Second Amendment Foundation


PDA

DMK
April 5, 2003, 09:26 PM
www.saf.org

Are these folks doing us any good?

If you enjoyed reading about "Second Amendment Foundation" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SquirrelNuts
April 5, 2003, 09:40 PM
I don't know for sure, but from what I understand about them, they are pretty hard core. They think the NRA is too weak, to put it politely.

-SquirrelNuts

bfason
April 5, 2003, 09:49 PM
The Second Amendment Foundation is an important resource for conducting second amendment research, but I must qualify my endorsement. They matintain a section titled "Quotes of the Founding Fathers & Their Contemporaries." http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm

Many of these quotes are well-known and insightfull, but use great care with them, particularly when the quote contains ellipses. Many of the quotes are ripped completely out of context. In some cases the original statement means something fundamentally different than what SAF would have you believe. I recommend that you locate the original complete statement and study the context in which it was made before you cite it as authority. SAF should be used as a starting point, not as a the be-all and end-all of gun debate.

JerryN
April 6, 2003, 01:47 AM
Umm, I'm not sure where bfason gets his/her information, but the Second Amendment Foundation is one of the cornerstone groups protecting our 2nd amendment rights.

The 2nd Amendment Foundation specializes in legal battles. If you get busted in a commie state for posession of a self defense firearm, they are the people to talk to.

SAF is a grassroots, balls to the wall group. Dont listen to the bull****.

Maybe BFason is one of us, but that post should put every tried and true gun owner in this country on edge.

SAF is good people. Check em out and decide for yourself. Methinks we're infiltrated here....

Are the extreme? No. They toe the legal line. Thats their specialty. Anti-gunners fear them. I would highly recommend checking them out and making your own decision regardless of bfason's bias.

Please let me know what you think after you call them and talk to them.

bfason
April 6, 2003, 03:08 AM
Read for yourself.

Here is a quote as it appears on the SAF website. "Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense …" John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA.

Here is the full quote.
"It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States, pp.474-475.

JerryN
April 6, 2003, 03:14 AM
Wait a minute... bfason. Are you trying to denigrate the SAF?

Please just answer that one question.

Are you a pro-2nd amendment believer and yet you are cutting down the SAF?

IF you are , then you are a plant. You are a mole. The SAF is the special forces of the pro-Second Amendment world.

Please explain yourself. And if you are anti SAF, then please put on your kevlar if you wish to debate on this web site for much longer.

bfason
April 6, 2003, 03:34 AM
Wait a minute... bfason. Are you trying to denigrate the SAF?

You argue as if my motivation had anything to do with the facts.

The fact is that SAF edited John Adams' statement. Do you think that SAF's quote of Adams was faithful to its original meaning? I do not, and neither do the people over at guncite.com. See an explanation of how this manged Adamas quote got into circulation. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Methinks we're infiltrated here....

Utterly absurd.

...and making your own decision regardless of bfason's bias.

My "bias" is in favor accuracy. There are lots of well-meaning people out there who mangle quotes by the Founders or, even worse, republish bogus gun quotes falsely attributed to the Founders. For example, there is no evidence that Washington ever referred to guns as "liberty's teeth." Likewise there is no evidence that Hitler ever said that 1935 "will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration!" Yet if you walk around any gun show, you will see t-shirts sporting these such bogus quotes. Search the internet and you will find a plethora of 2nd Amendment websites spouting pure unchecked nonsense. We've all seen this stuff.

JerryN
April 6, 2003, 03:55 AM
Scuse me, but you are ripping on the Second Amendment legal special forces because you disagree with their quotations of Thomas Jefferson? Huh?

These folks are in the trenches fighting for us, PRO BONO. They charge nothing yet they squash the anti-gun forces in court with great regularity. SAF is THE legal front line in individual RKBA.

I urge all of you to check them out. The SAF is truley a worthy group. You may have to correct their sense of history now and then, but if you get sued by some moron anti-gun numbskull, the SAF could well be your lifeline.

bfason
April 6, 2003, 12:59 PM
Scuse me, but you are ripping on the Second Amendment legal special forces because you disagree with their quotations of Thomas Jefferson? Huh?

I mentioned John Adams, not Thomas Jefferson, but now that you mention it, they have also taken TJ's words out of context.

Do you notice that you have not answered my question? Do you think that SAF's quote of Adams was faithful to the original text? It's not a trick question.

Regardless of their worthy mission or effectiveness, no individual or group is beyond constructive criticism. Denouncing a critic as an enemy and imputing evil motives to him are characteristics of totalitarian ideology.

I stand by my observation. SAF rips statements of the Founders out of context. Look at the original text.

justice4all
April 6, 2003, 01:39 PM
SAF was/is instrumental in the court battle to overturn Ohio's law against CCW. They do lots of good work.

Having said that, they are not beyond constructive criticism, nor should we all have to be monolithic automatons or risk being accused of treason on this board.

Bootom line, IMO SAF deserves our support.

MitchSchaft
April 6, 2003, 04:40 PM
BFmason, maybe you should reread the original quote by Adams again. SAF's "butchery" is spot on. :scrutiny:
Adam's is saying that if you think firearms shouldn't be used at an individual citizen's discretion or for self-defense then you're spitting on the Constitution and state constitutions. You can't see that in there?

bfason
April 6, 2003, 06:46 PM
Adam's is saying that if you think firearms shouldn't be used at an individual citizen's discretion or for self-defense then you're spitting on the Constitution and state constitutions.

Mitch,

With all due respect, that's not at all what Adams said. Adams is not praising but rather *decrying* the use of arms by private citizens "at individual discretion," while qualifying his statement with certain exceptions. Let's examine the original uncut sentence again.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

The style and puntucation are peculiar to late 18th Century English, so that might confuse modern readers. In today's English, a faithful rendition would be something like the sentence below.

The use of arms by private citizens at their own discretion means demolishing the constitution and dissolving the government. There are, however, two exceptions to this statement: self-defense, and by order of political authorities.

For example, allowing someone to, say, point a weapon at one's neighbor in order to resolve a dispute over the property line essentially means ditching the rule of law. However, Adams does carve out two exceptions. The first is self-defense. If someone kicks down your door some night and tries to rob you, you may use your firearm to protect you and yours. The second exception is pursuant to a "partial order" of a town, country, or district of a state. I am not a scholar, but this says to me that if the sheriff needs to gather up a posse to, say, help him execute legal process, and he deputizes you and orders you to bring your weapon in order to back him, then you may lawfully use your weapon without it resulting in the demolition of the constitution or the dissolution of the government.

Notice the final sentence. "The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." This is the very opposite of using arms "at individual discretion."

Let's take a look at what a pro-2nd Amendment scholar writes. Halbrook writes that "the aristocratic Adams recognized the individual right to use arms for personal protection but looked askance at the kind of armed protest exemplified in Shays' Rebellion: 'To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defence, or by partial orders of towns ... is a dissolution of the government.' "

See Stephen P. Halbrook, "The Right of the People of the Power of the State: Bearing Arms Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso U. Law Review, 26 Val. U. L. Rev. 131-207 (1991). Up on the web at http://www.guncite.com/journals/val-hal.html

SAF's quote rips it out of context and makes it appear that John Adams was somehow praising the use of arms "at individual discretion." This is simply intellectually dishonest, and is the kind of trick that got Bellesiles in trouble. Whatever else SAF does, they really should know better.

I stand by my original statement. SAF should be used as a starting point, not as the font of 2nd Amendment scripture.

Regards,

Bill

Telperion
April 6, 2003, 07:23 PM
Is academic integrity too much to ask for in the 2A debate? Falsifying evidence cost Bellesiles his job, and may end up tarnishing John Lott. Gun control fails on its own lack of merit, and we don't need to help out the other side by allowing them to question our evidence. bfason calls the SAF on their evident misquotation, offers corroborating evidence, and already we have a pair of people jumping on him. A plant of the antis? Utterly absurd is right. High road, people.

DMK
April 6, 2003, 07:29 PM
I stand by my original statement. SAF should be used as a starting point, not as the font of 2nd Amendment scripture. bfason & pipsqueak, I tend to agree with you that we should be honest and let the merits of the 2nd amendment stand for themselves. We need not lower ourselves to the level of the gungrabbers and lie or decieve. Somewhere it has been rightly suggested that we are to take the "High Road" where honesty and integrity prevail ;)

However, while we probably should take this up with the webmasters of www.saf.org, it has nothing to do with the original question.

I was wondering whether the SAF is a worthwhile organization in which to support, not quote from.

Thank you all who replied, you have answered my question.

dongun
April 6, 2003, 08:09 PM
bfason,

I'm with you. I hold the 2nd Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) with as high a regard as anybody, however I hold integrity in higher regard.

MitchSchaft
April 6, 2003, 08:53 PM
so that might confuse modern readers

Yes, it does!:o

JerryN
April 6, 2003, 09:14 PM
I truly fail to see why bfason is attempting to rip SAF a new one because he disagrees with their quotation of an historical figure.

SAF does fundamental, groundbreaking, cutting edge work to defend our right to keep our firearms.

To denounce the entire organization based on a petty disagreement is ludicrous. Which is why, of course, I question the motivations of this devisive poster. I suggest that interested parties do a search on bfason's work here at The High Road. Its quite interesting to say the least.

Nonetheless, Mr. Bill, I suggest you take up your disagreement on historical accuracy with Mr. Gottleib of the SAF instead of attempting to dillute their support from the ranks of gun owners.

SAF is the Delta Force of the RKBA. Semantic squabbles have no place in analyzing their effectiveness.

Do you disagree with that? And if so, please explain how and why you can denigrate their work based on such puffery. Most of us are judged by our works, not our words. In your case though, I'll make an exception.

JerryN
April 6, 2003, 09:20 PM
Pipsqueak, old son, the calling into question is entirely based on bfason's failure to account for SAF's true mission, which is legal warfare to protect your right to own and bear a firearm.

If SAF has a misquote on their website, its a question of typographic error, not organizational ineptitude. I'm surprized that a bunch of lawyers even know how to have a web site. Thats not was SAF does. They fight in courtrooms. Thats what they do for a living.

When someone discounts such a phenominal organization because of some pseudo-intellectual difference of opinion, I question motivations, as should you. This is just plain common sense and shouldn't even need an explaination.

Hypnogator
April 6, 2003, 09:28 PM
I am not familiar with the SAF, but from the previous posts, it sounds like they do a lot of good. BUT, I agree that they're not above criticism. After all, John LOTT has done us a tremendous amount of good, but he has tarnished his reputation and provided ammunition to the anti's by his invention of a female student/defender.

To suggest that someone is an anti mole because he criticizes questionable aspects of your favorite organization smacks of a totalitarian thought process that is short-sighted and just plain scary.

JerryN
April 6, 2003, 09:42 PM
No, hypno. Wrong analysis.

I question bfason's motivations based on a search of his posts here as well as his willingness to block support of SAF based on something that has virtually nothing to do with what they do.

If SAF has a misquote on their website, then call Mr. Gottleib on the phone and point it out to him. Its that low on the totem pole. Its a non-issue.

SAF is not about web sites. SAF is about huge, expensive, balls to the wall court room battles.

My point is that Billy is willing to publicly attempt to castigate SAF for a typographic error. I question such action. And by golly, its FREEDOM that lets me question such instead of submitting to blind denouncement.

How many nay-sayers have actually gone to the SAF website to confirm bfason's accusations against one of the RKBA's finest defenders? How many? How many?

Question all you want. I question stuff all the time. Rant against SAF's horrid sense of history if you want, but nobody here can deny that they are some of our best, and most effective, defenders. Billy sure can't.

bfason
April 6, 2003, 10:07 PM
I question bfason's motivations based on a search of his posts here as well as his willingness to block support of SAF ...

"Willingness to block support"? How? Did I issue some kind of demand that people withhold their donations?

To denounce the entire organization based on a petty disagreement is ludicrous.

I never "denounced the entire organization" nor have I "attempted to rip SAF a new one."

bfason's failure to account for SAF's true mission...

I have not discussed SAF's mission - true, false or otherwise. I merely looked at some of their quotes, compared them to the originals, and found discrepancies. It's not rocket science.

Clearly I have hit a nerve as your language is really over the top. How is it that criticism is somehow "divisive"? Are pro-2nd Amendment organization somehow exempt from criticism? Shouldn't we apply the same standards to our side as we do to the Michael Moores and Michael Bellesiles of the world? Check the claims and let the chips fall where they may.

Bill

gun-fucious
April 6, 2003, 10:18 PM
When the MD TRT protested the Brady orgs aniversary gala in honour of Jim & Sarah, Alan Gottleib was the only one to send us rally signs

The yearly FREE gun rights conferences that the SAF run are a wonderful asset

every attendee walks out with a big bag of FREE 2nd amendment books.

http://www.ccrkba.org/

jsalcedo
April 6, 2003, 10:23 PM
I have to side with Bfason here.

Just because a group supports the second doesn't make them beyond reproach.

If they have mislading and inaccurate quotes on their website
it needs to be fixed.

A lie is a lie and I have had enough of it from the antis, I don't want it from the pros.

I actually used a couple of the SAF twisted quotes and got blasted for it by folks who knew the real ones.

Made me look stupid and made my pro-second amendment argument look irrelevant.

JerryN you seem Mcarthyish on this issue.
You are attacking the man and not the argument.

You need to get it in perspective. if you care about the SAF petition them to fix their misleading quotes.

I'll be joining as soon as they do.

JerryN
April 7, 2003, 10:15 AM
JerryN you seem Mcarthyish on this issue.

Well, perhaps I was just a little blunt edged about it.

However, let me attempt to reiterate my stance in a more reasonable fashion...

The question arose (paraphrased, of course):

"Is SAF doing anything of note in the RKBA arena?"

And the apparent answer was forthcoming (again paraphrased):

"No. They misquoted John Adams on their website and I disagree with it".

My point, which has gotten lost in the fog of typed media, is that saying such is akin to saying something along the lines of "The Highroad.org is no good because they have a typo on their login screen".

Thats all.

And I'll get off my soapbox and back onto the highroad... William, I apologize. You're not a mole, though you are perhaps a bit maniacal about your personal interpretation of quotations.

Betty
April 7, 2003, 10:33 AM
And I'll get off my soapbox and back onto the highroad...

Thank you.

bfason
April 7, 2003, 10:33 AM
My exact words: "The Second Amendment Foundation is an important resource for conducting second amendment research, but I must qualify my endorsement."

Maniacal? :confused:

Look, we're all on the same side here, so apologies accepted, Jerry.



--------------
Onward through the fog......

boyd425
April 7, 2003, 03:47 PM
It's been said here that "a lie is a lie..." .
The difference between an error and a lie is intent. So why attribute this to dishonesty? There is no "be all and end all" organization for RKBA nor should there be. No person or group of people is perfect and most of them are open to suggestions (certainly SAF is).
Don't worry about "petition"ing SAF to fix a quote. EMAIL them. Every page at www.saf.org (a -huge- site) has a webmaster mailto on it. Go there and click or email www@saf.org. It's simple, it's easy and it's pretty much standard on the World Wide Web.
There have been differing opinions here about the intent of the original quote. I'll take that as evidence of how easy a mistake would be to make here. Just my .02 boyd425

Liberty
April 7, 2003, 05:14 PM
The SAF's website is gargantuan. The sheet volume of information, including entire scholarly journals, can be overwhelming. That someone was able to find a single -- arguably -- misinterpreted quote is more of a testament to their overall accuracy than anything else.

I would encourage anyone who is following this discussion to visit the SAF's main quote page. It is pretty extensive. Most of the quotes are given in their entirety, with some of them being shortened with a clearly indicated ... The quotes themselves are broken down into different categories, for pro-RKBA, anti-RKBA, bogus quotes, etc... SAF even gives tips on where to find original documents with the quotes in them, and how to search for them so that their quotes are verifiable. To me, this shows a clear intent to get things right, and to be useful. It is far from a propaganda page, and clearly gives quotes from all sides of the issue. As anyone who has conducted scholarly research knows, it is always a good idea to independently verify any information, using primary sources. SAF actually gives tips on many of their quotes on where to go about finding these primary sources.

To pick one thing out of such a huge site -- from a legal foundation specializing in lawsuits -- and say that it calls the organization's integrity into doubt is a pretty dodgy premise. Has anyone who has found fault with any of these quotes contacted the SAF and let them know? Just given the extent of the website, I am not in the least surprised that someone was able to find a single, again arguable, mistake.

Finally, speaking of integrity -- which was mentioned in an earlier post -- I would encourage anyone who is interested to visit the entire page. Like I said earlier, it is huge, whith a ton of useful information. As a gun rights community, we should be working together, and letting groups know if they make a mistake. I would imagine that as a foundation specializing in lawsuits that the constant review and maintenance of their website is not their highest priority. Actually, I bet their members would be upset if they traded in their lawyers for techies. We need to help them,and groups like them, rather than just picking them apart.

We already are losing many of our rights. We cannot afford the luxury of sitting back and criticising those that are working for us over petty things like a single quote in a a website of literally thousands of pages. Rather, as an RKBA community, we should be actively helping out, and offering constructive suggestions.

JerryN
April 7, 2003, 05:20 PM
Damn, Liberty. I wish I'd said that!

Mastrogiacomo
April 7, 2003, 05:41 PM
I sent them an e-mail last night and heard from a representative this afternoon, it may be the gentleman here named "Liberty." I applaud any efforts to defend our gun rights and as a resident of Massachusetts, I'm not convinced the NRA is doing it -- for me at least. I don't feel their influence here in my state so maybe they have more pull down South? I'd put my money behind the SAF; I'm also actively trying to change my MBNA college card to the Second Amendment Foundation. :cool:

boyd425
April 7, 2003, 06:08 PM
There are a lot of ogranizations doing different types of work for our RKBA. The NRA does a lot of lobbying (and training) and it does not do all of that in a manner that pleases everyone. GOA is truly a "balls to the wall" (as others have said) scrapper for RKBA but they do not do all of their work in a manner that pleases everyone. And SAF, being an educational foundation doesn't do everything and doesn't do everything that it does do in a way that will please everyone.
It's a little like saying the sky is blue.
IMNSDHO there are no "bad" RKBA organizations. A lot of them do things I don't like some times. Some of them even do that enough that I stop reading their junk mail ; ) but -none- of them are as bad as the Brady Campaign. I see a tremendous number of folks in our movement who don't seem to keep perspective on this. People will go on about some percieved error or even perfidy on (picking a name at random) Wayne LaPierres part and totally lose sight of the fact that we have opponents who are avowed enemy of our right to keep and bear arms. Some people don't like LaPierres PR firm (and maybe that could be a topic for constructive criticism) but it ain't like the drum beating Pols at Chuckie Schumers office or the anti gun zealots at Legal Community Against Violence.
Pro RKBA orgs can work for us just like the cereal aisle at your local grocers works for General Mills. You don't have one cereal there. It isn't just rice puffs. It's an aisle of different flavors, different marketing machines, different takes on how to "sell" the idea of... freedom. We don't need just JPFO or just SAF we need all of them. We each need to support as many as we can and help them with constructive (-constructive-) criticism too. All IMO.

Peetmoss
April 7, 2003, 06:25 PM
I just joined the SAF today. There website was giving me an error when I tried to join so I called and gave them the money over the phone.

I figured I may be needing some assistance from them so time to buck up.

Mastrogiacomo
April 7, 2003, 06:57 PM
I plan to join once I get working. Right now, no job, no money. Hope it changes soon and when it does -- I intend to show my support. There's not enough defenders of the second amendment right in my opinion.;)

Liberty
April 8, 2003, 03:16 PM
Bfason is correct in that the reading of the quote in its original structure can lead to confusion in modern day readers. With grammatical styles being significantly different today than they were in the 1700's, often quotes can be misinterpreted, or just plain not understood. This appears to be one of those circumstances. On my first reading of Adam's entire quote, I was a little confused. On subsequent readings of the quote, I got the impression, much like Bfason, that John Adams was decrying the use of guns at individual discretion. Then, reviewing it more, and taking out unecessary portions of the quote for our purpose, I think that the shortened quote is being intellectually honest.

I looked over the web to try to locate a primary source, and save myself a trip to the library. About 90% of the quotations I ran across were in the same form as the SAF quote. I think this is mainly because the intitial quote is pretty convoluted, and does not lend itself to a quick reading. As a result, as is common practice, people have shortened it down -- while maintaining its meaning -- into an easily understandable quote.

The entire quote states that the use of arms, at individual discretion, except for in private self-defense, would destroy the constitution. Furthermore, the Militia should be created by laws, governed by laws, etc... In other words, we don't want paramilitary groups running around who answer to no laws. John Adams would have disapproved of the Fedayeen, is my reading of this.

So, one way to read that is that guns are bad, except when used for private self defense, or in a militia. Or, that guns are good for self defense, and legal militia's, but should not be used willy-nilly by anyone who has a problem with their neighbor.

There are only so many uses for guns. Self defense is one, hunting is another, citizen militia's are another, and crime is a pretty common one. Adams addresses the use of guns, then puts in the caveat that a legal militia was okay, and that self defense was okay. I doubt Mr. Adams was anti-hunting, thus leaving the only potential gun use -- for criminal activities -- that Adams did not specifically address, appears to be the one he was decrying.

Finally, the way the quote was originally given would be like me saying "you must not play computer games between 5:00 am and 4:00 pm." A reasonable interpretation of that quote would be that I could play computer games between 4:01 pm and 4:59 am. The common use of that Adams quote is similarly reasoned. He says that guns can be used for self defense and legal militia's, but not for other individual discretionary reasons. Or, as the quote says, "...arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, EXCEPT IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENSE (emphasis added)...is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man..." Or, as the common interpretation say, Adams thought that guns can be used in self-defense.

I do agree with Bfason when he writes that SAF should not be the end-all be-all for Second Amendment debates. Indeed, no one organization can be. And, this is not meant as an attack on anyone's reasoning. I am curious if anyone's interpretation of this quote, and it's common shortening, is the same as mine. Please let me know.

MitchSchaft
April 8, 2003, 03:28 PM
but not for other individual discretionary reasons

I read that as people have to obey the law and not go around using their guns whatever way they fealt(criminal uses). I still stand by SAF's way of quoting it. That's the simplest way of reading it, imo.

Tag
April 8, 2003, 05:22 PM
Why does my browser shut down whenever I try to go to SAF.ORG???

what am I missing here guys... computer major and I have no clue :banghead:

nvrquit
April 8, 2003, 06:50 PM
Tag,

Have you been hacked?

Just went to the SAF.ORG site, no problem using IE 6.0.2800.1106, Opera 6.04 and Netscape Navigator(forgot which release).

JerryN
April 8, 2003, 10:39 PM
hy does my browser shut down whenever I try to go to SAF.ORG???

This is frequently a symptom of accessing a current site with older browsers. What browser and what version of that browser are you using? I can readily access www.saf.org with my Netscape 7.01 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (NSCD7.01) ) every time I connect.

If you have a newer browser and still cannot connect you might check for invasion as has been mentioned or even a mismatched (older) version of the java runtime system. I highly recommend Netscape's java over Microsoft's java as the latter is fundamentally non-standard.

Idaho
April 9, 2003, 01:07 AM
I have a friend from law school that used to work for SAF. I think they are a good group, worth supporting.

That said, I think that ANY quote, especially those found on the web, should be looked in to. They are OFTEN taken out of context, or at least presented in a manner that skews the original "flavor." Quotes by themselves, as an aside, aren't worth diddly squat. I can find a quote from a reputable, respected source to support just about any argument I want. What matters is the logic and foundation of the argument, not what some dead white guy (or living ethnic minority woman, or someone in between) said about it in a sound-bite.

Jerry, deep breaths - you need to watch the blood pressure.

Oh, and as to SAF being a "starting point" and not the "be all, end all" - I don't know of any pro-second amendment group that fits that bill. That's why I support the NRA, GOA, SAF, and JPFO (you want a "balls-out" pro gun group, look into Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, www.jpfo.org - it's not just for Jews.)

Dr. J
April 9, 2003, 02:02 AM
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv, but I do agree with your interpretation. And you are right, the original is confusing to the modern reader; only if you are willing to really puzzle over it can you decide what Adams is really saying.

I have been an SAF member for a number of years, but I also believe that no one organization can do it all.

Mastrogiacomo
April 9, 2003, 03:07 PM
Gotta say, checked out the Jewish site for the preservation of firearm rights -- what a page... They've got a poster, available in a shirt, and bumper sticker that is their best selling item which asks: All those in favor of gun control raise your right hand. The picuture is Adolph Hitler saluting to the crowds. I was shocked!:what: Interesting site though, I'm not Jewish but will definately check them out more. Thanks to Idaho for the link.:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Second Amendment Foundation" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!