A Suggestion...

C

Claemore70

Moderator
To all of you still sending money to the NRA for publicity stunts, and more gun laws, why don't you buy more ammo? The best form of protest is with a gun.

------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
 
Are we better off with the NRA, a voice for 3.5M gun owners (most of whom clearly don't care about CCW and defending the Country from Despots and Tyrants), or with 200 little groups, with memberships in the 10,000's each, who's members are strict Constructionists and Patriots?



------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Remember, it was the NRA that orchestrated the dramatic failure of the Democrats in the '96 (?) elections. The Dems clearly acknowledge the NRA's power and influence; who knows what laws were not passed or proposed because enough anti's feared for their political lives.

The NRA is the second most powerful lobby group, directly representing 1% of the US population. They have fought hard and painful battles and won many ... consider where we'd be WITHOUT the NRA. (Hint: no guns at all.)

Because of the NRA, we can still walk into a gun shop, drop some cash, wait 5 minutes, and walk out well-armed. Despite all the restrictions and paperwork, you still have the RKBA.

What has GOA done? JPOF? TRT?

The best form of protest is with a gun.

Looking for a short lifespan, eh?

Go file a lawsuit instead. Sue over the infringement on your rights (can you legally articulate those infringements? hmmmm?). And give the NRA some more money; not perfect, but your best hope.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claemore70:
To all of you still sending money to the NRA for publicity stunts, and more gun laws, why don't you buy more ammo? The best form of protest is with a gun.

[/quote]

Claemore70,

I agree that the NRA is not as effective as I would like to see either; the GOA is much better at the no nonsence approach we need so badly.

IMHO, we will not win this war with anything less then a no-nonsense case, like Emerson ,reaching the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and thusly defeating the mother of most gun control laws, the National Firearms Act of 1934, not to mention the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Until that is done, we are not going to see any real progress in removing this countrys' many unconstitutional gun control laws, IMHO.

In fact, we are most likely to see ever more stringent gun control measures and other American Fascist behavior control acts passed into law, until such time as we are able to see that SCOTUS hears a valid Second Amendment case, and makes a decision in our favor.

In the meantime I couldnt agree more about buying plenty of ammunition, but if one has most of their guns chambered in military calibers presently, as many people I know do, how much ammo does one need?

One can always re-supply from the enemy's ammo supplies after our stores become depleted, should the inconceivable come to pass in this nation.....

BTW, have a great Independance Day!
 
The thing is I talked to a district attorney in our area about the Emerson case. He is pro-gun, and has told me that it would be a "cold dead hands" situation with him too. But he said that the feds will probably make the gun issue, a non-issue in this case. I forget exactly how he said they would probably do it, but it made sense at the time. My point is, and I agree with Mr. Davis nearly a 100%, but why isn't the NRA involved in this case? They certainly have the power to have their name and our money splashed all over it. What about all these other instances where lawful gun owners have ended up with prison sentences over a constitutional right? What we need is a good supreme court ruling, but it seems as though the NRA has avoided this obvious path to victory. They are spending our money (mine too) on freaking restaurants that hasn't gotten anything but bad cartoons done on it. Personally that crap makes me furious. It also makes me furious that we have supposed patriots that continue to defend this "great" institution.

Answer me this, NRA lovers, why has the NRA endorsed so much anti-gun legislation? Why aren't they using our money to further the Emerson case? If Heston is pro-freedom, why did he say that nobody needs assault rifles? Why wasn't it an assault rifle he held above his head and said, "from my cold dead fingers"? These are questions that if answered I might change my attitude, but until then, I'm stocking up on ammo, guns, and magazines.

------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
 
Claemore....

I mean no offense, but ya gotta remember those convos....I'd appreciate you asking your attorney friend his rationale for his concluson

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Originally posted by ctdonath: (edited) <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Remember, it was the NRA that orchestrated the dramatic failure of the Democrats in the '96 (?) elections. The Dems clearly acknowledge the NRA's power and influence; who knows what laws were not passed or proposed because enough anti's feared for their political lives.

The NRA is the second most powerful lobby group, directly representing 1% of the US population. They have fought hard and painful battles and won many ... consider where we'd be WITHOUT the NRA. (Hint: no guns at all.)...[/quote]

Methinks this is all wishful thinking.

I am sick and tired of hearing how much the NRA is doing for us today. I am the NRA. Let me say it again. I AM THE NRA!

There is no way to actually verify the role of gun owners, let alone NRA members, in the '94 election. That is all based on the opinions of politicians (both sides) and on polls. Be realistic.

"Power" of the NRA as a lobby? Same thing. It is not quantifiable. It is subjective.

Fought hard and painful battles and won many? Yes, throughout it's history. BUT, when a friend betrays you and you call him on it and he gives you a Butterfinger as restitution ... a week or a month later, do you remember the taste of the Butterfinger? Or do you remember the betrayal. A betrayal could be an act as simple as not trying hard enough or not being the advocate you promised to be, when that is your purpose!

I submit that the NRA is as disconnected from its membership as your congressman is from you (a fairly safe prediction). The last two NRA national elections have proved, once and for all, irrefutably, that the Exec Council and BOD thinks it knows what's best for you. They have affected the elections by violating the bylaws at least four times.

They are guilty of lying by ommission and construement. Knowingly. At the time of the offense. With purpose and foreknowledge of the results. The NRA is VERY close to being in the other camp.

I am a life member. I won't resign my membership yet. I would like to see my NRA taken back by the membership. Mark my words ... it will happen. And when it does, the shenanigans of La Pierre will come to light. I do not have proof, but it is my belief based on his aversion to open business at the national meetings and closed sessions of the Exec Council.

Examples of the results of appeasement with the "enemy" on issues of principle abound. I do not approve of "reasonable" measures to limit my natural rights. Any of them.

Any thing difficult to understand here?

Rant off. No personal offense intended, CTDonath.
 
It has been said before, but I'll repeat it here: Don't we need both the no compromise approach (GOA) and the more moderate approach (NRA)? If I use the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", then the NRA must be doing a great job. The Totalitarian Statists sure seem to hate and fear the stodgy old NRA, I don't hear the venom and hatred extended to the smaller groups. maybe it is the "wimpy" stand of the NRA that they fear may win converts from the center.
 
The NRA is the driving force behind the pro-gun debate in modern politics. Like it or not... The average MMM Mom and typical gun control supporter probably has no idea what GOA even stands for. (Not a dig on the GOA, but I'd wager I'm correct.)
 
Larry Pratt will not be an attractive poster child for the RKBA. If you think, they don't like Heston - wait till they get a look at Pratt.

It is unfortunate the NRA can't be made more efficient and strategic in its thinking.

The other groups are marginal. They serve a purpose as gadflies to the NRA to get it honest but that's about it.

In fact, some of their positions are quite counterproductive.

Of course, unless your whole strategy is to get your line in the sand washed away by the tide.
 
Claemore70,
The NRA filed a brief in the Emerson case and had many live updates on the nralive.com site. I'm not sure what else they could have done (other than write a better brief). It is a tricky monster, Emerson. If the 2nd is ruled against, the gun conrol crowd is going to use it to start a new drive, we win and we start a new drive.

I'm all for the GOA, SAF, & JPFO as well as any other group. I only have so much money...

2 things I'm pissed at the NRA about is not getting any info on Hostellers' (sp?) Amendments and seeing that it failed by 6-8 votes.

2) The NRA brief in Emerson was awful; however, they could have used their time to debunk the US position that the 5th has ruled upon this issue before and left the more historical arguments to others. Those others did very will. SAF had a great brief as did the Texas Justice League(?) amd many others.

I want what most want - a true individual right reading. After that, incorporation, and then let's see some 'common sense' crime control.

madison46

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claemore70:
The thing is I talked to a district attorney in our area about the Emerson case. He is pro-gun, and has told me that it would be a "cold dead hands" situation with him too. But he said that the feds will probably make the gun issue, a non-issue in this case. I forget exactly how he said they would probably do it, but it made sense at the time. My point is, and I agree with Mr. Davis nearly a 100%, but why isn't the NRA involved in this case? They certainly have the power to have their name and our money splashed all over it. What about all these other instances where lawful gun owners have ended up with prison sentences over a constitutional right? What we need is a good supreme court ruling, but it seems as though the NRA has avoided this obvious path to victory. They are spending our money (mine too) on freaking restaurants that hasn't gotten anything but bad cartoons done on it. Personally that crap makes me furious. It also makes me furious that we have supposed patriots that continue to defend this "great" institution.

Answer me this, NRA lovers, why has the NRA endorsed so much anti-gun legislation? Why aren't they using our money to further the Emerson case? If Heston is pro-freedom, why did he say that nobody needs assault rifles? Why wasn't it an assault rifle he held above his head and said, "from my cold dead fingers"? These are questions that if answered I might change my attitude, but until then, I'm stocking up on ammo, guns, and magazines.

[/quote]
 
Sensop: Actually, there is a way to verify it; It's called exit polling; Polsters ask people as they leave the polling place how they voted, and why.

Exit polling from the '94 election, as I recall, indicated that aproximately HALF of the people who voted were gun owners, and some 80% of us voted Republican. This was enough by itself to explain most of the election outcome.

Note, I said "gun owners", not "NRA members". They didn't orchestrate that outcome, they ran like heck to get in front of the mob, and then yelled, "Follow me!", moments before they got run over.

If anything, the NRA actually blunted the outcome of that election, with their fudged candidate ratings; They didn't expect the Republicans to take control, so they were still playing games with the candidate ratings to avoid angering incumbant Democrats they expected to win. I'd guess there might have been as many as a half dozen seats where we could have replaced compromisers with staunch pro-gunners, if they had played it straight with the ratings, and ignored incumbancy when making their endorsements.

For instance, John Dingell, the NRA board member who betrayed us, and cast the deciding vote to pass the "assault weapons" ban, nearly got beat by a pro-gun Republican, despite everything the NRA could do to make excuses for him. If they'd said to the members, "He betrayed us; Rip his throat out!", the Republicans would have had a bigger margin in the House, and might have been able to ignore anti-gun Republicans when chosing their leaders.

And I still seethe when I remember how they spent the money I sent the PVF, running advertisements AGAINST John Coon, the almost fanatically pro-gun Libertarian Senate candidate, instead of using it against somebody anti-gun, such as David Bonior, who almost got beat despite the NRA leaving him pretty much alone. And they did that even knowing from the polls that Abraham, (Who they claimed was pro-gun, but hasn't shown any sign of it since he got elected.) was going to win running away no matter how Coon did! They wasted my money, worse than wasted it, attacking the most pro-gun candidate in the race! Last money they got from me, I'll tell you.

By the way, to show you what a gentleman Coon was, he spent the last of his campaign funds running radio ads urging his NRA supporters to forgive the NRA, and NOT tear up any more membership cards.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
The Feds goal in Emerson will be to give the courts an opportunity to rule based on non-constitutional grounds. They argued before the 5th Circuit that the case was really about whether Emerson had notice of the no firearms restriction. If the court goes that way, it can find that the district court never should have reached the issue of the 2nd amendment. That allows them to overturn the district court and negate and precedential value Emerson has on the 2nd amendment issue, while avoiding a constitutional issue themselves. There is a legal doctrine that courts should find a way to deal with a case without resorting to constitutional interpretation.
 
buzz_knox,
True. However, I hope they don't and I hope the US Atty, Metej's (sp?), stupid argument as it related to the National Guard will help get the judges to rule on 2nd Amend grounds.

I have heard the court may try to get around it though. In fact I think Emerson's own brief make that very suggestion.

Hope not though.

madison46

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buzz_knox:
The Feds goal in Emerson will be to give the courts an opportunity to rule based on non-constitutional grounds. They argued before the 5th Circuit that the case was really about whether Emerson had notice of the no firearms restriction. If the court goes that way, it can find that the district court never should have reached the issue of the 2nd amendment. That allows them to overturn the district court and negate and precedential value Emerson has on the 2nd amendment issue, while avoiding a constitutional issue themselves. There is a legal doctrine that courts should find a way to deal with a case without resorting to constitutional interpretation. [/quote]
 
As an answer to my question, we have and need both.

The NRA fills a place. I was originally against the Resturant idea, but have since reconsidered. WE NEED TO REKINDLE THE PRO-GUN CORE OF AMERICA. Unfortunately the only way to do this is to work with the media and with pop culture. This is what the NRA is doing (and perhaps they can turn a profit along the way.)

Groups like the GOA, SAF etc. have a place as well. They push us, the NRA, Congress and the Media in the right direction by constantly harping back on PRO-RKBA themes and rhetoric.

I am a member of both the NRA and GOA, and i give roughly equal ammounts of extra money to each (amoung other groups such as GOAL, Libertarian Party, SAS, Ducks Unl., etc.)

I believe the best form of protest is assuradly not with a gun. But with an "entire-theatre" attack, which includes hard and soft liners.


I'll still be a member of the NRA, probably for years to come. AND i'll still be a member of the GOA, for years and years.



------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Brett,

Thanks for the measured response, unlike my post. Exit polls are as close as you can get, I suppose. I really would like to know gun owners made a difference in '94. I'm feelin' kinda snakebit here in 2000.

Glenn,

When will it be time to draw the line in the sand? Do you think there ever will be a time when we must say, "No more."? As far as the marginal organizations taking positions which are counterproductive, I say that view depends on whether you are willing to accept a remnant of what you used to have in whole.

If having what little RKBA the sheeple are willing to leave you is acceptable, then by all means let's compromise. Let's not have Larry Pratt as a poster child when we can have Mr. Photogenic. 'Don't want to alienate. Oh, no. When was the last time you watched the evening news on a major TV network? You don't have to do anything to alienate the public. We're already alienated and despised to a degree by many. I sponsor no call to arms. I say it's time to join the war of words. It's not being done. The socialists own the language and it's killing us.



[This message has been edited by sensop (edited July 06, 2000).]
 
Buzz-Knox had the arguement that the Dist. Attorney I know mentioned. I believe that is how it will go. Once again we will be turned into a non-issue. If we keep trying to fight it their way, esp. with politically correct spokespeople in the NRA, we will end up with our SAAs, and muzzleloaders, etc. Let the NRA draw the line in the sand. We are losing because we are afraid of offending people. I talked to a co-worker last night and she called me a fanatic, and an extremist. I became miffed, and told her about gov't wrongs against the people in the name of gun control. Shooting kids in the back, burning people to death, stomping pets to death in front of kids. She was shocked into seeing my point of view. Shock rocks!
I'm ready for that line in the sand. I think that most are afraid of what a war over this could be like. I also am afraid, but I'm more afraid of losing my and my family's freedom. Let's not lose because we are afraid. We are Americans, not Australians, not Canadians, not Brits. We have fought and won in the past, we will do it again. If we continue to support the NRA we will surely lose...

------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top