From My Cold, Dead Hands.........................


PDA






2dogs
January 1, 2003, 10:00 AM
...................................er, ah, um, I mean if the courts and "majority" say OK.

WARNING- Radical slogans and speeches may cause discomfort.

Of course it's all just so much blather, isn't it?:impaled: :what: :scrutiny: :ar15:



http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3307

If you enjoyed reading about "From My Cold, Dead Hands........................." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Blackcloud6
January 1, 2003, 02:32 PM
And the point is?

dadman
January 1, 2003, 02:46 PM
I believe the point is that we as a whole probally won't stand for our rights. We'll let it evolve further into a privalege, then see some firearm enforcement ala England and Australia.
Heston himhawed around during an interview when AK's were brought up.

2dogs
January 1, 2003, 03:55 PM
And the point is?

Alright, my intent was to just have the post, no replies at all, and let everyone who viewed it decide for him/her self what the point was.

But you had to ask.:uhoh:

There seem to be a few, if not several camps in the "pro gun" population. We all probably fit into one or more of these camps to a certain extent.

One group are gunowners who don't have a clue as to what the right to bear arms means, nor do they seem to care. They go hunting or shooting and as long as they can do that they seem quite content to let this country and it's freedoms slip into a cesspool. In all likelihood there is no hope for this group- just hand em another beer.

Another group are politically aware, probably realists, involved citizens to a certain extent- they vote, pay attention to issues, write letters, call congessman etc. They believe in this country and they believe in what it stands for. They also believe that there is a right way to bring change (laws, voting) and a wrong way (anything illegal). They also believe in not rocking the boat, in not using "inflamatory" language or "radical slogans and speeches" so as not to appear outside of the mainstream- and they do not want others to speak out, for the same reason. These are for the most part good folks who are being made to look like fools and "useful idiots" by the Communist regime which now controls this country (poetic license, folks). The Communist regime has made a mockery of our laws, country and Constitution, by passing one inane law after another to the point where you can't sneeze without breaking one- and they rely on the docility of the "useful idiots" to remain in power.

A third group consists mainly of dreamers. They dream of having a country returned to it's natural state, freedom, to the largest extent possible. They use the same "radical slogans and speech" that the people who founded this country used. They are not embarrassed by people like Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine because they believe with all their hearts that those men were magnificent and had a vision unparalleled since then. They are not willing to be silenced, they don't care who doesn't like their speeches, they will not go along and will not be "useful idiots". They will be pushed only so far, will follow the laws and exhaust all legal means of redress of grievances- and will not back down and wait until the Communists (fascists, socialists, aliens or whoever the h*ll else is in charge of the game) hand them their shovel and tell them to start digging. What these people need to decide is when the game is up- when are there so many laws that you can no longer breathe let alone own a gun. Because we are quickly devolving to the point where the only thing you have left is your gun- no dignity or pride, no freedom, no country and no reason to live.

We aren't there yet, this is still the best country in the world and it is still peopled by many fine folks. But time is running out. The pot is boiling slowly- do you want to be the frog who doesn't know when to jump out?

Not one person on this board can say for certainty what he/she will do when "the knock on the door" comes. It hasn't come yet. But speaking for my self, I'm shouting from the rooftops baby, as often, as loudly and as obnoxiously as I can- before the next sound we hear is a shot heard round the world.

End of one man's rant.:banghead: :cuss: :ar15:

2dogs
January 1, 2003, 04:16 PM
And come on, you have to admit that cartoon is funny. Especially the play on the "damned dirty apes" line.:D :D

Neal Bloom
January 1, 2003, 04:37 PM
Loved the cartoon. Knew a couple people who quit the NRA over Heston's view on AK's.

GinSlinger
January 1, 2003, 04:46 PM
2dogs

I think there may be another type of gun owner. Those that think they should be allowed to own a gun, but that guns as a whole should be harder (if not near impossible) to get. I have met two benchrest shooters who plead that handguns should be bad, that the do no good, they serve no purpose. They fail to even see their fellow competitors (in the handgun catagories) as worthy of owning guns. These owners will eventually be the poster children of the antis.

GinSlinger

AZTOY
January 1, 2003, 04:49 PM
I think the cartoon is right on. We need a guy who is not scared of real guns. The fact is the Brand bunch can care less about black power guns. :banghead:

The Brady bunch want's are AK-47 and AR-15. :fire:

Capital Punishment
January 1, 2003, 05:01 PM
http://users.superford.org/ford/uploads/guncolddeadhands.jpg

Correction; they want them all.

2dogs
January 1, 2003, 05:11 PM
GinSlinger

I think in other times they would be termed "collaborators"..

Capital Punishment

Great poster, where'd you get it?

Capital Punishment
January 1, 2003, 05:20 PM
It was sitting on my hard drive, i forget where i got it. Someone will probably remember, though.

Wildalaska
January 1, 2003, 05:45 PM
Another group are politically aware, probably realists, involved citizens to a certain extent- they vote, pay attention to issues, write letters, call congessman etc. They believe in this country and they believe in what it stands for. They also believe that there is a right way to bring change (laws, voting) and a wrong way (anything illegal). They also believe in not rocking the boat, in not using "inflamatory" language or "radical slogans and speeches" so as not to appear outside of the mainstream- and they do not want others to speak out, for the same reason. These are for the most part good folks who are being made to look like fools and "useful idiots" by the Communist regime which now controls this country (poetic license, folks). The Communist regime has made a mockery of our laws, country and Constitution, by passing one inane law after another to the point where you can't sneeze without breaking one- and they rely on the docility of the "useful idiots" to remain in power.

Sorry I dont consider myself, or any other decent normal US gunowners to be "fools" or "useful idiots".

I do consider that the "cold dead fingers" bunch are as dangerous to freedom as the Hillaryites, if not more so.

2dogs
January 1, 2003, 06:35 PM
Sorry I dont consider myself, or any other decent normal US gunowners to be "fools" or "useful idiots".
I do consider that the "cold dead fingers" bunch are as dangerous to freedom as the Hillaryites, if not more so.

Please define "decent, normal US gunowners". And I did not say that they were fools or useful idiots, but rather that they were being made to appear to be. And to the extent that any of us play along, myself included, we are allowing those who rule us (make no mistake, they do) to remain in power, unbowed, and that is the definition of a useful idiot.

As for the second point, I do not see any similiarity at all- the "cold dead fingers" bunch (I would assume then that includes all NRA members, or at least the ones willing to let Charlton Heston speak for them) want to expand freedom- the Hitlaryites want to diminish freedom. Seems like two polar opposites to me.

:banghead:

Blackcloud6
January 1, 2003, 10:49 PM
I'm missing something. What is this Heston and AK thing?

AZTOY
January 1, 2003, 11:00 PM
Blackcloud6http://keepandbeararms.com/images/ak-heston_500w.jpg

Derek Zeanah
January 1, 2003, 11:11 PM
I'm missing something. What is this Heston and AK thing? He once made the comment that no-one should be allowed to own an AK, or no-one needs an AK, or something. Enough for anti-gunners to say "Even the NRA thinks these evil tools of destruction should be banned!"

Yet another reason to give your $$ to other organizations.

Blackcloud6
January 1, 2003, 11:15 PM
"He once made the comment that no-one should be allowed to own an AK, or no-one needs an AK, or something. Enough for anti-gunners to say "Even the NRA thinks these evil tools of destruction should be banned!"

OK, When did he do so? How long ago? Does he still have that opinion? I bet he doesn't.

Capital Punishment
January 2, 2003, 12:05 AM
Lets also remember, the old mans mental and physical health isnt what it used to be.....what is it that he has again? Parkinsons? or something.

Derek Zeanah
January 2, 2003, 12:07 AM
OK, When did he do so?

A quick Google search came up with this:
DATE May 6, 1997
TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT)
STATION KGO-AM (ABC)
LOCATION San Francisco
PROGRAM Morning Drive Time

{snipped -- complete transcript available here (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Heston.htm).)

Wygant: Now the image of- of the NRA has been an
organization that supports the right of people to buy
any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any- any
gun store- gun shop and you see things there that are
big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need
for- for hunting or home protection. Do you stand by-
I mean, the image is...

Heston: AK-47's are inappropriate for private
ownership, of course.

Wygant: Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire
power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a
homeowner would need. Why is it necessary to have
those guns available anyway?

Heston: I just got through telling you. The
possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely
inappropriate.

Wygant: Right, but AK-47's one thing, but I've been in
a gun shop- I've been in gun shops, and there's fire
power there that doest's seem necessary and that people
worry about being out there in- in the hands of, you
know, potential criminals.

Heston: I'm not certain what you're point is- that
there are guns available in gun stores?

Wygant: No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would
need. In other words, why does the NRA support guns
that have overkill? Let's put it that way. Shouldn't
there be some sort of limit?

Heston: Well, for any certain time, AK-47"s are
entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the-
the problem, of course, is not guns held by private
citizens, but guns held by criminals. And where we
have failed, where the government has failed is with
entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is
meaningless. I'm not even- don't even think it should
be repealed because it doesn't do anything. and it's
been in- on the books for more than two years. In the
course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people
have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons
with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm.

Wygant: Well, we've- we gotta- I really appreciate
talking with us...

{more snipped}


He's far from being a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment. His "COld Dead, Hands" speech sounded good, but you didn't see him carrying an AR-15 there, or even an M1 Garand. No practical battle implement whatsoever -- he chose to speak those words while holding an antique.

Derek Zeanah
January 2, 2003, 12:10 AM
I guess a more succinct way of saying what I said earlier is this: Heston seems to support the private ownership of arms only so far "sporting arms." He's got nothing against your .22 target guns, or nice Perazzi shotguns, or even more mundane hunting arms provided they're not black plastic...

As far as ugly, un-PC handguns and "assault rifles" go though -- from what I've seen they're as afraid of them as HCI/MMM/Whatever-they-are-this-week.

Which is a comment that should bring in some flames -- I know my lack of support of the NRA is a minority view.

Jim March
January 2, 2003, 01:48 AM
Well there's some of us who are absolutely dedicated to full restoration of our rights, but understand that to get the first steps going, we must not "scare the sheeple".

My opinion: If Heston had raised an AR-15 or similar, it would have been a setback.

Does anybody here think that opinion makes me a "traitor to the cause"?

QuickDraw
January 2, 2003, 02:31 AM
Jim,
I think your right.The media has pounded
the AR=bad for so long people would have freaked!
The antique is a little easier for the sheeple to swallow.
Its like a big chess game.

QuickDraw

Jim March
January 2, 2003, 02:52 AM
Exactly!

And not everybody is smart enough to play chess.

The worst part is that a good percentage of the NRA membership would have freaked.

Derek Zeanah
January 2, 2003, 03:50 AM
The worst part is that a good percentage of the NRA membership would have freaked. I don't know that I'd care much if I was under the impression that the NRA was actually trying to support our gun rights. From what I've seen though -- they're not.

From my recollection (and call me on it if my memory is failing):
The NRA supported the NFA, didn't they?
What about GCA '68?
How about what happened in '86 re: manufacture and licensing of new automatic weapons?
Did the NRA end up supporting or opposing the Brady Bill after all the backroom deals were made?
Does the NRA seem more likely to give high rankings to those most likely to "fight the good fight," or to those who have a bad voting record but are most likely to win?
If you're a local activist working on CCW reform in your own area, are you relieved or disturbed when you hear an NRA rep is stepping into the fray?


Now we've got a situation where the NRA's been tagged as that radical, unrealistic, far-right, no-compromise gun rights organization. We're in a spot where we lose leverage in arguments if the NRA steps up in support of the next step in gun control -- "the NRA supports this for God's sake -- if they can get behind it..."

The criticism over the musket was on-target. The musket is as relevent in today's debate over the 2nd amendment as a quill pen is to a first-amendment discussion. If the NRA won't try to make that point, and people continue to give so much money to the NRA that they're the leading gun-rights group out there, then we're lost.

I'm sorry if the arguments make some people uncomfortable. If we never make them uncomfortable, we never challenge the current anti-gun climate. If we never challenge it, we're lost.

Just as an aside...If avoiding "radical" statements like suggesting than an AR-15 is the closest thing to to the muskets our forefathers fought with a couple of centuries back was a good strategic move, when, exactly, will it be good strategy to start arguing these points? Or is a strategy of appeasement in the hope of delaying the anti's as long as possible the best we can hope for?

Will my grandkids be able to arm themselves with current defensive technology?

Derek Zeanah
January 2, 2003, 03:52 AM
And not everybody is smart enough to play chess. I'm guessing this was directed at me. I've beat West Point grads on long field problems. Care to fire up a game? :neener:

Jim March
January 2, 2003, 08:21 AM
Derek, let's start with your first questions:

>> The NRA supported the NFA, didn't they? <<

They were neutral.

They did take an active stance about CCW and handgun ownership around that time period (1920 - 1935ish). What happened was, a bunch of states started to copy NYC's handgun ownership permit system. The concept spread all over the South and hit as far as Oregon. This was thought to be too much of a pain and the previously non-political NRA pushed carry permits (with no gun ownership permits) as an alternative.

The NRA started out as a marksmanship program, and got involved in shooting sports organization, range safety certification, instructor training and the like. They dabbled a bit in politics during the brief period of grabberism which hit between 1911 (NYC Sullivan Law) and ended some time just before WW2.

After that, grabberism faded until the 60's and the NRA's involvement with gun politics faded with it.

>> What about GCA '68? <<

GCA 68 caught 'em off guard. They were dragged into the proposals "kicking and screaming", and did minor consulting on the bill. It's quite possible it would have been worse without NRA input but they could have done better.

My question to you: SO WHAT? Dammit, it's not "the organization" that matters, it's the people. And the people leading the NRA today are completely different than who was there in '68. The only possible reason you might bring this crap up is to unfairly slander the current leaders.

>> How about what happened in '86 re: manufacture and licensing of new automatic weapons? <<

We gained a whole bunch in that horsetrade session, but lost in NFA stuff. Was that a good thing? No, but overall we gained more than we lost. Just for starters, travel with a gun in your trunk became 100% guaranteed legal by Federal law. No longer could a Vermont resident be arrested for New York state-law felonies for traveling to Pennsylvania on a hunting trip.

The NRA decided that eliminating a large source of "accidental felon" gun owners was a priority and I have a hard time saying they're wrong, especially since existing Class3 owners were grandfathered and didn't get screwed.

>> Did the NRA end up supporting or opposing the Brady Bill after all the backroom deals were made?<<

Neutral. But at least they got a time-cap set on the Fed waiting period. The problem was, the Brady Bill was *going* to pass, all they could do was blunt the effects. It happens like that sometimes.

>> Does the NRA seem more likely to give high rankings to those most likely to "fight the good fight," or to those who have a bad voting record but are most likely to win? <<

The "wrongful ratings" was indeed a bad policy. It doesn't happen as often as it used to. It's what happens when you play "party politics".

First, you have to understand that the Dems are 95% grabber in most places, and the GOP about 40%. So it's easy to get a situation where the GOP has a majority in a state assembly or senate, or in one branch of congress at the Fed level, and yet the net vote in that legislative house is anti-gun. BUT, if the GOP party leadership is pro-gun, not all is lost...by making sure the GOP has the lead regardless of whether the individual GOP legicritters are all pro-gun or not, you give the state or Fed GOP party leadership the ability to pick committee seats.

That allows them to "stack" a key committee such as "Public Safety" (where any gun bill has to turn up) with pro-gun GOPers and even pro-gun Dems. That committee then becomes a "kill zone" for the passage of gun control bills.

In other words, that sort of "party politics" is a desperate "defensive holding action play".

At the moment, the GOP leadership in California and at the Fed level is on our side. In NY state, it ain't.

Such "party politics" is incredibly dangerous because by making the NRA a "GOP auxilliary", it drives Dems away. It also dilutes the value of an NRA endorsement. So they don't do it as often...but individual middle-managers at Fairfax sometimes get tempted to play out of desperation.

>> If you're a local activist working on CCW reform in your own area, are you relieved or disturbed when you hear an NRA rep is stepping into the fray? <<

RELIEVED. I can't begin to describe how much help and information I've gotten from Cal-state NRA folks, including Ed Worley, Paul Payne and Chuck Michel. I don't do anything major without consulting them; I have never had them "slow me down" and at key times their help has been crucial.

Look, I know why you're probably asking that question: I would almost bet money you're a "Vermont Carry" advocate, right?

If so, you're aware that in state after state, Ohio being the latest, proposals for shall-issue CCW often face competition with "Vermont Carry" bills. In such cases, the state NRA affiliates know that "Vermont" ain't gonna fly, while the Vermont crowd calls shall-issue "unconstitutional licencing" and they get in a squabble. Happen all the friggin' time. :banghead:

Problem is, when there's political reform afoot and there are two possible reform options, the odds are neither one will pass. Put another way, if the NRA affiliates are pushing shall-issue, the best way to BLOCK that reform is to push for Vermont. In some cases, the "no compromise" folks think they're putting forward an alternative...in others, it's clear they KNOW they're tossing a monkey-wrench into the works. In at least one case, yes, the NRA threatened a "pro-gun" state legislator with an "F" rating if he/she (I think "she", can't recall for sure) sponsored a Vermont bill to compete with a shall-issue bill. They did that because they knew that the legislator knew that this would torpedo both proposals.

:scrutiny:

Do you know why Vermont still has Vermont Carry? They originally got it back in 1903 by court decision, but why do they still have it, given how flaming liberal the little dump is.

The reason they have it is because the state GOP and Dem leadership wants to keep state politics "completely local, within the state". They don't want outside agitators with big money financing big-money campaigns either way. If that happens, they fear that their teensy little state will be overwhelmed by outside interests. They're probably right. So they avoid certain hot-topic issues, especially gun control and abortion. Every Dem legicritter that tries to come up with grabber BS gets shut down by their OWN party.

If it wasn't for that, there'd be no "Vermont Carry". There's no way IN HELL it'll pass anywhere else.

:rolleyes:

Justin Moore
January 2, 2003, 08:45 AM
Jim,

What about Project "SAFE Neighborhoods"?

I find it mildly ironic that Vermont believes in local control (you know, the 10th Amendment ;) ) but the NRA doesn't seem to, ie Federal charges under "SAFE Neighborhoods"?

Derek, you naughty boy you ;)

BTW Jim, you should be commended for your hard work.

BigG
January 2, 2003, 08:45 AM
That view that "our guns are OK, yours are bad" is shared by a lot of scattergunners who take their five figure O/Us to the clay ranges of America. :cuss:

stellarpod
January 2, 2003, 10:21 AM
The image of Heston raising his "musket", in and of itself, doesn't concern me at all. It is the unfortunate statement regarding the legitimacy of the AK-47 that contextualizes the raised musket.

In short - If he had NOT made the AK statement, implying that some firearms are good - some are bad, then the entire "musket" issue would be relegated insignificant.

As I've stated in other threads, although I am a member, I don't embrace everything the NRA has done. The AK interview was not one of the NRA's or Heston's more stellar moments. :D (pun intended)

stellarpod

Derek Zeanah
January 2, 2003, 11:43 AM
My question to you: SO WHAT? Dammit, it's not "the organization" that matters, it's the people. And the people leading the NRA today are completely different than who was there in '68. The only possible reason you might bring this crap up is to unfairly slander the current leaders. We're probably not going to agree here, but I might as well try and explain my position one more time.

I'm somewhat absolutist when it comes to rights -- all rights, not just those that I happen to favor. I would like to see Vermont-style carry legal everywhere, but I'd settle for states having to respect my GA permit, just like they all have to accept my GA DL, or my CA marriage certificate. :D

Where you and I differ, I think, is on on the line we think the NRA should be taking. To me (and you're welcome to disagree here), after looking at what the founders had to say about an armed populace and the rights/responsibilities thereof, I don't think the 2nd Amendment had anything to do with "legitimate sporting purposes." It had to do with "legitimate military purpose." Now that's a difficult line to take in today's political environment, and I know it's hard to go on the Today show and argue that US Citizens should be able to buy Stingers and AT-4's at market prices, but it's the honest approach to the issue. And the NRA isn't taking it.

Imagine I'm holding a yardstick -- on the left is 0 indicating a pre-NFA approach to firearms and "destructive devices," and on the right is 100 indicating a complete ban on the private ownership of firearms, ammunition, pocket knives, etc. I'd say that right now we're at about 45 on the scale. I want to go all the way back to 0, and the way to do that (learned from the successes of the Gay Rights lobby, or anyone else in the last century that you want to look at) is to demand 0, and continue increasing the rhetoric until the index starts to move.

That's what HCI and and rest are doing.

What the NRA is doing is arguing that 40 is actually a better place to stay than 45, that we really don't need to go to higher numbers because doing so places unreasonable burdens on the sport shooting community, but that anyone who wants to go further to the left than 40 is dangerous.

That's not a winning strategy. I understand that it's palatable from a political perspective, and that it might be better than doing nothing whatsoever, but it's just a delaying tactic. We're going to lose the fight eventually if all we do is play a defensive game.

Now, that wouldn't be a problem if the NRA weren't see as the spokesman on 2nd Amendment issues. If the GOA, or JPFO, or whoever had a comparable voice we'd all be fine. As it is, any ligitimacy the GOA and others can build on a topic is torn to pieces whenever the NRA steps in and takes an appeasement stance.

The NRA says that it's good and proper to jail people for violations of the current gun laws -- things like owning a magazine your pistol was designed for but that was produced after a ban on manufacture, or buying a FAL from an FFL that has fewer than the required number of US Parts in it (like a normal person could disassemble it and check), or not being able to prove that the AR-15 upper and lower you own were actually mated together before a particular piece of legislation was passed. That's dangerous, and it does nothing to further the cause.

And it makes anyone that disagrees with the current status of the laws look like a radical.

Anyway, I think that's as close as I can get to explaining my position today. If the NRA just did training and such without lobbying, I'd be a life member. As it is, I dropped my membership in 1998 after watching the way the organization acted, and haven't renewed it yet.

QuickDraw
January 4, 2003, 09:04 PM
Derek,
Some good points!
The anti's and other groups scream"zero tolerance"while the
gun lobby screams"well,o.k. we'll accept that".

It would probably cost(more?)membership,but I think its time
for the NRA to go on the offensive.Unfotunately,thats not
how politics is played.

Jim,
Good work!

THR is a good place to banty ideas,strategies around!:cool:

QuickDraw

If you enjoyed reading about "From My Cold, Dead Hands........................." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!