government, saddled with government imposed waiting periods (for some areas) training, FEES, an issued "PERMIT" etc.

Law abiding citizens shouldn't' have to beg, get fingerprinted, photographed, pay fees, and registered to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

Well, each reader will make up their own mind.
__________________________________________________________

A bit more in the "give and take" arena:

Originally posted by gunnut505

So, from your elevated position above all the politics and seeing only black and white; which "gun rights group" would you say has a better chance of repealing all those nasty laws, removing all those gun-grabbing politicians, wiping out all those Klinton import bans, and returning the country to the pure meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

Oh yeah, and has more than a coupla members and the money to let everyone know what's going on?

Reply.....

As to an "elevated position above all the politics". Let me try my simple explanation of what integrity is. How about doing the right thing, for the right reasons, even when doing so may be difficult or damaging?

One does not "compromise" away, "back room deal" away, "lie" away, "facilitate" away, or otherwise erode one of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, period. At least not if you have integrity that is.

Maybe I was raised wrong. Maybe all that stuff taught and drilled into me when I was growing up was just bullsnit. You know, the stuff about America's founding documents and its Bill of Rights being the law of the land and inviolate, the concept of fundamental rights that were enumerated in the Bill of Rights and were put there EXPRESSLY to restrict government, you know, all that old crap that we can now conveniently erode and ignore.

In my life with my family, friends, military service, service as a peace officer etc, I was taught to do what is right, because it is right and to not compromise my principals, ethics, values or my integrity. Seems that this is an archaic concept in todays America by the "rationalization and justification arguments" that continually get blathered by the "support the NRA no matter what" crowd. It is provably an archaic concept within the NRA.

First point in red. Certainly not the NRA. They do not attempt to repeal anything, only come to more insideous agreements with the government for added government regulation of firearms, period.

Second point in green. Do some research for gods sake. NRA routinely places A ratings on openly anti-gun politicians, or fail to promote the record of certain very pro-gun politicians who are running. They are famous for either highly rating some anti-gun morons, or taking a "no-position" position in certain races where there is a clear pro-gun candidate in the race. Often this achieves the deliberate result of the anti being elected.

Back room deals, treachery, compromise and carefully managed and coordinated actions designed to fool American gun owners. All the stuff that the NRA is best at. NRA puts their "rating system" out to America, where stupid voters routinely and blindly vote the NRA's recommendation.

Third point in orange. What is the NRA doing in this area. Seems to me they participated to some extent in passing bans on certain imported ammo and stood aside on other import issues.

Fourth point in brown. Whatever group is going to return America to the true meaning of Amendment II, it is NOT going to be the NRA. They support "Shooting sports", "hunting issues", "competition shooting", and "GOVERNMENT REGULATED self defense". They do NOT support anything approaching the "true meaning" of Amendment II. Anyone trying to say that they do is provably an idiot, or a shill for the NRA.

Last point in bold and underlined. This is the crux of the issue, too many ignorant gun-owners, thinking that they are "fighting the good fight" by belonging to the NRA, when the NRA is slowly coordinating the erosing of Amendment II all the while.

If every NRA member would either walk from this insidious organization, or stay with them, but join another group with a "no-compromise" position, then groups like the GOA, JPFO, or others would have some numbers and sufficient money behind them to actually do some good, rather than telling everyone they are doing some good.
______________________________________________________

There is much more available, but you should get the point by now...

0

DocBAE

December 09, 2007 06:54

If that was intended for me, you wasted your time. I will not read your post as it is probably full of your insults and name calling. I have no interest in what you have to say about anything.
I will read and discuss views and events with others on this thread, but you sir can ball up and go to hell. You have insulted me personally, and I consider you a real piece of it. If you are really interested in my seeing your view, let someone else illustrate it and address me no further.
However, if you ever come to KY, look me up, I can help you with that hog trough you call a mouth.

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 07:34

quote:Originally posted by DocBAE
If that was intended for me, you wasted your time. I will not read your post as it is probably full of your insults and name calling. I have no interest in what you have to say about anything.
I will read and discuss views and events with others on this thread, but you sir can ball up and go to hell. You have insulted me personally, and I consider you a real piece of it. If you are really interested in my seeing your view, let someone else illustrate it and address me no further.
However, if you ever come to KY, look me up, I can help you with that hog trough you call a mouth.

It seems as if those who may read this could do with a bit of clarity on this issue with you sir.

First off, I merely posted my opinion, based on fact, about the NRA. I had never even heard of you. You are the one who made a personal reply that I was "full of it", while tossing down some weenus-like "ultimatum" to me.

You follow with such pearls of wisdom as this quote about me:

"after the outlandish charges he made, he should come on with whatever he has. However, I dont expect to hear diddly, as that crap is made up. well worded, but made up.

This is all after I simply made a reply, in some detail, to a question not asked by you. Clear?

Anything from me, initially following that, was reference your "ignorance", or lack of knowledge. This was followed with a reference to NRA/Wayne Lapierre (sp) Kool-Aid and the fact that, in my opinion, you can't support your position. Nothing more, nothing less.

You came back with another reference to my "BS" rhetoric. Again, a personal attack on me.

Obviously you are unable to separate a man's opinion about some organization that you seemingly hold a "cult-like" adherence to, from a personal attack, which by the way, you began and still continue.

You would make a perfect "poster-boy" for the NRA mentality. You do in fact "puff up" and you fail to have factual information to back up your "puffing". Typical. Of course, this is because one can't defend the indefensible, but hey, lets not clutter this tit-for-tat with that little factoid.

I have oft referred to this as the "red haze of hate" that frequently occurred when factual, albeit negative, information is posted about the vaunted NRA.

I could care less if you ignore my posting of source material and pointed, clear discussion of the NRA. I expect no less from an NRA cultist.

Oh, by the way, you can take your childish personal challenges to fight, back to the school yard where they belong. You are not intimidating, scary, or otherwise manly in making them.

All this does is illustrate my point about "keeping ones eye on the ball" reference fanatical and frantic NRA defense. Attack the messenger and divert from the message is all you can do.

You have done a much better job of making my point in this area that I could ever do. An actual example is sure better than my "BS rhetoric" that it would occur, right?[;)]

0

kyplumber

December 09, 2007 07:45

quote:Originally posted by DocBAE
If that was intended for me, you wasted your time. I will not read your post as it is probably full of your insults and name calling. I have no interest in what you have to say about anything.
I will read and discuss views and events with others on this thread, but you sir can ball up and go to hell. You have insulted me personally, and I consider you a real piece of it. If you are really interested in my seeing your view, let someone else illustrate it and address me no further.
However, if you ever come to KY, look me up, I can help you with that hog trough you call a mouth.

The guy stated fact after fact, which you admit you will not read. You are the definition of pompous, I too am in KY and am ashamed that you reside here. [xx(]

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 07:47

quote:Originally posted by Flying Clay Disk
UH OHHHHHHhhhhhh!

Take cover everyone; lock 'n load!

FCD, you sir are a prophet of things to come and things which have come to pass.[:D]

0

Marc1301

December 09, 2007 07:51

Doc,......lt496, has taken the time to post MANY sources of the very material you claim to be searching for.
Your characterization of his actions, seem quite unfair, and intentionally biased IMHO.
Whatever, the info is all there for your "easy" research!

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 07:52

quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by DocBAE
it496 I challenge you to reveal your source of information on the accusations you made against NRA. You're full of it!

Gee Doc,.......you don't realize yet what you have opened here.
When he sees this, you will be bombarded with info, so be ready!
Just an early warning.

Marc, got your email and replied, but Skippy doesn't want to read any facts. It is easier to live in ignorance and ignore the truth, after all, if you ignore it, it will all go away, right?

He wants me to come to Ky so he can clean the "hog trough" which I call a mouth. I probably won't reply to him, since he scared me so badly on this issue.[:D]

After my position on factual NRA information was so thoroughly destroyed, I probably will never come back from the massive set-back.[:o)]

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 07:57

quote:Originally posted by DocBAE
First and foremost I am not your son. You are not old enough to be my daddy. You havent said one thing to suppport your position, all you hve done is postured and insulted. Which leads me to believe that you dont know anything but what someone else has told you. Once again if you have any facts to back up what you're saying, lets hear them, but if all you have is smart-ass rhetoric, then you'll do well to keep it to yourself. I have been a member of NRA for many years, and I know what they've done to protect my rights. You sir my do well to do your own thinking and actually look for yourself, instead of just repeating what you hear. Unless you will provide facts, I will not respond to you again, and will chalk you up as one of the masses that bought the anti-NRA propaganda proffered by the liberals.
good luck to you sir.

Exactly the position you find yourself in on this issue sir. You seemingly believe everything the NRA "told" you. Defense of the indefensible simply doesn't work out too well.

I've looked beyond the image and words they surround themselves with and found them wanting. Have you?

Can you say "hypocrite"?

0

Marc1301

December 09, 2007 07:58

quote:He wants me to come to Ky so he can clean the "hog trough" which I call a mouth. I probably won't reply to him, since he scared me so badly on this issue.
If "your" mouth is considered a "hog trough",......I would hate to see what mine would qualify as?[:D][;)]

0

br549

December 09, 2007 08:03

I too, am a life member of the NRA. it is not today, the NRA that i joined in the 70's. i also have learned the hard lessons and facts of NRA deals and sellouts of the rank and file members. i am very disapointed with the leadership and direction the nra has taken since i first became a member. it seems docBAE doesn't want to know the truth only fairy tails about the nra.
it496 Very well said truth Sir.

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 08:08

quote:Originally posted by kyplumber
quote:Originally posted by DocBAE
If that was intended for me, you wasted your time. I will not read your post as it is probably full of your insults and name calling. I have no interest in what you have to say about anything.
I will read and discuss views and events with others on this thread, but you sir can ball up and go to hell. You have insulted me personally, and I consider you a real piece of it. If you are really interested in my seeing your view, let someone else illustrate it and address me no further.
However, if you ever come to KY, look me up, I can help you with that hog trough you call a mouth.

The guy stated fact after fact, which you admit you will not read. You are the definition of pompous, I too am in KY and am ashamed that you reside here. [xx(]

+1

I'd still step back and discuss with him, but it seems as if the door is shut. Too bad.

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 08:10

quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:He wants me to come to Ky so he can clean the "hog trough" which I call a mouth. I probably won't reply to him, since he scared me so badly on this issue.
If "your" mouth is considered a "hog trough",......I would hate to see what mine would qualify as?[:D][;)]

[:D][:D][:D]

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 08:18

quote:Originally posted by rsr1950
I too, am a life member of the NRA. it is not today, the NRA that i joined in the 70's. i also have learned the hard lessons and facts of NRA deals and sellouts of the rank and file members. i am very disapointed with the leadership and direction the nra has taken since i first became a member. it seems docBAE doesn't want to know the truth only fairy tails about the nra.
it496 Very well said truth Sir.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I can get a bit abrasive at times, but it just wears on a fella to have to go over it again and again, all in the face of abject denial.

Disagreement over the issue is fine. Discussion of differing interpretations is encouraged, are productive and I actually enjoy the debate. Abject denial and "puffing up" gets tiresome.

Oh well, just call me Don Quixote.[|)]

0

DocBAE

December 09, 2007 08:34

it496 I'm sorry, this is much out of hand. I sincerely apologize for letting my temper get the better of me with that last post especially. I did not mean the inference to your mouth as a threat, but to literally fix it, as in to put teeth back in, a cheap insult to infer you had none, but again I am sorry.
I guess that came from frustration over all that other crap we went through before you posted the info you did. And yes, looking back, I was just as big a jerk as I accused you of being. But frankly, neither one of us has handled this well.
therefore, would you be willing to simply start over again?[V] I will read your latest post as if it were our first com. If not, I'll look into what you're saying and make my own decision, but I wont saddle you guy's forum with it.
thank you, and apologies,
Mark

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 08:43

quote:Originally posted by DocBAE
it496 I'm sorry, this is much out of hand. I sincerely apologize for letting my temper get the better of me with that last post especially. I did not mean the inference to your mouth as a threat, but to literally fix it, as in to put teeth back in, a cheap insult to infer you had none, but again I am sorry.
I guess that came from frustration over all that other crap we went through before you posted the info you did. And yes, looking back, I was just as big a jerk as I accused you of being. But frankly, neither one of us has handled this well.
therefore, would you be willing to simply start over again?[V] I will read your latest post as if it were our first com. If not, I'll look into what you're saying and make my own decision, but I wont saddle you guy's forum with it.
thank you, and apologies,
Mark

Mark,

Apology accepted and my own returned to you, particularly for being crusty and non-tolerant. You deserved better.

I really do enjoy good debate, although I tend to piss people off, as you can attest to.

And just for the record, I am still under 50 and in "the prime of life" and I have all my teeth.[:D]

A new start is fine with me. By the way, welcome to the forums.

Jeff

0

green mile

December 09, 2007 09:10

My first question is why has the moderator let this string go this long? This string has revealed to all in the free world that not even gun owners who support organization like the NRA and GOA can get along on a common issue. Just remember that in 22 days 08' will be here and the democrats are coming to town to try to take the crown jewel of the Whitehouse. United we stand, divided we fall. We (gun owners) are no better than the rest of the population, we still wear our feelings on our sleeves!

0

pickenup

December 09, 2007 09:24

quote:Originally posted by green mile
My first question is why has the moderator let this string go this long?
Are we (gun owners) not allowed to have a difference of opinion?
Are we not supposed to share information?

Gun owners will forever be divided, not ALL will ever agree on any subject. How to gut a deer, what caliber is best, ford or chevy? When it comes to something as important as OUR RIGHTS, shouldn't this be discussed? When finding out about the NRA for the first time, deep seated feelings can surface. Albeit sometimes heated at first, let it take it's course, as long as it does not get out of hand.

I think this thread has (so far) turned out rather well myself.

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 09:41

quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by green mile
My first question is why has the moderator let this string go this long?
Are we (gun owners) not allowed to have a difference of opinion?
Are we not supposed to share information?

Gun owners will forever be divided, not ALL will ever agree on any subject. How to gut a deer, what caliber is best, ford or chevy? When it comes to something as important as OUR RIGHTS, shouldn't this be discussed? When finding out about the NRA for the first time, deep seated feelings can surface. Albeit sometimes heated at first, let it take it's course, as long as it does not get out of hand.

I think this thread has (so far) turned out rather well myself.

Agreed.

Apologies have been exchanged and accepted. Now maybe we can get down to the business at hand.

I enjoy the debate and enjoy seeing where people stand on what I and many here deem is an inviolate right.

I want to get to the substance of the NRA "supporting and defending YOUR Second Amendment Rights", as they like to claim.

When you can hold focus and debate on that particular issue, it gets mighty interesting IMHO.[;)]

0

br549

December 09, 2007 10:35

it really dosen't matter if you're a NRA,GOA, or other gunsupporters member or not. All or most who poston this forum are gun owners. it seems every day there is an anti gun bill comeing up in congress. i spend lots of hours calling writeing,and emailing my congressman, and Senators about these bills to limit, or ban guns. Luckly my Senators and congressman are all pro gun. the people in their offices all know my name when i call and i usually get a response. however i and my representives are getting tired of having anti gun bills come up so often.

0

Doc

December 09, 2007 10:41

I know that some folks believe the NRA works hard to preserve the Second Amendment and as the largest and most influential gun rights group we should support it.

I know that some folks believe the NRA makes a good effort but makes deals too often with anti-gun politicians and they feel more pressure should be brought to bear on the organization to straighten up.

I know that some folks believe that the NRA is actually an arm of the Brady Campaign and secretly works toward total civilian disarmament and all NRA Board of Directors members are corrupt and want the Second Amendment destroyed.

Whatever you believe whenever the topic comes up people fly off the handle and get way too excited.

State what you think... Prove what you know... But keep it civil and avoid personal insults, name-calling, or belittling commentary.

I think I speak for all the moderators when I say this and other similar threads will be under very close scrutiny given the history of such topics.

0

needmyguns

December 09, 2007 10:51

know that some folks believe the NRA makes a good effort but makes deals too often with anti-gun politicians and they feel more pressure should be brought to bear on the organization to straighten up.

THATS THE ONE..[:(][:(][:(]

0

Permanently deleted user

December 09, 2007 11:03

quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I know that some folks believe the NRA works hard to preserve the Second Amendment and as the largest and most influential gun rights group we should support it.

I know that some folks believe the NRA makes a good effort but makes deals too often with anti-gun politicians and they feel more pressure should be brought to bear on the organization to straighten up.

I know that some folks believe that the NRA is actually an arm of the Brady Campaign and secretly works toward total civilian disarmament and all NRA Board of Directors members are corrupt and want the Second Amendment destroyed.

Whatever you believe whenever the topic comes up people fly off the handle and get way too excited.

State what you think... Prove what you know... But keep it civil and avoid personal insults, name-calling, or belittling commentary.

I think I speak for all the moderators when I say this and other similar threads will be under very close scrutiny given the history of such topics.

Watch away sir, but it seems as if the "turmoil-period" of this thread has passed.

Now it remains to get down to the question of individual and organizational positions on gun-control. IF that is where the thread is allowed to go, or IF that is where the posters choose to take it.

I know where you fall on the issue Saxon, since we have gone back and forth to a small extent before. I hope that this thread will not disappear due to any such difference of opinion.

I take offense at your insinuation that I would edit opinions with which I do not personally agree. That doesn't happen. I am not joining in this discussion. I post my comments only as a caution to those who do participate to mind their manners.

I am aware of the divisive nature of NRA related topics, although that is usually due to the inability of the "pro-NRA at any cost" group to defend the indefensible.

There is no reason that a good, informative give-and-take can't be held on this issue.

The only problem might be when one side dismisses the opinions of the other. See you comment above for an example. If you wish to have YOUR opinion fairly heard you must be willing to fairly hear the OTHER side as well.

0

tr fox

December 09, 2007 11:39

quote:Originally posted by needmyguns
know that some folks believe the NRA makes a good effort but makes deals too often with anti-gun politicians and they feel more pressure should be brought to bear on the organization to straighten up.

THATS THE ONE..[:(][:(][:(]

The NRA doesn't "own" your gun rights. How can they make any "deals" that obligate you or me?

In regards to "pressure to straighten up", public gripping does little to make that happen. However, the NRA is the ONLY gun organization I know of that is owned by its members. For a measly $25.00 per year (with $10.00 coupon from Dillon Press) you can become a member and in 2 or 3 years start voting on how the NRA should "straighten up."

This advice goes for all you gripers BTW.

Like it or not, the NRA is known around the world as the big dog when compared to ANY other gun rights organization. It would be far better to retrain that big dog to protect your house rather than hope you can wait for the little dogs to grow up and then see if they can save you.

0

Gun Owners of America

Comments

Recent Activity