Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Nra !!! ???? Read

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    132

    Default Nra !!! ???? Read

    An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community

    Gun Owners of America
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org

    Thursday, October 4, 2007


    It may be a cliche, but it is true: This letter is written not in anger,
    but in sorrow and concern. It is written to our friends about NRA staff
    who, tragically, have taken a course which, we believe, would be
    disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun movement.

    Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board
    member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid
    consultant for the NRA.

    So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our
    wonderful friends who are NRA members.

    In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked with
    NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories -- from McClure-Volkmer
    to the death of post-Columbine gun control to a gun liability bill free
    of anti-gun "killer amendments."

    But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now
    made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck
    Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if
    allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA
    staff will bitterly regret.

    Christ said, in the Sermon on the Mount, that "by their fruits, ye shall
    know them." And, frankly, these fruits are not likely to produce much
    pro-gun legislation.

    Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA's staff has
    vigorously supported without consulting with its membership, would
    rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutory BATFE regulations which have
    already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It would
    also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans' most
    private medical records to the federal instant check system without a
    court order.

    But perhaps even worse, the bill was hatched in secret, without hearings
    or testimony, and passed out of the House without even a roll call. And
    now, the sponsors are trying to do the same thing in the Senate -- in an
    effort to ram the bill through without votes or floor debate, led by
    anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer. If it is good legislation, as its
    proponents claim, why such fears of a roll call vote or debate in
    committee?

    Indeed, in the face of horrific dissent from the NRA's own membership,
    its staff has tragically ignored arguments and dug in its heels -- in an
    almost "because-we-say-so" attitude.

    Understand this:

    * Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not quell the calls for gun
    control. To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for the
    abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights. Already, the
    Brady Campaign has indicated its intent to follow up this "victory" with
    a push for an effective ban on gun shows.

    * Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not be viewed as an "NRA
    victory." To the contrary, once the liberal media has used the NRA staff
    for its purposes, it will throw them away like a used Kleenex. Already,
    an over-confident press is crowing that this is the "first major gun
    control measure in over a decade."

    * Taking the BATFE's horrifically expansive unlawful regulations dealing
    with veterans' loss of gun rights and making them unchangeable
    congressionally-endorsed statutory law is NOT "maintaining the status
    quo."

    * We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer bill should be passed
    because it contains special provisions to allow persons prohibited from
    owning guns to get their rights restored. But there is already such a
    provision in the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). And the reason why no one
    has been able to get their rights restored under CURRENT LAW is that
    funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer. It is no favor
    to gun owners for Chuck Schumer -- the man who has blocked funding for
    McClure-Volkmer's "relief from disability" provisions for 15 years -- to
    now offer to give us back a tepid version of the provisions of current
    law which he has tried so hard to destroy.

    Finally, there is the cost, which ranges from $1 billion in the cheapest
    draft to $5 billion -- to one bill which places no limits whatsoever on
    spending. Thus, we would be drastically increasing funding for gun
    control -- at a time when BATFE, which has done so much damage to the
    Second Amendment, should be punished, rather than rewarded.

    We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a battle
    with its membership -- and to join with us in opposing
    McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it.

    And, to our friends and NRA members, we would ask that you take this
    letter and pass it on to your friends and colleagues.

    Sincerely,


    Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
    Founder and Chairman

    Larry Pratt
    Executive Director

    Michael E. Hammond
    Legislative Counsel

  2. #2

    Default Beware Gun Owners of America

    I ask anyone who reads this article to be aware that it is bogus. Gun Owners of America is an anti-gun organization pretending to be on the side of shooters and hunters. Senator Richardson who is supposed to be a "conservative" democrat who believes in and supports the 2nd Amendment is a poser. He condemns the present administration and is calling for the immediate removal of our troops from Iraq, saying that diplomacy is better then sabers. Contact the NRA-ILA and you will be given the straight scoop on this.
    We have to be able to see through the liberal left's horse and pony shows.

  3. #3
    Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mauserboy View Post
    I ask anyone who reads this article to be aware that it is bogus. Gun Owners of America is an anti-gun organization pretending to be on the side of shooters and hunters. Senator Richardson who is supposed to be a "conservative" democrat who believes in and supports the 2nd Amendment is a poser. He condemns the present administration and is calling for the immediate removal of our troops from Iraq, saying that diplomacy is better then sabers. Contact the NRA-ILA and you will be given the straight scoop on this.
    We have to be able to see through the liberal left's horse and pony shows.

    You are absolutely, completely misinformed about the GOA. They are staunchly pro-second amendment and are a no-nonsense group that fights tirelessly to defend your right to bear arms. Wanting troops to be removed from Iraq makes someone or something a liberal horse and pony show? The GOA is about as far away from being a leftist organization as you can get.

    By the way, I am an NRA life member and I don't happen to agree with all of their back door schemes all of the time. They did support the gun control act of 1968, which was the most sweeping piece of gun control legislation ever passed. They also support more liberals for office just because they are rated a "C" in their gun control ratings. The GOA does not do that. I am a member because they have the largest voice and have the most global clout, but they are not the only gun rights organization and are certainly not the most focused. They compromise way too much and to me, constitutional rights are not up for giving away. They have lost 500,000 members since the last election. They better be careful and manage their money better or they might just slowly go down.

    http://www.goa.org

  4. #4
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    http://www.gunowners.org/

    Flintlock your link was shooting blanks. Hope this helps!

  5. #5

    Default So sad

    This is a sad day for me. I have to revise my feelings from the previous post. It seems that the NRA has done this. I haven't agreed with all their political moves, but this flies in the face of what they are supposed to be doing to defend our 2nd Amendment rights. I guess I was daydreaming too long on this one. I am going to call NRA-ILA and tell them what I think. Thanks for clarification.

  6. #6

    Default NRA not the villian portrayed

    O.K., I did some research on this because it is important to know what is really going on. My faith in the NRA has been restored and i have modified my opinion, again regarding Gun Owners of America. They are not anti-gun but in actuality are in competition with the NRA. Politics of all sorts is like that.
    If you go to www.military.org, type into the search box on top of the home page: Gun bill not anti-veteran, you will be directed to a report on H.R. 2640, the bill in question. Larry Scott, the disabled veteran who wrote the article is affiliated with the vawatchdogdotorg organization. Obviously he is working for the rights of disabled vets.The article gives the real skinny on this whole thing and he mentions the use of scare tactics by "another" gun rights group who appear to be in competition with the NRA. If anyone thinks the NRA is working against us, which, in my opinion, after reading this article, is patently ridiculous, please read this.
    If there is one thing we do not need is to be divided within the ranks. It makes it so much easy for those working against us to win. This is serious stuff and can only get more serious if the democratic socialists get in. You can write to Larry Scott at larry@vawatchdog.org.

  7. #7
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    The assertion that GOA is in competition with the NRA is ridiculous unless you are saying that the NRA is their antagonist and then we get right back to whether the NRA is worthy of our trust or antagonistic to that trust.

    Whether or not taking guns from veterans with PTSD is a good idea is one thing. Making the assertion that GOA is antagonistic to the cause because they disagree with the NRA on the matter is another (that I cannot get behind).
    Science has a rich history of proving itself wrong.

  8. #8
    Member barrowdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    135

    Default

    I have several friends who have left the NRA, some because of board members who make anti-gun statements, some because of this Schumer bill, and others because of the constant bombardment for more money. It seems they have become a huge commercial entity. I'm not saying they don't do any good, but maybe it is time for them to go back to their roots. And if we sit idlely by we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Look what we did as a group to Zumbo (how he got another tv show is beyond me), maybe we should wake up the NRA? From everything I have been able to find out about GOA they are a good organization, doing what the NRA should be doing.

  9. #9

    Default Not

    Look, politics and competition is normal no matter what the substance of a particular organization. The NRA needn't be their antagonist for another group to want to take some power from them. The NRA is the largest Pro-Gun Organization now in existence. It would surprise me if another group didn't try for some of that. Just human nature.
    I don't always agree with the NRAs politics, but the good they have done and continue to do far far outweighs any moves they have made that might seem to oppose what we think should have happened. Not everything is that cut and dried. As in politics, we are not always privy to all that is involved. The fact that they ask for donations with irritating frequency may also mean that they have lots of irons in the fight for gun rights and that they actually need more funds to continue. They are an extremely large organization with lots of expenses. I just toss most of the envelopes that don't contain postcards or polls which I always send in.
    We have all got to pull together or we will lose. There was a large article on this very House Bill on the NRA-ILA Alert from yesterday, which also explains what is really going on. I sincerely doubt the NRA has lost its way, far from it. They are the major watchdogs. Rereading the original posting on this situation from GOA certainly seems like they are condemning the NRA without having or giving all the facts. That's my position.
    Last edited by mauserboy; 10-06-2007 at 10:17. Reason: correct spelling

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    132

    Default

    For all the Ex-NRA members. How about posting NRA's explanation!

  11. #11
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    The fact that they ask for donations with irritating frequency may also mean that they have lots of irons in the fight for gun rights and that they actually need more funds to continue. They are an extremely large organization with lots of expenses.

    http://www.vgca.org/images/nrabldg1.gif

    A lot of people don't like the idea of paying for that largess.

    I will never accept the argument that we are too ignorant to understand why they make the compromises they do. Nor will I support any organization that shows the slightest competition as a motive when their charter doesn't expressly include it.
    Science has a rich history of proving itself wrong.

  12. #12
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default NRA in uphill battle

    In a recent article, it was stated that NRA donated $11 million in the 2006 election cycle toward pro-gun candidates. At the same time, one of many major "anti-everything-conservative" organizations, MoveOn.org, donated $27 million. The combined amount from MoveOn for the last two election cycles was $58 million to Democratic candidates.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297133,00.html

    There is a whole host of anti-gun groups doing the same thing nation wide. There is no reason why we can't have multiple pro-gun groups working different angles as well. I support them all.

    I'd rather have several groups working our side in WashDC to help counter the multitude of groups working against our rights. It offers more credibility to the case. The other side has figured that out, we should be fighting fire with fire, not bickering over which single organization should be carrying the torch for us all.

    So, instead of wasting our time knocking down the NRA or the GOA, put the effort into knocking down the following groups who endlessly work against the 2nd amendment:

    Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
    Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
    The Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence
    The Violence Policy Center
    CeaseFire, Inc.
    Americans for Gun Safety
    Handgun-Free America, Inc.
    Consumer Federation of America
    HELP Network
    Join Together
    The American Jewish Congress
    The Ford Foundation
    The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
    The Joyce Foundation
    The David and Lucille Packard Foundation
    Firearm Injury Center at Penn
    Physicians for Social Responsibility
    California Wellness Foundation
    Alliance For Justice
    National Black Police Association

    *list taken from NRA national anti-gun organizations webpage

  13. #13
    Member Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mauserboy View Post
    I ask anyone who reads this article to be aware that it is bogus. Gun Owners of America is an anti-gun organization pretending to be on the side of shooters and hunters. Senator Richardson who is supposed to be a "conservative" democrat who believes in and supports the 2nd Amendment is a poser. He condemns the present administration and is calling for the immediate removal of our troops from Iraq, saying that diplomacy is better then sabers. Contact the NRA-ILA and you will be given the straight scoop on this.
    We have to be able to see through the liberal left's horse and pony shows.
    I'm confused by this post. I'm 150% pro everything that regards our 2nd amendment rights. Though, I want the troops to come home, too. So, does that mean you'll put me in the same boat as Senator Richardson?

  14. #14
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    NRA donated $11 million in the 2006 election cycle toward pro-gun candidates
    The NRA publishes the candidates that they support. Why would they directly spend $11 million when they are spending their constituents money? Can their constituents not donate themselves? I wouldn't give a dime to an organization that tries to do my thinking and my spending for me. That is my duty and right, not to be delegated.
    Science has a rich history of proving itself wrong.

  15. #15
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Exclamation Here is the NRA version of this issue...

    THE NICS IMPROVEMENT BILL: MYTH AND REALITY

    Some opponents of the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" (H.R. 2640) have spent the last several months painting a picture of the bill that would rightly terrify gun owners-if it was true.

    The opponents' motive seems to be a totally unrealistic hope of undercutting or repealing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by ensuring that its records are inaccurate and incomplete. But make no mistake-an inaccurate and incomplete system only serves to delay and burden lawful gun buyers, while failing to screen those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.
    Nonetheless, opponents of H.R. 2640 continue to spread misconceptions about the bill. The following are some of the common myths.


    MYTH: "Millions of Americans will awake one day and find that they are suddenly barred from buying guns based upon decades old convictions of 'misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,' or mental health adjudications that were later rescinded or expired."
    FACT: H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons."
    The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons. H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

    Also, 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. In those cases, the mental adjudication or commitment "shall be deemed not to have occurred," and therefore would not prohibit the person from possessing firearms.


    MYTH: "As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms-based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder."
    FACT: The only veterans who would be reported to NICS under this bill due to mental health issues are-as with civilians-those who are adjudicated as incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

    A diagnosis alone is never enough; the person must be "adjudicated as a mental defective," which is a legal term that implies a fair hearing process. The Veterans' Administration has regulations that provide veterans with an opportunity for a hearing on those decisions, and an opportunity for multiple appeals-just as a civilian does in state court. Any records that don't meet this standard could not be reported to NICS, and any deficient records that have already been provided would have to be removed.
    Veteran and journalist Larry Scott (operator of the website www.vawatchdog.org) calls the allegation about veterans a "huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics." Scott points out that thousands of veterans who receive mental health care through the VA-but have not been found incompetent or involuntarily committed-are not currently reported to NICS, and wouldn't be reported under H.R. 2640. (Scott's analysis is available online at http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html?wh=wh.)
    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.

    MYTH: A child who has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder "can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult."
    "Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance)."

    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. In fact, the term "lawful authority" was apparently intended to cover various types of government panels that are similar to "courts, boards, or commissions." Basic principles of legal interpretation require reading it that way. The term also doesn't override the basic constitutional protections that come into play in decisions about a person's mental health.
    Finally, records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws, which H.R. 2640 also does not override.


    MYTH: People who get voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would be prohibited from possessing guns.
    FACT: Again, current BATFE regulations make clear that voluntary commitments do not affect a person's right to arms.
    NRA (and, surely, the medical community) would vehemently oppose any proposal that would punish or deter a person getting needed voluntary treatment.


    MYTH: A Pennsylvania man lost his right to possess firearms due to an "offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark."
    FACT: This case does not hold up to close investigation.
    The person made comments on a college campus that were interpreted as threatening in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy; he was then briefly sent to a mental institution.

    Opponents, however, have failed to mention that the man had been the subject of chronic complaints from his neighbors. (The "filth, mold, [and] mildew" in his apartment were so bad that the town declared it unfit for human habitation.) After his brief hospital stay, he was arrested for previously pointing a gun at his landlord and wiretapping his neighbors.
    Despite these facts, it also appears he was only committed for a brief period of observation. Current BATFE regulations say that the term "committed to a mental institution" "does not include a person in a mental institution for observation." Therefore, even in this extreme case, the person may not ultimately be prohibited from possessing firearms. Second Amendment scholar Clayton Cramer describes this case in a recent Shotgun News column (available online at http://www.claytoncramer.com/Popular.../HR%202640.htm) and reaches the same conclusion.


    MYTH: "Relief from disability" provisions would require gun owners to spend a fortune in legal fees to win restoration of rights.
    FACT: Relief programs are not that complicated.
    When BATFE (then just BATF) operated the relief from disabilities program, the application was a simple two-page form that a person could submit on his own behalf. The bureau approved about 60% of valid applications from 1981-91.

    Pro-gun attorney Evan Nappen points out that the most extreme anti-gun groups now oppose H.R. 2640 simply because of the relief provisions. Nappen includes a sampling of their comments in his article on the bill ("Enough NRA Bashing"), available online at http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing.

    MYTH: The bill's "relief from disability" provisions are useless because Congress has defunded the "relief" program.

    FACT: The current ban on processing relief applications wouldn't affect this bill.
    The appropriations rider (promoted in 1992 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)) only restricts expenditures by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. H.R. 2640 requires relief programs to be set up and operated by agencies that make adjudications or commitments related to people's mental health. BATFE doesn't do that, but other agencies-especially the Veterans' Administration-do. Naturally, NRA would strongly oppose any effort to remove funding from new "relief" programs set up under this widely supported bill.


    MYTH: The bill must be anti-gun, because it was co-sponsored by anti-gun Members of Congress.

    FACT: By this unreasonable standard, any bill with broad support in Congress must be a bad idea.
    NRA believes in working with legislators of all political persuasions if the end result will benefit lawful gun owners. Anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) supported arming airline pilots against terrorists, but that program was (and is) a good idea nonetheless.


    MYTH: The bill "was hatched in secret .and passed out of the House without even a roll call."

    FACT: No one asked for a roll call vote.
    This is not unusual. The House voted on H.R. 2640 under "suspension of the rules," which allows passing widely supported bills by a two-thirds vote. (This procedure also helps prevent amendments-which in this case helped prevent anti-gun legislators from turning the bill into a "Christmas tree" for their agenda.)

    After a debate in which only one House member opposed the bill, the House passed the bill by a voice vote. There is never a recorded vote in the House without a request from a House member. No one asked for one on H.R. 2640, again showing the widespread support for the bill.


  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    132

    Default

    JOAT,

    Thanks for posting NRAís side.

    I am an ex NRA member, was also NRA certified instructor and have instructed thousands. For the past 10,11 years I still proffessionly instruct, but I refuse to represent the NRA.

    I agree with you that it is good to have multiple gun orgs fighting the battle. I do support and am a member of several.

    The NRA has made me very leery over the years as they have fallen asleep at the wheel multiple times.

    I will not sleep with the enemy. Especially those whom wish to destroy our rights. They are very much like those who wish to destroy our country and culture. The NRA seems to think more in a dilution of our rights as compromise, rather then fight the hard long battle that strengthen our rights.

    Any law that gives the government more power in determining who can and canít own a weapon to defend themselves against tyranny is a bad law. That is what the 2nd amendment is all about.

    The NRA must be about arming those responsible (Good) folk and let the antiís do what they do. If the antiís wish to arm responsible citizens such as Barbara Boxer wanted to arm the pilots, we win. Supporting any bill that is restrictive by any means is allowing them room to swing harder at us. The NRA if they supported this bill could just as easily said nothing and accomplished the same thing.

    One day you may be adjudicated mentally defective because you like to kill the food you eat. Any civilian who likes to kill must be mentally defective, that kind of work must be done by State approved and certified killers.

    I am not afraid of the bad guy owning weapons. They always will. Here is a quote from Jeff Cooper;

    ďThe rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.Ē

  17. #17
    Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    214

    Default U.N.

    aksalcha, that was a fine post.

    As I said earlier, I am a life member of the NRA. Why? Because as a pro-second amendment citizen, or pro constitution citizen, I believe it is imperative to support the organizations that are actually able to put up the good fight for you and your rights. There are many pro-gun organizations and it seems that they all have their niche, but only the NRA can fight disarmament on a global scale. That, and because of hunter and gun saftey issues is essentially why I am a member.

    The U.N. is trying to ban the ownership, usage, and production of small arms which would include not only our black rifles, but also our hunting rifles, handguns, pretty much everything. IANSA is very well financed by George Soros (who is also financing MoveOn.org) and is led by super anti-gun nut Rebecca Peters. They have major influence over the U.N. at this time. Only an organization with the clout of the NRA has been able to help hold the fort on this global attack on our rights. We have been able to stave off disaster with our current administration, but what if there is a Hillary administration? What if the rumors are true and she would appoint Ole Bill to be U.N. Ambassador? How long do you think it would then take for our rights here at home to be thrown into the fire? I predict it would be in less than two years before we saw some major action on that end.

    That all being said, The NRA still compromises too much here at home and it irks me to no end. But the NRA is still necessary and it is important for the pro-gun community to recogize that, I believe.

  18. #18
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mauserboy View Post
    I ask anyone who reads this article to be aware that it is bogus. Gun Owners of America is an anti-gun organization pretending to be on the side of shooters and hunters.......
    Let's see.............

    The NRA is secretly "surrendering" our Second Amendment rights (as if they had the authority to do so any more than Congress has the authority to legislate them away), and the GOA "is an anti-gun organization pretending to be on the side of shooters and hunters".

    Any UFO's involved in this scenario?..................

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Knik-Fairview, Alaska
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flintlock View Post
    <snip>

    That all being said, The NRA still compromises too much here at home and it irks me to no end. But the NRA is still necessary and it is important for the pro-gun community to recogize that, I believe.

    One thing that I always keep in mind about these large organizations that represent us in various ways is that all those folks working there have JOBS and make MONEY. If a problem that they purport to fight is ever completely resolved, then they'd have NO JOB to do. Whether the NRA or the Sierra Club ...no matter what they say ...they do not intend to ever completely resolve any problems. They can and will perform a careful balancing act that keeps issues alive for them to 'fight'. That's why people DO have things to complain about with them. WE have to have a large voice and outcry against any compromises attempted by organizations that represent us ...whether it's the US government or the NRA or whomever.

    Brian

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •