JPFO gets disturbing response from NRA

[Vermont Carry]

I'll bet that someone will try and claim that "oh boy here's another nra bashing thread" or even less correct that "this belongs in the nra critic's thread," even though this thread is SPECIFICALLY about the response a JPFO member got when he asked nra to explain their position on the awful/illegal/thug-ocracy/citizen disarmament agency known as the so called "batfe."

I was truly AMAZED that I had feelings of shock when I read it. I guess my shock came from seeing the NRA say what I always knew. I was also amazed at the things they were admitting to.

I hope that NO ONE does anything to give the usual suspects a reason to label this thread an "nra bashing thread." Obviously I have no control over what people post, but some nra members are so closed minded that I have to make disclaimers like this to try and avoid/prevent their knee jerk labeling (and attempts to shut down) threads like this. It's sad but that's the world we live in. I kind of hope that a certain individual shows up to essentially accuse me of being sent from Sarah Brady's office to secretly weaken the pro gun movement from within. I enjoy the laugh that guy [unintentionally] brings .

Here's from the JPFO alert from a few days ago:

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

December 11, 2006

JPFO ALERT: JPFO/NRA Have Different Views on BATFE

Recently a JPFO supporter sent a letter to the NRA asking
about its position on the BATFE. As our readers know, JPFO
has made it a mission to abolish that rogue agency and end
federal control and regulation of your firearms.

In their response to our supporter, the NRA spokesperson,
on behalf of Sandra Froman, president of the NRA, made
several statements that are contrary to what JPFO believes
gun rights organizations should support.

"...we support certain federal laws relative to firearms..."

"The Association does not object to many of the federal
laws..."

"...greater emphasis should be placed on enforcing existing
laws..."

"...NRA did not object to the increase in funding to BATF..."

We've reprinted the NRA letter in full on our website.
We've also added a list of questions that the letter raises,
as well as what we consider to be the best answer to those
questions. You can read both at www.jpfo.org/nraletter.pdf .

If you agree that it is imperative to abolish the BATFE and
end federal control and regulation of firearms, please
download and share this letter (and our response) with
everyone you know.

- The Liberty Crew

============================================================

 

[Vermont Carry]

In case you hadn't guessed, I believe the "batfe" needs to be shut down, closed, and defunded as soon as possible. I further believe that effectively all of the so called federal "laws" relating to firearms are outside the authority given to the federal government by the constitution. Finally, I believe that the ONLY reason the "batfe" even exists is to have the basic citizen firearm confiscation apparatus permanently in place while the powers-that-be wait patiently for the inevitable congress to come along and pass various anti liberty gun laws that they KNEW would trickle down the pike. Thus, "batfe" is simply like unto an army that is massed along the border of our liberty, just waiting for the order (actually permission) to invade.

 

[BillCA]

Maybe this should be titled "Yellow Journalism from JPFO" instead.

By taking NRA quotes out of context, as done here, provides a different impression of the NRA.

Their bulletin claimed the NRA said...

"...we support certain federal laws relative to firearms..."

The preceeding sentence said the NRA does not object to many of the federal laws against violent criminal behavior committed with firearms. They then go on to say that since they support [these] federal laws they don't promote abolishing the BATF who enforces those laws.

"The Association does not object to many of the federal laws..."

Again, they chopped off ... against violent criminal behavior committed with firearms.

"...greater emphasis should be placed on enforcing existing laws..."

Omitted: ... that target violent gun crimes.

"...NRA did not object to the increase in funding to BATF..."

but did work to ensure the funds were appropriately targeted.

ANY time I see someone running down an organization using some kind of quotes that contain "..." I am immediately suspicious of what I'm NOT being told.

In this case, I think JPFO needs to grow up and get a clue. Instead of spouting misleading and idoitic drivel like this, which IMO only serves to create rifts in the Pro-2A community, the JPFO completely overlooks the concept of strategy and multiple attacks against the anti-2A movement and the BATF in particular.

If you can't figure out what I mean, send me a PM.

 

[Vermont Carry]

JPFO wasn't being "misleading" or "taking things out of context" at all. JPFO made it very clear that batfe is not needed to deal with violent criminals, that such things are properly for the LOCAL police to deal with, and that anything left (that is ACTUALLY interstate in nature) could be handled by the f.b.i. It was nra that USED the prospect of violent criminals to justify it's support for batfe.

The overriding issue here that JPFO is highlighting, is that nra admits it's support for the batfe and certain federal gun laws. Just because a "violent criminal" breaks an unconstitutional federal gun law doesn't automatically justify said law, but nra seems to SEE those federal laws as TOOLS to use on "violent criminals" (which "tools" are not repeat NOT necessary, not to mention the fact that the ONLY accountable police are LOCAL police). Such support of batfe is very dangerous to our lives, liberty, and property.

 

[TimRB]

Careful, Bill. You're coming mighty close to calling this yet another NRA-bashing thread. Wait a minute. So am I.

Tim

 

[Eghad]

This is the second post on the subject in TFL. The threads should be merged.

I think that the JPFO would be better served by taking thier argument to the halls of Congress instead of engaging in a argument over semantics of who is doing what. What are the chances of the BATF getting eliminated? They say the work could be shifted to the FBI. Since 9/11 under the Homeland Security Act the FBI's numeo uno job is terrorism.

The BATF is not likely to be eliminated anytime soon. So instead of wasting resources to do so find out which battles you can win with the BATF and try to reform them. The NRA is in the halls of Congress doing that not wasting time writing a letter trying to score brownie points with gun owners.

Gun owners are all in the same boat, if the boat is leaking, should you stand around arguing who is not doing what or bail the water out of the boat?

 

[Fremmer]

Gun owners are all in the same boat, if the boat is leaking, should you stand around arguing who is not doing what or bail the water out of the boat?

Because someone wants to endlessly troll and create argument after argument about how terrible the NRA is.

If you like the GOA, join it. If you like the JPFO, join it. If you don't like the NRA, then don't join it.

How easy was that?

 

[Wildalaska]

A thread like this should be evaluated in terms of the agendas presented, best illustrated by these quotes:

awful/illegal/thug-ocracy/citizen disarmament agency known as the so called "batfe."

the "batfe" needs to be shut down, closed, and defunded as soon as possible

I further believe that effectively all of the so called federal "laws" relating to firearms are outside the authority given to the federal government by the constitution. .

Finally, I believe that the ONLY reason the "batfe" even exists is to have the basic citizen firearm confiscation apparatus permanently in place while the powers-that-be wait patiently for the inevitable congress to come along and pass various anti liberty gun laws that they KNEW would trickle down the pike. Thus, "batfe" is simply like unto an army that is massed along the border of our liberty, just waiting for the order (actually permission) to invade

In spite of the factual innacuracies, untenable constituional claims and tinfoil hat fantasies inherent in this type of stuff, you guys will debate it over and over for no purpose....just like, you can't convince flat earthers that the earth is round, you cant convince some folks that thier beliefs range on the kook side of the spectrum.

Perhaps a little less rhetoric and a little more mainstream action will better serve the interests of responsible gun owners.....

WilditalkedtoabtferyesterdaysnadhedidnthavehornsevenoncloseexaminationAlaska

 

[azredhawk44]

WilditalkedtoabtferyesterdaysnadhedidnthavehornsevenoncloseexaminationAlaska

Wild:

No, they aren't born with the horns.

It's just like any organization/beaurocracy: One person isn't bad, it's when you institutionalize large numbers of people into one way of thinking that cranial-rectal inversion occurs.

AZRedhawkthehornsaresplicedonwithstemcellsfromHillary'sstoredabortions44

 

[Wildalaska]

One person isn't bad, it's when you institutionalize large numbers of people into one way of thinking that cranial-rectal inversion occurs.

Sort of like...JPFO?

WildflexibilitymysonflexibilityAlaska

 

[azredhawk44]

Sort of like...JPFO?

No, I said LARGE numbers of people.

AZRedhawkinsertsmart@sscommenthere44

 

[Wildalaska]

WildalltheresponsenecessaryAlaska

 

[Vermont Carry]

AZRedhawkthehornsaresplicedonwithstemcellsfromHillary'sstoredabortions44

Now that's funny stuff.

Wild, you just CAN'T stop trashing the speaker can you. Seriously man, what is the deal with you? You make a whole BUNCH of claims:

In spite of the factual innacuracies, untenable constituional claims and tinfoil hat fantasies inherent in this type of stuff, you guys will debate it over and over for no purpose....just like, you can't convince flat earthers that the earth is round, you cant convince some folks that thier beliefs range on the kook side of the spectrum.

yet you utterly refuse to actually mention where the "factual inaccuracies" allegedly are. I've concluded that the only reason you post here is so you can trash other posters in a semi veiled way. Why don't you have the courage to LIST the "factual inaccuracies," and "untenable constitutional claims?"

I found two, possibly three personal insults in your post, and a bunch of claims that you DON'T even bother to cite with specifics.

 

[Wildalaska]

Why don't you have the courage to LIST the "factual inaccuracies," and "untenable constitutional claims?"

I have the courage, just not the energy. I wouldnt argue with those who see the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich either.

Quick assertion boys and girls: the gubmint really aint out to get you They are way too busy or incompetant.

Oh and buy the way, since you beleive that all of the federal firearms firearms laws are "effectively" unconstituional, rather than preach here, why dont ya call a press conference with an unregistered machine gun and invite prosecution so we can get a ruling on this once and for all. I will kick in $100 towards your legal fees. And if you win, I will eat crow publically

WildonwardandupwardAlaska

 

[rhgunguy]

JPFO just lost huge points with me due to their splicing.

However, getting a response from the NRA can be amusing. A few weeks ago I (after a heated debate on this board) e-mailed the NRA with questions regarding their stance on various issues both national and in my local.

The reply was to thank me for my interest and support of the NRA. At least they didn't ask for money...

 

[Fremmer]

I wouldnt argue with those who see the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich either.

LOL!!!

Sorry Wild, but fair is fair. When VermontCarry gets arrested, I'm contributing $100.00 toward the government's efforts to prosecute him.

And I hope they don't have internet access available to inmates....

 

[Vermont Carry]

I have the courage, just not the energy.

The second half of that exposes the lack of truth in the first part.

"wild alaska" why do you continue to read and post in my threads, and post responses to my posts? Funny, you have energy for THAT but you supposedly "don't have the energy" to back up your claims with specifics . All I ever see from you are veiled and open personal attacks. I have reported your post where you call everyone who doesn't agree with you a "kook." Keep it up pal and you'll be thrown out of here. Those of us who like to have TOPIC driven discussions will not miss you in the slightest.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Goin' South quick.
Rich

 

[Vermont Carry]

Quick assertion boys and girls: the gubmint really aint out to get you They are way too busy or incompetant.

Even your nra disagrees with you on that one. Yea, batf rulings that come out of nowhere and reclassify certain guns, and/or ban importation doesn't AT ALL show that they are "out to get us." You are the king of denial if you honestly believe that. Let's see, I guess you haven't heard of new orleans.

Yea, they're pretty "busy" alright. Just what do you think batf is "busy" doing? Coming up with creative ways to ban importation of anything they can (ever heard of the recent barrel ban as it relates to parts kits?)

See that's the thing, you've heard of ALL of the items I just listed. That incredible statement that the batfe "ISN'T out to get" us just flies in the face of reality, history, and batfe's own recent behavior. WildDENIALkinginAlaska

 

[Wildalaska]

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...oooo, huh, did I miss something?

Keep it up pal and you'll be thrown out of here. .

Gee, less than 100 posts and already you are a staff member ! Groovy! Maybe I should just resign now from the Board before you get me

I have reported your post where you call everyone who doesn't agree with you a "kook."

No, I dont call people who disagree with me "kooks"...I just point out that people with kooky ideas are kooks

Goin' South quick.

Heck Rich, this one was in Antartica when it started



WildsuperciliousbastidAlaska