NRA = Strawman


PDA






Audrey
November 15, 2008, 12:29 PM
Apologies if this has previously been posted. If so, it is worth another look for newer members.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA = Strawman" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
November 15, 2008, 12:44 PM
Yes, it's been posted and discussed many times before with a call to recall the individual from the NRA board. Suffice it to say the NRA disavowed the statement and the Ranger subsequently backpedaled.

Of course Ted Nugent is on the NRA Board as well so you can see that there's a diversity of opinion represented on the board, as there should be on any board of directors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClPNGQbZQBU

Audrey
November 15, 2008, 01:05 PM
Thank you for that comment.

Why would the NRA want someone opposed to the 2A on their board?

The 2A is an INALIENABLE right, and is not up for negotiation, regardless of what your "friends" at the NRA would like you to believe.

Why does the NRA stand between a holder of this INALIENABLE right, and their pistol in the form of a required course? I grew up, as did many, on acreage and learned to shoot at about the time I learned to walk. I neither need nor want the NRA in my life.

rbernie
November 15, 2008, 01:09 PM
I neither need nor want the NRA in my life.OK.

What other RKBA political groups do you support with your donations and membership?

3pairs12
November 15, 2008, 01:21 PM
A lot of anti NRA stuff the last few days. In some peoples minds they may not be the best at what they do, but in mine they are damn good. They are not the only group that I belong to. For now I am a member of NRA and TSRA and looking to join GOA. Now is the time when we need all the help we can get so my free money will go to any and alll RKBA groups I see fit including the NRA.

Audrey
November 15, 2008, 01:47 PM
I've been reading this forum for three years, and joined last year to use the Search feature. I'm not a member of any other site, I'm not employed by any agency, and I don't have an "agenda" here.

I began posting because I believe that THR has a great membership: thoughtful and not reactionary.

That said, recent events have pushed me over the edge, so to speak, and I won't keep quiet any longer.

hso
November 15, 2008, 02:04 PM
Why would the NRA want someone opposed to the 2A on their board?

That's a bit of exaggeration. He says in the interview you linked that he is a 2A supporter and that without the 2A the other Amendments fall.

The 2A is an INALIENABLE right, and is not up for negotiation, regardless of what your "friends" at the NRA would like you to believe.

And he says that as well. What he says that got thousands to call for his removal from the NRA BOD is that only the police and military should have semiauto rifles with more than a 5 round capacity. That's not an outright tossing of the 2A under the train, but it sure is calling for the hated "reasonable restriction" of the 2A that antis call for as well. Such demands that magazine capacity be limited are based on fantasy and not facts. The fact is that the vast majority of crime is not committed with long guns and of the tiny number of long guns used in crime the vast majority of those are not even semiautos (in all of 2007 no, zero, zip, nada, semiauto long guns were used in any homicide in TN).

Why does the NRA stand between a holder of this INALIENABLE right, and their pistol in the form of a required course?

Where does the NRA have this on their website that a course is required to have a pistol. I can't find it. Please post a link.

If we don't get our facts correct how can we effectively fight the gun prohibitionists?

7.62X25mm
November 15, 2008, 02:06 PM
NRA is the biggest lobby with the most money. Size matters.

mljdeckard
November 15, 2008, 02:10 PM
It's ok Audrey. The 10% of us that are NRA members will continue to do the work for the rest of you who bask in the freedoms we protect. You're welcome.

If ALL gun owners were NRA members, you wouldn't have to worry about unsavory compromise, questionable partners, or smarmy marketing tactics.

mljdeckard
November 15, 2008, 02:13 PM
He also emphasized repeatedly that it was just his opinion.

statelineblues
November 15, 2008, 02:20 PM
I'm an NRA Life Member, and I haven't agreed 100% of the time with their stance on some issues (NFA weapons, for example). But they are the '900 pound gorilla' representing gun owners in Wash.gov, so I will continue to support them, and if I disagree with statements/policies/etc., I will let them know directly.

IndianaDon
November 15, 2008, 02:23 PM
"I've been reading this forum for three years, and joined last year to use the Search feature. I'm not a member of any other site, I'm not employed by any agency, and I don't have an "agenda" here.

I began posting because I believe that THR has a great membership: thoughtful and not reactionary.

That said, recent events have pushed me over the edge, so to speak, and I won't keep quiet any longer."

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - William Shakespeare (Hamlet) :rolleyes:

danweasel
November 15, 2008, 02:33 PM
It's ok Audrey. The 10% of us that are NRA members will continue to do the work for the rest of you who bask in the freedoms we protect. You're welcome

If you feel under appreciated you could always join the Army. Hahaha.

Audrey
November 15, 2008, 02:35 PM
Where does the NRA have this on their website that a course is required to have a pistol. I can't find it. Please post a link.

http://www.nraccw.com/

What's the point of owning a weapon if you can't use it to protect yourself?

only the police and military should have semiauto rifles with more than a 5 round capacity

State nationals (or US citizens) ARE the militia, ipso facto.

Does not anyone see how our rights have been, and continue to be, incrementally eroded?

It's ok Audrey. The 10% of us that are NRA members will continue to do the work for the rest of you who bask in the freedoms we protect. You're welcome.

If ALL gun owners were NRA members, you wouldn't have to worry about unsavory compromise, questionable partners, or smarmy marketing tactics.

What's the price of gold in fantasy land? The argument that the NRA concedes INALIENABLE rights becuase there aren't enough dues paying members is, well, let's just say, a bit weak :scrutiny:

"I've been reading this forum for three years, and joined last year to use the Search feature. I'm not a member of any other site, I'm not employed by any agency, and I don't have an "agenda" here.

I began posting because I believe that THR has a great membership: thoughtful and not reactionary.

That said, recent events have pushed me over the edge, so to speak, and I won't keep quiet any longer."

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - William Shakespeare (Hamlet)

Don't judge a book by it's cover ;)

mljdeckard
November 15, 2008, 02:36 PM
Maybe i already did. Ha. Ha. Ha.

dogtown tom
November 15, 2008, 02:44 PM
Audrey Quote:
Where does the NRA have this on their website that a course is required to have a pistol. I can't find it. Please post a link.

http://www.nraccw.com/

FAIL.

Uhhhh...........it's pretty easy to tell that's not the NRA website. That's simply a guy with NRA instructor certifications who teaches a Concealed Handgun Course in Ohio.

MGshaggy
November 15, 2008, 02:55 PM
Where does the NRA have this on their website that a course is required to have a pistol. I can't find it. Please post a link.

http://www.nraccw.com/

You do realize thats a website owned and operated by a private instructor with no direct relation, support, or affiliation with the NRA other than the fact he's passed an NRA course?

State nationals (or US citizens) ARE the militia, ipso facto.

Yes, but in light of Heller, I have to ask "so what"? Heller ended the idea that membership in the militia was a precursor to protection under the 2A. Scalia carefully pointed out the prefatory clause does not necessarily limit or control the operative clause, so long as there is some relation between the two clauses. In the 2A, it merely explains the rationale for the operative clause, but does not limit the right contained therein.

Tyris
November 15, 2008, 03:10 PM
If you feel under appreciated you could always join the Army. Hahaha.

He'd become just another government employee sucking off the teat of the federal government. Joining the army would do nothing to preserve freedom as by definition freedom in the US is taken away through legislative action and enforced via police action.

-T

JImbothefiveth
November 15, 2008, 03:18 PM
The 2A is an INALIENABLE right, and is not up for negotiation, regardless of what your "friends" at the NRA would like you to believe.
Yeah, we all know how anti-gun the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION is. :rolleyes: They even include pro-gun viewpoints in their course manuals, which are supposed to have nothing to do with politics.

He'd become just another government employee sucking off the teat of the federal government
Without those soldiers, you wouldn't have gun rights because we'd be ruled by China or Russia

mljdeckard
November 15, 2008, 03:42 PM
You're right, our soldiers do nothing to preserve our freedom. It just preserves itself. They don't do anything to EARN the benefits they get from the government.

If the laws in America are so terribly restrictive, perhaps you should decide whether or not it is in your interests to stay. Do you think we should be a nation WITHOUT laws or police?

rust collector
November 15, 2008, 03:52 PM
but it seems to me we've had more than the usual share of NRA bashing lately. Especially by folks who haven't been on the board very long. The MO seems to be lamenting one or another miscue, inability or feature of the NRA without ever offering a suggestion for rectifying the problem. And they go to a gun board to explain how misguided our primary organization is. Then they assure us that they have no agenda, and we see by their posting that they seem to have little else to offer.

This feeds right into the internet phenomenon of cynical commentary which some folks apparently mistake for wisdom these days. Sorry, I don't need it, it isn't why I come here, and I'd rather that this entity wasn't co opted to advance the divide-and-conquer approach.

My idea of the high road is not to point out flaws in other people or their networks, but to improve the knowledge base of those interested in guns and the shooting sports. Seems like we're running off the rails a bit.

Audrey, please accept my apology if I am way off base, but in my part of the world, those who criticize the cooking better be ready to demonstrate their superior skills.

Tyris
November 15, 2008, 03:56 PM
You're right, our soldiers do nothing to preserve our freedom. It just preserves itself. They don't do anything to EARN the benefits they get from the government.

Nice strawman. Im thinking you failed highschool civics class.

The army is responsible for defense of the nation. Notice that Burma, an army run government does not grant or preserve the freedoms of the people.

Our freedoms are granted and taken by laws writen by lawmakers. The army has no say in the legistlative process. The laws are enforced by the police. The army has no say in the enforcement process.

The military does not fight for freedom or preserve freedom.

In America if you want to fight for freedom it is done by repealing or nullifiying laws that curtail freedom. This is done with lobbyists, money and eventually threat of lost re-election campaigns. The army has no say in the process.

-T

Tyris
November 15, 2008, 03:59 PM
Do you think we should be a nation WITHOUT laws or police?

How about a nation with less of each?

-T

rbernie
November 15, 2008, 03:59 PM
I wanna know why Audrey won't answer my question:

What other RKBA political groups do you support with your donations and membership?

JImbothefiveth
November 15, 2008, 04:00 PM
The military does not fight for freedom or preserve freedom.
If fighting against nazis, commumists, and terrorists to protect the most free country in the world isn't fighting for freedom, I don't know what is.

mljdeckard
November 15, 2008, 04:04 PM
I am high road enough to bite off what I was about to say. YOU SIR, are also basking in the freedom provided by someone else, while at the same criticizing he who provides it. Do not lecture me about freedom, civics or sacrifice. And as I asked before, perhaps you need to seriously examine your ideal nation, whether you are living there now, and what you are willing to do to get there. Don't let us stop you.

Of course, I'm just a strawman in uniform. What do I know.

Tyris
November 15, 2008, 04:43 PM
I am high road enough to bite off what I was about to say. YOU SIR, are also basking in the freedom provided by someone else, while at the same criticizing he who provides it. Do not lecture me about freedom, civics or sacrifice. And as I asked before, perhaps you need to seriously examine your ideal nation, whether you are living there now, and what you are willing to do to get there. Don't let us stop you.

More hot air. I have to lecture you because your understanding is severly lacking.

You seem to think that all good things flow from the military. They most certainly do not. It is just another government job.

I challenge you: demonstrate how the US military is preventing bad domestic laws from being enacted?

And give up with your lame argument about leaving the country. You sound like a liberal, always ready to put your tail beteen your legs and run.

-T

Tyris
November 15, 2008, 04:54 PM
If fighting against nazis, commumists, and terrorists to protect the most free country in the world isn't fighting for freedom, I don't know what is.

The role of the military is to protect the nation. That is what you've described above.

Freedoms of the nation are granted and taken by legislative action. If a bad law were enacted tomorrow banning free speech or fire arm ownership, the army would no say in the matter.

-T

Rshooter
November 15, 2008, 06:03 PM
If you feel under appreciated you could always join the Army. Hahaha.
--
He'd become just another government employee sucking off the teat of the federal government.
---
More hot air. I have to lecture you because your understanding is severly lacking.
---
You sound like a liberal
-T

You Sir, have too little respect for your betters....a few years on infantry duty would clean up your manners some. Say what you wish but I know a childish, over educated brat when I see one.

J Ward
USMC Retired
NRA Special Life

Tyris
November 15, 2008, 06:20 PM
Ex-govt employees considering themselves to be "betters".

Laughable.

-T

Eyesac
November 15, 2008, 07:07 PM
Dude, troll city USA... Cheebis.

XavierBreath
November 15, 2008, 08:57 PM
We can't expect everyone to appreciate the sacrifices made by our servicemen and their families, but we can expect everyone to stay on topic.

This thread is closed.

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