Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Potential anti-gun problems

  1. #1

    Default Potential anti-gun problems

    I know that most of us are NRA members and receive notices and E-mail alerts, but for those gun folks who aren't and don't, I want to post this most recent message from the NRA. It shows the massive anti-gun attitude within the new Obama administration and the potential for loss of 2nd Amendment rights. Nothing has happened yet, of course, but it doesn't take a psychic to see what's coming. I want to communicate what I see as important information and can't see a better forum for posting this on. Hope it's acceptable. How you perceive this info is up you, of course, but I've been in guns for over 40 years and have seen a lot of things come that I never would have expected at the time. Now, I believe anything is possible. Sorry for any spelling errors, had cataract surgery on my right eye and things are looking a little odd right now. 8*)

    Post election gun ban alert‏
    From: Wayne LaPierre (Wayne_LaPierre.UM.A.2.12060@www.nranews.org)

    Dear Fellow NRA Member,

    In the next few days, you'll receive your new NRA membership card.

    The moment you receive it, I urge you to validate your new membership card as soon as possible. More than ever, we need you to stand with NRA and fight to save our Second Amendment freedoms.

    Because Barack Obama's campaign promise
    not to take away our guns is a lie.

    He's not even in office, yet he's fired the opening salvos in a war against the future of the Second Amendment, our hunting and shooting traditions, and YOU.

    Obama's FIRST attack on YOU: Appointing Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to be White House Chief of Staff. In Congress, Emanuel earned an "F" rating from NRA, and while working in the Clinton Administration, he was known as the "point man on gun control." He is an avowed enemy of the Second Amendment and will wield enormous power in the battle for the future of our firearm freedoms.

    Obama's SECOND attack on YOU: If Hillary Clinton is confirmed as Secretary of State, she'll rip the Second Amendment right out of the Bill of Rights. She'll be our nation's top diplomat with the power to determine whether the United Nations will pass, and Obama will sign, a global gun ban treaty that will surrender our Second Amendment rights and our national sovereignty.

    Obama's THIRD attack on YOU: Nominating ex-Senator and former Majority Leader Tom Daschle-an avowed enemy of NRA-to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. NRA was responsible for defeating Daschle when he ran in South Dakota for re-election to the Senate. If Daschle is confirmed, he could hold the ultimate power to declare guns a "public health menace" and regulate away our essential liberties.

    Obama's FOURTH attack on YOU: Nominating Eric Holder to be Attorney General. As former Assistant Attorney General, Holder was a key architect and vocal advocate for the Clinton era's sweeping gun ban agenda. He supported national handgun licensing, mandatory trigger locks, and ending gun shows as we know them.

    Just recently, Holder opposed the District of Columbia's Heller decision that declared the Second Amendment an individual right. Holder also called for reviving the Clinton gun bans and, as Attorney General, would fight in court to prevent the landmark Heller decision from being made applicable to state and local governments.

    Worst of all, if Holder is confirmed as the nation's top law-enforcement officer, he would control BATFE and wield enormous power to harass gun owners and sue America's arms makers out of existence.

    Obama's FIFTH attack on YOU: In the job application for the Obama Administration, he made it clear that gun owners are second-class citizens and told 80 million gun owners not to even bother applying for a job. In the "White House Personnel Data Questionnaire" he asked:

    "Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide
    complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever
    lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has
    been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."

    This chilling notice to gun owners-that they are not welcome to serve in his Administration-shows the deep hostility for Americans' Second Amendment Freedoms that Obama and his Administration have in their hearts.

    On its face, that question endorses gun registration-a mandate in only five states in our nation-and buys into the anti-gun premise that firearms are inherently dangerous and gun owners are prone to misusing them.

    That's an outrageous mindset, especially for the President-elect whose sworn duty will be to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including our right to keep and bear arms.

    Obama CLEARLY wants to make gun registration the law of the land.

    First for employees under his control...AND THEN FOR YOU.

    Working with a Congress dominated by gun haters like Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, and Charles Schumer!!!

    Rubbing salt in gun owner wounds is the Brady Campaign, which just issued a completely bogus poll claiming that two-thirds of the Americans-including 60% of all gun owners-favor gun registration, licensing of firearm owners, and other sweeping restrictions on our firearm freedoms!

    Add it all up and you have the potential
    for a Second Amendment disaster that's unlike
    any other NRA members have ever battled.
    Last edited by mauserboy; 12-06-2008 at 11:01. Reason: spelling corrections

  2. #2
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    It could all happen. The folks comming in are the same that Clinton had but his agenda was stopped.Now the anti's will also have the house and senate for at least two years.The problem is as I see about half of the gun owners voted for Obama.

  3. #3
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Is this really from the NRA?

    I am having a hard time believing this is really from the NRA. If it is then they have really stretched things here beyond belief. OhmiGod, a Secretary of State who will "rip the 2A right out of the bill of rights"? And a Secretary of Health and Human Services who would "regulate away" our 2A rights? Does anyone hear really believe such bs? I guess ignorance and fear is a great recruiting tool.

    Hey I'm a big 2A guy but this is pretty ridiculous.

  4. #4

    Default

    Though I can't say it is 100% word for word, a nearly identical message was sent out by the NRA. It is right on the mark and far from ridiculous bushrat.

    The first four 'attacks' are very potent points that need to be made, and they are based on the NRA's prior experience with anti-gun administrations and certain nominees specifically. As a member of the Clinton White house staff, Rahm Emanuel was instrumental in anti-gun legislation. No question there. His decisions and communications as CoS will radiate throughout a Democrat-controlled Washington, D.C.

    The State Department and its U.S. ambassadors are the ultimate firewall against international efforts to restrict U.S. gunowners rights. An anti-gun administration is bad enough, but a vehemently anti-gun SoS and U.S. ambassador to the UN removes all official domestic resistance - both public and internal - to international small arms control conventions and treaties conducted outside of our system of government. Perhaps one bright possibility is that Hillary will dampen these efforts to avoid sabotaging a future presidential run.

    Anti-gunners have published countless, rigged studies through private and public agencies that focused on the 'public health' threat and costs of firearms to justify public policy restricting private firearms ownership and use. This is nothin new. We should only expect that an anti-gun DHHS will revive these efforts.

    As far as Eric Holder....it's all in the record. He's not been a passive onlooker in public office and even private practice when it came to gunowners' rights and efforts to restrict them. He's been on the front lines in the debate for a number of years.

    History has shown that anti-gun liberals will use every facet of government to pursue and accomplish their agenda...international relations, public health, THE Justice Department, etc. I think the NRA and Mauserboy's main point was that B. Hussein Obama is a vehemently anti-gun man who is appointing vehemently anti-gun individuals to key positions of power and influence on the national and international stage. They threw a useless bone to luke-warm 2A supporter, Bill Richardson, but after all, how true will he remain to these beliefs if sincere and what amount of influence will he have as SoCommerce. He supports anti-gun Democrats above these 'leanings'.

    Maybe it's worse case scenario all around, but frankly, it doesn't look promising. BHO certainly hasn't made any gestures to relieve us of our concerns or to unite us clingers with the rest of the nation. Do not be scared, be prepared. Among the many forms of action I'll be taking, continuing to support the NRA will be key.

    [quote=mauserboy;383137]...Obama's FIRST attack on YOU: Appointing Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to be White House Chief of Staff. In Congress, Emanuel earned an "F" rating from NRA, and while working in the Clinton Administration, he was known as the "point man on gun control." He is an avowed enemy of the Second Amendment and will wield enormous power in the battle for the future of our firearm freedoms.

    Obama's SECOND attack on YOU: If Hillary Clinton is confirmed as Secretary of State, she'll rip the Second Amendment right out of the Bill of Rights. She'll be our nation's top diplomat with the power to determine whether the United Nations will pass, and Obama will sign, a global gun ban treaty that will surrender our Second Amendment rights and our national sovereignty.

    Obama's THIRD attack on YOU: Nominating ex-Senator and former Majority Leader Tom Daschle-an avowed enemy of NRA-to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. NRA was responsible for defeating Daschle when he ran in South Dakota for re-election to the Senate. If Daschle is confirmed, he could hold the ultimate power to declare guns a "public health menace" and regulate away our essential liberties.

    Obama's FOURTH attack on YOU: Nominating Eric Holder to be Attorney General. As former Assistant Attorney General, Holder was a key architect and vocal advocate for the Clinton era's sweeping gun ban agenda. He supported national handgun licensing, mandatory trigger locks, and ending gun shows as we know them...quote]

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    I am having a hard time believing this is really from the NRA. If it is then they have really stretched things here beyond belief. OhmiGod, a Secretary of State who will "rip the 2A right out of the bill of rights"? And a Secretary of Health and Human Services who would "regulate away" our 2A rights? Does anyone hear really believe such bs? I guess ignorance and fear is a great recruiting tool.

    Hey I'm a big 2A guy but this is pretty ridiculous.

    From under what stone have you just crawled? Have you missed the Clinton years completely? There was a very strong push for a global gun ban by the UN and there was an attempt to declare firearms a national health risk (just like tabacco) and regulate guns and condemn through the courts on that basis. No this isn't ridiculous but I do think you and your left end view of the world is a little unrealistic.

    Tread lightly on the ignorance and fear statement, remember where you are.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  6. #6

    Default This is the actual NRA alert message

    I copied it here to show the POTENTIAL problems that may arise. There was a time when I might have seen it as far-fetched, but that was long ago.
    When Obama was declaring the need and his desire for a "fundamental change in America" the hairs on my neck actually tingled. Of all the campaign B.S. he spewed and then instantly rescinded after winning, this was the scariest. We need new management, who work for us, not a "fundamental change!"

  7. #7
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Murphy, what the hell?

    Quote Originally Posted by Murphy
    No this isn't ridiculous but I do think you and your left end view of the world is a little unrealistic.
    Murphy, I have tons of respect for you but I'm really surprised and a little ticked to see this coming from a moderator. Me and my pro 2A left-end view will bow out of this discussion.
    Sincerely,

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,462

    Default

    Well said guys...IMO the threat to us and future gun owners IS absolutely real, and it's now. However, it appears from past discussions regarding this topic that some gun owners have a different view of the urgency and immediacy of the threat, which we have talked about respectfully in other threads. I personally didn't need further convincing after 11/4.

    I have said it before on this forum and I'll probably say it again, I don't agree everything that the NRA does and says (or how they say it)...but I have chosen and continue to choose to support the NRA side of this equation.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,462

    Default

    Good choice Bushrat, and I give you credit for bowing out just as I give credit to Murphy for the infinate number of times that he has responded to us in the most respectful of ways, generously sharing his knowledge. Let's cut each other some slack here.

  10. #10
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Murphy, I have tons of respect for you but I'm really surprised and a little ticked to see this coming from a moderator. Me and my pro 2A left-end view will bow out of this discussion.
    Sincerely,
    Mark,

    After re-reading my post I'll admit it was a little heavy handed and my accusation toward you regarding your political position was out of line and for that I offer my apology. I do not intend to offend anyone and my response was a little too stiff.

    If I may further rebuke your response I would say that your questioning the validity of the posters source (the NRA) leaves you in a position of either not knowing or not caring about the NRA. This information does in fact come from an NRA letter and were you a member you'd likely have your copy. It seems quite obvious that the Obama presidency, his VP, his cabinet and staff were hand picked, as will be any SCOTUS judges he may have opportunity to appoint, with a certain agenda in mind and that among other things would not be in the best interest of gun owners or the preservation of the 2nd Amendment.

    What you refer to as scare tactics may be considered as such but could also be motivational verbage to try to convince gun owners, who, based on the voting turnout, were not convinced Obama would wreck their rights, so it is well an attempt at bringing to the attention of gun owners just how serious having this man in the whitehouse will be for us.

    To refer to this as 'BS' or 'scare tactics' on a gun and shooting forum seems you aren't really on our side. We agree on very few things on this forum but this is one subject on which we should stand united. You cast a dubious note on both poster and his source and I think that was uncalled for.

    I appreciate your PM and welcome such comments privately or publicly. I am not immune to irratation or aggitatation and sometimes allow my ire to be raised and my response was without due consideration for your opinion. Please accept my apology and always feel your opinion is welcome here. Please feel free to stop by anytime and share your thoughts on our 2nd Amendment.
    Last edited by Murphy; 12-07-2008 at 13:17.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  11. #11

    Default Well put. Murphy

    Scare tactics is quite the opposite of what my intentions were. To tell the truth, one reason I posted this was to reinforce the alert from the NTA. Sometimes we read something and, for one reason or another, it doesn't fully sink in. As has been mentioned in the past, the 2nd Amendment is what helps keep our other freedoms viable if we have a government that seems to go against what our Constitution guarantees, so I see it on that level, as the most important. Obama and the people behind and around him have no problem deceiving and misinforming the American public who were just seeking a better way to make this country what it can be, not realizing that the country IS what it is meant to be and that the only real problem is in the power-hungry, greedy sobs running the whole she-bang. and the incompetents sucking the hatd-earned wages from us. It's going to be a hard row to hoe, I know that, and we all have to do what we are capable of to make things right. I am still willing to work up any petition to help the cause, but don't have the knowledge to set them up so that others can sign one online. It is better to do this sort of thing before the shtf. Anyway, I appreciate all these responses, no matter the content. Helps us know how things stand.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    I am having a hard time believing this is really from the NRA. If it is then they have really stretched things here beyond belief. OhmiGod, a Secretary of State who will "rip the 2A right out of the bill of rights"? And a Secretary of Health and Human Services who would "regulate away" our 2A rights? Does anyone hear really believe such bs? I guess ignorance and fear is a great recruiting tool.

    Hey I'm a big 2A guy but this is pretty ridiculous.
    Hey Mark,

    Hope you've reconsidered and stuck around in this discussion. I want to pass along a few quotes from the past decade or so, to show that this isn't really ignorance and fear:

    Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

    "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of hand-guns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."

    Pete Shields - Founder - Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

    Just last week, here's a quote from Pittsburgh City Councilwoman Tonya Payne about an unconstitutional gun law she wants to propose: “Who really cares about it being unconstitutional? This is what’s right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that’s fine.”

    So, an elected official is on record as saying she's prepared to spend taxpayer dollars to challenge the Constitution.

    I know Alaska isn't anywhere near the frontline in the 2A battle - but we need you guys to be vigilant, and to help us, because the fight isn't about to start, we've been fighting it down here for years. Fear and ignorance? Hardly, brother...more like everyday life down in the lower 48.

  13. #13
    Member jmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    At the end of the cul-de-sac
    Posts
    964

    Default

    I tend to think that both murphy AND bushrat are right here. Murphy - you are correct in that we need to be on guard and continue looking out for 2nd Amendment rights. That Obama's administration will try to push the constitutional limitations of the 2nd is not deniable.

    But at the same time, bushrat is right in that the NRA post that started this all is kinda BS (whether actually from the NRA or not). Re-read it and think about it a bit. A "global ban" by the UN? How could that even be possible - regardless of whether "they" were talking about the same thing during the Clinton years. If the NRA really wants to push this particular propaganda, they should do their homework first. Which countries belong to the UN? What are the positions of each of those countries on guns? I recall the Australia has gotten rid of them, and my brother lived in S. Korea awhile and said there are not many there (no handguns I think). But what about places like Germany where guns were taken in preparation for the Holocaust? Where are they today?

    After thinking about and listing all of that out, you then have to also come to the realization that an international treaty DOES NOT overrule the U.S. Constitution. In other words, a treaty signed to outlaw women voting, approve slavery, etc. would still not be valid and enforceable in the U.S. over the constitutional amendments involving such rights.

    In the end, yes, there is probably some concern with what will happen in the next 4-8 years regarding semi-autos, handguns, etc. But IMO, "global ban" is simply a scare tactic to get people riled up that would likely have very little bite when you consider which laws/treaties/etc. have priority over others. And that is not even beginning down the road of how a new amendment is added or repealed in the constitution itself.

    Just my $.02.
    Never count your days, but rather, make all of your days count.

  14. #14
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default I'm sour on the NRA

    I support SAF. I've really soured on NRA in the last ten years or so cuz imo they are supporting things that aren't in my best interest as a hunter. Mostly having to do with conservation issues. Yes, they have done great things and continue to do so...but the direction they are taking on various issues is a huge conflict of interest when it comes to one of my own personal priorities (to protect public lands and wildlife habitat for the benefit of all "joe" hunters so they and the next generations have some place to hunt).

    It's wise to be vigilant inre 2A concerns. I stand by my ignorance and fear comments, have seen the NRA use those tactics too many times. Imo, it's all going to come down to SCOTUS in the end. Justices that Obama may nominate are likely only going to replace any older left-leaning retiring Justices. I think it's entirely far-fetched to really think that the Sec of Health and Human Services, or the Sec of State, with all the other issues facing our country at this time, are going to take away our 2A rights.

    No matter what president is in office, or the makeup of the congress, the NRA would continue to use fear to recruit and keep members; that's just what they do and they are good at it. I'm very concerned about a congress that is top-heavy with any party, and yes Michael, we need to keep an eye on that. I have no love for the thinking of Pelosi or Feinstein regarding 2A rights. Again though, I think it's all gonna come down to SCOTUS in the end, and while I'm concerned of course with the makeup of SCOTUS on a wide range of issues, I don't see the overall makeup of the court changing in the near future. Having said that though, and having read the entire Heller decision a couple times now, it's obvious even the conservative thinking is that states can decide certain issues relating to gun control. It was a very mixed message sent.

    I suppose I'm a bit cynical overall because I personally think we lost our 2A rights a long time ago. My own take on 2A is that it has nothing whatsover to do with hunting, that it is all about us being able to protect ourselves from our own govt., and as I can't legally have the same firearm in common use by our military (well I suppose I could have one with a class III permit...if it were approved)...I've already been infringed. Frankly I was surprised at some of the SCOTUS opinion in Heller regarding this. Apparently even conservative Justices don't agree with my take on what 2A really means.

    Large part of future problems we face relates to Murphy basically calling me a liberal because I offered an opinion on NRA that differed from the majority opinion here. That gut reaction is all too common and is causing a lot of problems because it tends to divide 2A supporters who may differ on some things. And it promotes the notion that only conservatives are pro 2A.

    "Don't agree with NRA? Well then, you must be a liberal who doesn't support our 2A rights." I can't tell you how many times I have heard this, and how tired I am of hearing it implied. It's just like being called an "anti-hunter" when I don't agree with some hunting issues...also common and it is also very frustrating.

    It's a large part of the "ignorance" I speak of. Appreciate your apology and comments Murphy, wasn't gonna reply but Michael (mdhunter) sorta talked me into it I guess with his post.

    I'm tired of fighting the NRA on hunting and conservation issues. Very tired of that. I will not support them and choose to support SAF instead. That's my bottom line on the NRA, because I haven't seen the "change them from within" thing working in the last eight years even though many have advised that. They are in bed with a whole lot of interests that conflict with some other interests of my own.

    That sums up my position and thoughts. I expect many will disagree, which is fine, and I certainly respect differing views. What I have a real problem with though is that when views differ labels are automatically tossed out there...painting someone like myself into a box that defines my supposed political party affiliation or overall views.
    Sincerely,

  15. #15

    Default

    I've read all the posts and am new on the forum but here's my take on all of this.

    Everyone pretty much agrees that the left will try to enact every law possible to restrict gun rights. Whether that means a ban or restrictive taxes next year or ten years from now that is their agenda and it needs to be fought.

    The question seems to be who is best qualified to fight the fight as far as organizations go. The NRA has done a lot but many strong gun supporters question their current goals and direction. SAF and GOA seem to be filling in the areas where NRA has decided they don't want to tread.

    The problem a I see it is that this causes the supporters of gun rights to become fragmented and as such loose strength. If you loose enough small battles you will wake up one day realizing you've lost the war.

    The anti gunners will support any proposed law that restricts gun rights. It does not matter to them. They realize an incremental win on something that may not directly be their pet issue is still a win for their pet issue in the long run.

    The pro gunners are the ones who tend to look at some proposed regulation and say, "hey that does not affect me and never will" so I won't fight it. Not seeing that the incremental increases all add up to a greater whole and momentum for the left. Which is the basis for the problem people have with the NRA and their policy of negotiating and making deals instead of just fighting the fight.

    It seems to me that standing your ground, fighting the battle and then loosing is a better way to energize the base and make people see what's coming down the road than making deals and then mailing out letters of outrage asking for money to make more deals.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,462

    Default I don't think so....

    I appreciate the respectful manner in which jmg presented his point of view to us...well done sir, and thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts and opinions on our forum. However, my opinion does differ from yours, which is ok. For example, I don't see the concern and threat expressed by the NRA as bs at all, and I don't think that Murphy and Bushrat are both right (although I support both of them having a say). In my opinion the threat to future gun ownership is real, and it's now...and I am very concerned

    Granted, I do not support some of the word choices or tactics of the NRA, but I also don't support some of the language or tactics of those who oppose the NRA and the goals it strives to achieve. As an example, I don't support the NRA's repeated labeling of people as "liberals" or "anti's". I personally refrain from ever using those terms, especially when I talk to people who don't understand our gun owning point of view...those words just never seem to help with the overall goal of fighting gun restrictions for law abiding americans. Conversely, I also took great offense to the statement that those in small towns cling to guns and religion.

    If we assume for a moment that BOTH the NRA and those who oppose the NRA represent extreme points of view (and I think both do), and if we further assume that there is a real threat of future restrictions being placed on the ownership of guns for law abiding americans (and I think there clearly is), then which "extreme" point of view do we as gun owners support...right now, this minute...who do we support? Given the topography of this path that we are on, I personally think each of us need to answer the question and do it now...and in my opinion answering "neither" is both unproductive and functionally equivalent to passivity and inaction.

    I have obviously answered that question for myself through my membership in the NRA, but I will continue to encourage the NRA to modify their word useage as well as let them know when I think they have done wrong. However, when I consider the alternatives, supporting the NRA is an easy choice for me. It's not bs.

    My .02

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    505

    Default Well put, Bushrat

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    I support SAF. I've really soured on NRA in the last ten years or so cuz imo they are supporting things that aren't in my best interest
    ...edited for brevity...
    That sums up my position and thoughts. I expect many will disagree, which is fine, and I certainly respect differing views. What I have a real problem with though is that when views differ labels are automatically tossed out there...painting someone like myself into a box that defines my supposed political party affiliation or overall views.
    Sincerely,
    Bushrat,

    Well put. I, too disagree with some of the tactics of the NRA and NRA-ILA. But I continue to support the organization because they are effective and on the forefront. Without them, (my opinion) the sharp end of the stick would be somewhat blunted.

    There is, of course, no bar to supporting multiple organizations, as you do, I believe. So I give you my thanks.

    However, I take issue with the concept of relying on the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to defend the Second Amendment. SCOTUS is effective, but (again, my opinion) the last resort and one of desperation. Far more effective (and long-lasting) would be to restore the public perception that personally owned means of defense (including, but not limited to firearms) is in the public interest. NRA has not been particularly effective in that arena, but I don't know how to do it either, so cannot complain too loudly. NRA is working hard, so it has my support.

    Without the NRA's efforts, opponents of gun rights would find it cheap and easy to infringe the rights to gun ownership, carry and use. The NRA has made it very costly (politically and financially) for politicians to bow to the anti-gun elements of our nation. Without the NRA (opinion again) many politicians would have found it expedient long ago to turn gun ownership rights into privileges. Who was there to push back? NRA.

    Pushing back is a defensive move though and not particularly effective in increasing gun rights back to where they were 200 years ago.

    Who will be there to push forward in the future? I would hope (as I think you do) that the NRA will be there. But there is no bar to having another organization to expand, for instance, the right to carry to a nationwide presumption of right for all legal residents. Perhaps an organization that would be less "scarey-tactic" oriented.

    The field is wide open. NRA has done a defensive job. The pro-active (going on the offense) as in the Heller suit (and writing and enacting the legislation to follow it) is the goal. And I don't care who does it, the NRA, GoA or whoever. They will have my support.

    Lost Sheep (Larry)

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,462

    Default

    Bushrat, for the record I liked what you had to say in your second post...thoughtful wording sir. Unfortunately, your post came in while I was typing my reply, so I didn't see it in time for reference. Seems like I'm always a day late in these discussions.

  19. #19
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Larry, well said

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost Sheep
    Far more effective (and long-lasting) would be to restore the public perception that personally owned means of defense (including, but not limited to firearms) is in the public interest.
    Larry, this above for me hits the nail on the head and is also my big-picture view. I think various 2A orgs can and should work harder on this in particular. One of the ways they can do that is to cease with the labeling and extremism.

    Doc, thanks for your words too. I've always said that "extremism breeds extremism." And while I agree with the notion that if the org that is on our side may be extreme in some ways but should still be supported, I think overall this is a huge problem down the line, as per above. We all know the reality. America is moving from rural to urban, and society is changing as it does. Perception of gun ownership is changing. If the NRA continues its extremism that continues to polarize, offend, divide part of a core group of supporters (hunters), and breed evermore extremism on the other end (which will likely end up being the majority in the future imo), that is not in our best interest. I hope its members can influence change in this regard and on some other things, and I sure thank them for trying, but I frankly have doubts that will happen.

    Want to make it clear though Doc, that the term bs as I used it, and as I think jmg used it, was only meant to allude that some of the language and comments put out by NRA is bs in some ways, not that the NRA itself is bs. Taken literally, I find some of the NRA comments laughable. As in "This will happen if...." I see the same bs from the other side too and find it equally laughable and disingenuous. It may incite the base, but preaching to the choir while turning off many others who may be open to reasonable and rational viewpoints is down the line going to prove to be a huge failure of imagination and common sense and political insight.

    Best to all,

  20. #20

    Default NRA only defensive?

    Far more effective (and long-lasting) would be to restore the public perception that personally owned means of defense (including, but not limited to firearms) is in the public interest. NRA has not been particularly effective in that arena, but I don't know how to do it either, so cannot complain too loudly. NRA is working hard, so it has my support.

    Without the NRA's efforts, opponents of gun rights would find it cheap and easy to infringe the rights to gun ownership, carry and use. The NRA has made it very costly (politically and financially) for politicians to bow to the anti-gun elements of our nation. Without the NRA (opinion again) many politicians would have found it expedient long ago to turn gun ownership rights into privileges. Who was there to push back? NRA.

    Pushing back is a defensive move though and not particularly effective in increasing gun rights back to where they were 200 years ago.

    I can see, Lost Sheep, that you haven't kept up on NRA activities. They work on all levels that involve 2nd Amendment rights. They may not always be successful, but they do the best they can to keep things right, such as overturning the D.C. ban. They played a major role in that. As far as terms go, liberal and conservative are monikers that are, for me, valid. I don't give a **** about political correctness. I like to call them as I see them. If you don't want to use them, fine. I know Wayne La Pierre doesn't mince words, and I applaud him for that.
    There is no way, unfortunately, to bring things back to what they were 200 years ago. Think about it, this world is far too changed for that, thought it is a nice thought. Hunting used to be the major source for meat, but no more. If you have uncontrolled gunfights in the streets to settle scores, like the gang bangers do, chaos would ultimately reign. I have no problems with valid laws, that actually do protect law-abiding citizens but punish wrong-doers, but that is not what is being discussed now. It is the fundamental 2nd Amendment rights to have guns at all.
    It's funny that until the last 25-30 years, NRA was the solid American organization it always has been and now it is seen as being a very radical force by, that's right, the left-leaning liberals. Remember, just as with the US government, the NRA is owned by us, the people who join and support them. I have had numerous conversations with them and know they listen to their membership.
    Just this morning I heard BHO giving a press conference. Instead of just calling on press reps randomly, he had a list of who was there and what organization they represented. He once again said that he supported the 2nd Amendment but believed in "common sense" gun laws, as though there aren't already thousands on the books. He still hasn't said what he believes is "common sense" gun control, but his past record and his admin picks says it all. No B.S.
    Your thoughts that seem to say NRA could be a lot better, but they're all we have, so I support them is sad to me. They do a hell of a job. Been a life member forever.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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
  •