Letter/E-Mail Campaign To The NRA


PDA






ConstitutionCowboy
October 7, 2007, 09:59 PM
Regardless of the supposed good HR 2640 will accomplish, it supports the NICS which is unconstitutional to begin with. I oppose this bill. I'm appalled that the NRA has come out in support of this bill and I wish to do something about it.

Since the NRA is the most effective voice we have right now, rather than pulling my membership and support from the NRA, I seek to find out who in the NRA is responsible for this decision, vote them out of power, and replace them with NRA members who will stand up for our rights and pressure Congress and the Court to abide the Constitution.

I have enclosed a copy of the email I sent to the NRA, seeking a list of those who are responsible for that decision. I encourage all who wish the NRA to be more attuned to our rights to do the same. If enough of us make such a demand, the powers that be at the NRA just might cough up that list. Remember folks, it's OUR NRA. WE pay for the activities of the NRA with our membership dues, contributions, and purchases.

Dear NRA,

HR 2640, regardless of all the supposed good it will do, is still part of unconstitutional law. Supporting this bill is no better than passing any other unconstitutional law. All this bill does is increase the dependence upon unconstitutional law to supposedly prevent criminal activity instead of forcing law enforcement and the judicial system to keep violent criminals and the mentally incompetent or untrustworthy off the streets. Preventing crime is nearly impossible. Being armed to address crime as it happens is the best way to handle crime. This is one case where the ounce of prevention is worthless compared to the pound of cure that is needed to save lives and preserve property when criminals are determined to ply their trade.


It isn't up to us here in the NRA to provide for, or support, solutions to the judicial system that enables them to shirk their responsibilities to keep those adjudicated untrustworthy either institutionalized or imprisoned; or to execute those adjudicated as irredeemable and dangerous. The only thing NICS does is "allow" the court to release dangerous criminals from prison by forcing everyone to pass a background check before they can buy or carry an arm in the hopes that the NICS will keep arms out of the hands of the violent criminals. We all know how well that works, don't we!


I seriously considered no longer supporting the NRA when it comes out in favor of such misguided endeavors as the NICS. But then I remember it's MY National Rifle Association. I would rather address the internal solution - that being the firing of all those who voted in what ever committee or executive session that made the decision to support this bill.


Please forward to me the names and positions held of all employees of the National Rifle Association who had a hand in the decision to support HR 2640. If you include the names and positions of all members of any such committee or executive board, please include how they cast their votes so that I may be able to single out those who voted in support of this bill. It is my wish to mount a campaign to vote these people out of their positions, and to campaign for NRA members who will support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms AS PROTECTED by the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Bruce Wood

CC: TheHighRoad, USA Carry

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

If you enjoyed reading about "Letter/E-Mail Campaign To The NRA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
October 7, 2007, 10:13 PM
Posting one more thread on this crap should be a banning offense. :)

There are currently at least a dozen threads on this mess, and many more already locked.

There is no reason to start a new thread on this every day.

I refer to the stated purpose of this subforum:

A place to coordinate focused efforts for RKBA. Discussions about whether a given course of action is appropriate or not do not belong here

The peeing contest between GOA and NRA should not be here, nor should calls for infighting between the organizations.
We got enough problems already.

JLStorm
October 7, 2007, 11:18 PM
oh god, not again...I was looking for that dead horse...it appears he keeps making his way around the forum.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 7, 2007, 11:18 PM
I have proposed a focused effort in support of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. If you wish to discuss whether this course is appropriate, take it to the appropriate forum.

Woody

Robert Hairless
October 8, 2007, 04:09 AM
The only thing NICS does is "allow" the court to release dangerous criminals from prison by forcing everyone to pass a background check before they can buy or carry an arm in the hopes that the NICS will keep arms out of the hands of the violent criminals.

Can you explain how NICS allows a court to release dangerous criminals from prison? I've never heard that before.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 8, 2007, 10:02 AM
Can you explain how NICS allows a court to release dangerous criminals from prison? I've never heard that before.

It's the whole illogic that says if we keep arms out of the hands of violent criminals, they can do no more harm. Problem is, it doesn't work. Prison, institutions, executions, and guardianship is the answer.

The innocuously sounding name of the unconstitutional background check everyone must pass is an attempt to avoid the scrutiny of the Second Amendment. The NRA is supporting a measure that will further entrench the NICS, therefore, it is my desire to start a mail/e-mail/call-in/what-ever-you-can-do campaign to find out who in the NRA is fostering this support so that I and like-minded individuals may vote these people out of their positions of authority in the NRA.

This is an activism forum, is it not? If you wish to actively support those in the NRA who support this further entrenchment of the NICS, then by all means, start your own thread!

If you are in a position in the NRA and had a hand in fostering the support for HR 2640, then by all means, fess up and explain your actions in the proper forum.

Woody

God gave us guns for a reason. It wasn't so we could lament the lack of them when we need them. B.E. Wood

Robert Hairless
October 8, 2007, 12:16 PM
Thank you for explaining your statement, Bruce. It puzzled me.

Needlenose
October 8, 2007, 03:08 PM
Bill HR2640 recently pass the house and it's up to the Senate now.Rember,anything from the desk of Carolyn McCarthy has got to be
anti-gun. Her bill HR2640 is no exception. For the NRA too support this bill is shameful. If your a veteran and have nightmares, or ask for counsling you might be denied your second amendment rights(your a nut case). Have a bad fight with your wife and she goes to the police (maybe out of revenge), no more firearms,domestic violence. Can't control your temper ? The questions is who decides ? A very liberal judge. Are there any criterias ? Who sets the rules? In a few year any and all persons with a weapon could have to pass a strict psyological test. After all we are not taking away your second amendment rights, your just not stable enough to own a gun or even go hunting. Like so many bills,the interpertation by our liberal judges can have tremendous ramification to us all. Are you ready to leave your gun ownershp rights up to some liberal judge ? We all want guns out of the hands of unstable persons, but first lets set the critera. Rushing to pass a law usually results in a bad law.

GRB
October 8, 2007, 03:21 PM
Extremism like that of carolyn McCarthy is deplorable, but then so too is the extremism that says a person adjudicated as a psychotic or as a viiolent felon should be allowed to keep and bear arms. We must be responsible in order to be able to exercise our liberties to enjoy our rights. If we are not responsible we should have no such liberties.

Extremism on either end of the gun spectrum is abhorrent just as it is on the moral spectrum. Coincidentally I wrote a piece about the moral side of it today, it can be seen at: We Need To Find A Balance Between... (http://ballseyesboomers.blogspot.com/2007/10/we-need-to-find-balance-between.html). I think we probably need to find a sensible balance on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms, and our liberty to exercise that right. Think of it this way, if they let Charles Manson out of prison tomorrow, saying he is rehabilitated, and he moves into the house next to yours, would you want him to be able to keep and bear arms. I don't need an answer to that - especially not a balderdash answer. Let's face it the real answer is no you do not, that is unless you too a re a psycho. Heck you would not even want him living next to you. Yes we need a reasonable approach to this, and I think the NRA is taking it, though I agree they must be extremely leery of anything that Carolyn McCarthy promotes.

As for anyone saying something like this:

Posting one more thread on this crap should be a banning offense.

And then saying this:

The peeing contest between GOA and NRA should not be here, nor should calls for infighting between the organizations.
We got enough problems already.

Where was that brought up except by the person who said it? Stop trying to fan flames that are not even here to fan. This started as a respectable thread, and was that way until you posted your own response.

All the best,
Glenn B

Robert Hairless
October 8, 2007, 03:25 PM
If you wish to discuss whether this course is appropriate, take it to the appropriate forum.

Needlenose and Glenn Bartley, the original poster has asked that nobody use this thread to discuss whether the course he advocates is appropriate. He said so more than once.

I asked that he clarify one statement he made. He did so and I thanked him without discussing whether his course is appropriate.

We should honor Bruce Wood's wishes and not discuss the appropriateness of his course either way. If all he wanted was discussion that approved his actions but didn't want any criticism of it, I think he would have said so.

strat81
October 8, 2007, 03:29 PM
http://blogs.amnestyusa.org/pub/amnestyusa/death-penalty/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

GRB
October 8, 2007, 04:31 PM
Robert,

The original thread starter is in fact discussing whether or not this is appropriate right here in this forum. By the way, I wa sonly furthering his sentiment just as are you by trying to get people to stop lambasting his point. Why you would have a problem with that is beyond me, whjen you questioned his point before I even read this. Amazing, but this is it for me. I support the NRA, I will continue to do so.

Best regards,
Glenn B

TexasRifleman
October 8, 2007, 04:56 PM
So since this is still going I will weigh in here.

My post as far as this being a "banning offense" was of course tongue in cheek but my point was not.

This forum's purpose is "A place to coordinate focused efforts for RKBA".

This particular topic is currently in about 20 different threads here and there on THR. Some are locked, some are open, all are heated and some downright angry.

There is NOTHING co-ordinated or unified about people's position on this and I believe it premature or arrogant to begin to post in the Activism section about the "next steps" when we are not even close to agreeing on what that should be.

Should I also post a thread here about a letter writing campaign to GOA to shut the heck up about this thing? Well I'm not sure I agree with either organization yet, and I'm reading all the much more educated opinions to try to decipher this mess.

What I DO know is that lots of people give weight to THR in their decisions on how to run with things and a posting in Activism about this, though not intended, appears an endorsement by THR members in general on "how we should proceed next".

I just think the debate is way to heated to start posting in the Activism forum yet, but I'm a spectator so I'll just sit back and watch for now.

Apologies for being out of line if I am, I'm still not sure :)

Robert Hairless
October 8, 2007, 05:34 PM
I'm getting even more confused than ever, Glenn, but I certainly didn't intend to provoke you and I'm sorry if I did.

The Cowboy's first message in this thread didn't seem to me to be discussing whether or not this thread is appropriate right here in this forum. I don't doubt that it is, but it's not my place to make such a decision. It looked to me as if the Cowboy's first message told what he did and why he did it, and urged others to follow his lead. So the Cowboy's first message was what I would call an "announcement," not a discussion and not a discussion seed. Reread that message and perhaps you can see why I read it that way?

In any event the Cowboy's subsequent messages were in response to people who tried to discuss his message and he asked them not to do it. My request was for clarification of his statement that NICS allowed the courts "to release dangerous criminals from prison" because I couldn't make any sense of his point at all. NICS doesn't have anything to do with releasing criminals. The Cowboy explained but even though I couldn't make much more sense of the explanation I didn't want to be argumentative.

I'm not arguing now, by the way. I might have misread everything posted in this thread. It's more than a little murky.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 20, 2008, 11:45 AM
Now that the ballots have been sent out for voting for the next batch of the National Rifle Association Directors, has anyone received information on how any of the current members of the National Rifle Association Board of Directors voted in the past year? Does anyone have some inside information they wish to share on how these people voted? Maybe a member of the Board who wishes to afford the rank and file members of the NRA an honest choice for us to elect Directors more akin to what we pay our dues for? Maybe some of the minutes of meetings held in determining the NRA's stance on HR 2640 and the recorded votes? We expect no less from our congressmen and I do believe we deserve to know these things of our elected board directors. WE pay the dues. It is OUR rights being eroded.

We need to elect members to the Board who will stand unequivocally on our rights and not bend in a compromise, who will state our case and leave it up to Congress to make the compromises - if any! We certainly do not need to support anyone in Congress who is willing to compromise our rights away, and we certainly do not need to support directors on the NRA Board of Directors willing to do the same!

Surely there is a least one member of the Board who opposed HR 2640 who is reading this and wishes to remain on the Board. If I know who voted not to support HR 2640, I'll vote to keep them on the board. If I have no knowledge of how the current members of the Board voted, I'll not vote for anyone wishing to remain on the board. I cannot afford to have one more iota of my rights infringed or abridged and will not leave it up to a toss of the dice.

I encourage all who see this as an opportunity to bend the NRA more toward securing our Right to Keep and Bear Arms rather than compromise the right(s) away, to pressure members of the Board to cough up the names of those who supported HR 2640 or refuse to vote for anyone currently on the board.

Surely there is someone on the Board with a conscience and the guts to stand up and fight for our rights, and do right by we the members of the NRA. Give us an honest and informed choice beyond the glowing write-ups such as I received in America's 1st Freedom.

As controversial as HR 2640 turned out to be, we, the rank and file voting members of the NRA, deserve(and I demand) to know the facts, and the best way for us to voice our opinions is with our votes.

There must be at least one person on the board with the courage. There must be.

Woody

Be careful who you choose to stand behind and support. If you are unwilling to take care of yourself, you must take whatever care that comes along. I've yet to see a flock of sheep, no matter how well cared for and tended, that doesn't get fleeced from time to time and eventually end up on the dinner table. Not many sheep die a natural death. B.E. Wood

If you enjoyed reading about "Letter/E-Mail Campaign To The NRA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!