My letter to the NRA


PDA






mdog
February 21, 2009, 01:46 AM
This is a copy of a letter I just mailed to Mr. LaPierre of the NRA. I am interested in your reaction, good or bad, to my letter.

Dear Wayne LaPierre,

I do not agree with everything the NRA does but I still feel I am a loyal member. I believe in the basic American right to keep and bear arms. I recently upgraded to an endowment membership to support the efforts of the NRA. We will have many challenges in the next four years.

I recently received the March 2009 issue of American Rifleman and read the article on the DS Arms B&T TP9 pistol. I just cannot keep quiet. We buy firearms for target practice, competition, hunting, personal defense and sometimes just for the fun of it. In my opinion the only category this pistol possible fits is the fun category. By publishing an article in a national magazine you are inferring that you support the sale of such weapon. Do you really want to put the unofficial NRA stamp of approval on this pistol? To me this is just free cannon fodder for the anti-gun establishment. You know better than I how hard the legal battles are to preserve our right to bear arms. I just do not understand why you published a review on this pistol. Surely your editors are acutely aware of the damage this article can do to our side.

This raises the larger question, where do you draw the line? Do we support the right to own all firearm or only certain ones? Somewhere in this question common sense should prevail. I wish I were a more eloquent writer. I do not have all the answers but it is my hope that this letter will get the leaders of the NRA and gun owners thinking and talking about what sensible and safe gun ownership in America should be. You have my permission to publish and distribute this letter as you see fit.


Respectively yours,

If you enjoyed reading about "My letter to the NRA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jaholder1971
February 21, 2009, 01:51 AM
You're joking, right???

Exactly what's your problem with this firearm?

Jorg Nysgerrig
February 21, 2009, 01:57 AM
I'm completely baffled by your letter. I'm looking at the same review you are and I see a rather expensive oversized 9mm polymer pistol. What has you so upset? Do you just not like the way it looks?

Did I miss something?

azhunter122
February 21, 2009, 02:01 AM
I don't see that as a problem at all but everyone can keep their own opinions.

Dravur
February 21, 2009, 02:10 AM
Well, let's assume for the moment, the OP isn't a troll....

So, a gun must have a function to be on the NRA approved list? Ok, then I nominate FUN as a valid function...

Case closed.

22lr
February 21, 2009, 02:10 AM
Personally that gun is on the top of my "if I had money list." Does it serve a purpose other than fun, that's debatable but is my 30-06 really a hunting gun or is it a fun gun. Since I live in Indiana I cant even go hunting with it so its just a fun gun. Nothing wrong with them in my mind. I would take that pistol and wipe the floor at competitions, id take it coyote hunting (I love hunting coyotes with weird guns), and it would make one heck of a HD gun. But again that's just me.:rolleyes:

Fburgtx
February 21, 2009, 02:12 AM
You're kidding, right?? The 1st Amendment was most likely written to protect "political" speech (speech against the government). Larry Flynt (of "Hustler" magazine fame) and others have won court cases claiming 1st Amendment rights for obvious "non-political" speech (think, pornography).

In much the same way, the 2nd Amendment was written to allow citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. Do you feel the 2nd Amendment only covers arms used for "defensive" purposes?? What about "sporting" arms??? How about "target" rifles and pistols???? Why not "fun" guns???

crazy-mp
February 21, 2009, 02:17 AM
Uh, I think I am missing it too, wouldnt the readers of the NRA magazine want to see something other than a bolt action blued steel and walnut rifle every once and a while? I like seeing new guns and when a company either pays for ad space or gives editors a few guns to "review" I doubt they turn them down.

2RCO
February 21, 2009, 02:46 AM
I have a friend that owns a highly successful firearms related business and always has at least a 1/4 page add in American Rifleman. He asked them to do a review of one of his products and they suggested he buy 4 or 5 full page adds and it would happen. Evern AR runs on their ad budget. Gun makers basically pay for these reviews to be done. Note --I've looked into doing some ads in AR for 2RCo and they aren't cheap!

I personally saw nothing wrong with this review and don't see how it hurts us in any way. We need a "Fun Gun" from time to time.

seale
February 21, 2009, 04:33 AM
Well "mdog," based on your letter you are A. anti gun, because you seem to have disdain for firearms that are not "sporting purpose" enough for you. If you really sent that letter then you are advocating that the NRA cower to political correctness. You need to understand that a gun is a gun is a gun. If one gun is targeted for a ban because of arbitrary political correctness, then thousands of other guns are next. Some of us are old enough to have watched this play out many times in many states and nations.

B. you are utterly clueless about firearms because you claim that pistol is only good for "fun." Come on, are you serious? What makes you think that high quality handgun would not be good for home defense? What makes you think that high quality handgun would not be good for competition and target practice? Clearly you haven't seen many shooting competitions. Do you think they only allow revolvers at competitions? Come on.

Hey "mdog," it's a shame you couldn't congratulate the nra for daring to highlight a politically incorrect firearm (especially a quality one).

akodo
February 21, 2009, 05:11 AM
mdog

I believe you are dead wrong.

A right is in no way tied to any need, be it hunting or anything else.

Any firearm is very appropriate for the NRA to review.

M203Sniper
February 21, 2009, 05:27 AM
I'm calling troll on this one;

if not Mdog should visit our host @ http://www.a-human-right.com for more...

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5254-2/tooloudtooquiet.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/AK47-2_s.jpg

renegade1alpha
February 21, 2009, 05:27 AM
GUNS ARE FUN MDOG!!!! I seriously can't believe you wrote that letter! It is that attitude that the anti-gun nuts thrive on!

Pull your head out of your *** and listen! If it starts with guns like the DSArms 9mm then your lever action 30-30 will only be a pen stroke away!

mdog
February 21, 2009, 09:50 AM
Thank you for the response. Not sure what a troll is, never been called that. I expected some negative response but not this vicious. While I do not expect to change anyone's opinion, I will expand on mine.

Many military weapons have made the transition to the civilian market successfully. The 1903 Springfield and 1891 Mauser have long been used for medium to long range hunting rifles. The Mauser action is still used to this day in new rifles. Garands and M14 are still used competitively. The AR-15 is slowly being accepted as varmint hunting rifle. It has taken many years to shake it's "Evil Black Rifle" image.

However, guns like the Mac 10, Tec 9 and now this B&T MP9 maybe fantastic tactical weapons for special ops, but I fail to see the civilian use of a semi-automatic version of any of these guns. For those who have not read the article, DS Arms has taken the B&T MP9 and made a semiautomatic version called the TP9. In my opinion these guns are more likely to be used in a bank robbery or gang violence than target practice or hunting.

But that is all this is, just my opinion. From this response it sounds like DS Arms should do well with this pistol. It would be interesting to see one at our next IDPA match.

Ohio Gun Guy
February 21, 2009, 10:06 AM
I feel dumber for having read that.

It's basis for the "Wrong" sited in the letter is 1 outrage, 2 the Looks of the gun, 3 the imagined "Classification" of the "FUN" gun, 4 the assumption of being right based on ones FEELINGS, 5 the assertion by lack of inclusion that defending ourselves from our own government isnít covered by the 2nd amendment.

These are all fine liberal points of view. I'm calling troll!

Sam1911
February 21, 2009, 10:12 AM
However, guns like the Mac 10, Tec 9 and now this B&T MP9 maybe fantastic tactical weapons for special ops, but I fail to see the civilian use of a semi-automatic version of any of these guns.

And that last phrase is why you're getting so many negative comments. This is the logical fallacy of the "sporting purposes" idea that has been smeared onto the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd A. is not about hunting, target shooting, or even (by it's literal phrasing) primarily about self-defense. The 2nd was intended to ensure that civilians were ensured access to MILITARY weapons.

[/QUOTE]In my opinion these guns are more likely to be used in a bank robbery or gang violence than target practice or hunting.[/QUOTE]

First of all, this may be your opinion, but it is wrong. I don't know how many they will sell, but I can say (based on the track record for many other styles similar to the TP-9) that they'll sell thousands for every one that ends up in the "wrong hands." Criminals tend to acquire what ever is easy to get. More people are shot with .22s than any other caliber (IIRC).

But even if it WERE true, it doesn't matter. Illegal use by SOME does not negate the right guaranteed to all.

Welcome to the forum! Please stay and read. There is a great deal to be learned here, including much that is of value concerning the basis and maintenance of our rights.

-Sam

Martyk
February 21, 2009, 10:13 AM
Please explain with the same logic the material Need and Functional Need for a Basketball. Or for that matter...Cars that go over 65 miles per hour, what's the need and purpose. It's against the law to exceed the speed limit so why are the automakers allowed to blatantly produce and advertise and glorify vehicles that are capable of exceeding this lawful speed limit... in fact, I think that the entire NASCAR racing industry only Promotes excessive speed and unsafe driving. It should be banned.. there's no need for this type of driving or for people to see it. It will give them the wrong idea. Oh yea, and while I'm at it.. why do they make movies that show people getting killed.. :cuss::banghead::fire::evil:

devildog66
February 21, 2009, 10:13 AM
Ya know I would simply like to see the same logic (of the OP) applied to other areas of our existence. Such as food, "there should be no sales of prime beef because one only eats it due to its superior taste and it is really unhealthy for us. You really don't need it."; "Can you believe that GM sells that Corvette, why the only thing it is good for is high speed and massaging of the owner's ego. You really don't need it."; "Why would ANYONE want that $100 scotch (wine)!? How esoteric a snob do ya have to be?! My (domestic malt beverage) is all you need!".

Point is is that defining others needs is as arbitrary as it gets.

I would love to have that 9mm sub gun. What a great home defense weapon for the recoil sensitive like my wife. Not to mention it carries a lot more ammo for times when one misses. In my opinion, the 9mm sub semi-auto sub gun is among the best in home defense weapons for the same reason all of the operators like them. Controllable, pointable, and plenty of zappers in the mag, and easy to train the relatively uninitiated on.

So lighten up Francis... :neener:

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2009, 10:14 AM
In my opinion these guns are more likely to be used in a bank robbery or gang violence than target practice or hunting.

Oh please. So you're deciding what a gun will be used for based upon what it LOOKS like? It's priced at $1,250, I'm sure the local gangbangers will be in line to buy them.

Thank you Ms Pelosi.......

Martyk
February 21, 2009, 10:17 AM
Mdog... maybe you should check with us BEFORE you write your next letter.. LOL :D

Highland Ranger
February 21, 2009, 10:28 AM
Don't worry comrade, the time is coming when this logic will be applied to everything.

(Instead of troll though, I'd guess big city cop.)

Dravur
February 21, 2009, 10:29 AM
However, guns like the Mac 10, Tec 9 and now this B&T MP9 maybe fantastic tactical weapons for special ops, but I fail to see the civilian use of a semi-automatic version of any of these guns. For those who have not read the article, DS Arms has taken the B&T MP9 and made a semiautomatic version called the TP9. In my opinion these guns are more likely to be used in a bank robbery or gang violence than target practice or hunting.


Well... First off a troll is some anti 2a person who comes onto pro-2a sites and tries to convince people that no, they really ARE pro-2a... except for thier wanting to ban a certain class of weapon, because they FEEL that no one should own one. Seems to fit in this case.

As to your FEELINGS that these guns serve no purpose....Tough Toenails. Your feelings have no influence in my life. If I want one of those guns, then I will get one and I will not take into account your feelings whatsoever.

For my purposes... I could use one in home defense, or as a fun plinking gun.
If you aren't a troll, then you need to really think about this and then ask yourself, if we all have to kowtow to your feelings, when do you have to kowtow to the Brady Bunches feelings and lose your guns...

See the slippery slope?

If you are a troll, then please, burn in hell.

robsc
February 21, 2009, 10:48 AM
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm--blued steel and walnut, truly traditional. It`s better looking than the synthetic.

Javelin
February 21, 2009, 10:48 AM
http://glocktalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=257&pictureid=934

So how exactly does this rub you?

My philosophy has always been to stop wearing ear protection and just turn the volume down on the firearm. And the little Swiss made TP9 that you don't like looks fun. Glad to see that more manufacturers have stepped up into the sporting firearms industry.

:)

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2009, 10:50 AM
So how exactly does this rub you?

Don't do that, you will scare him :)

Very nice by the way.

Sav .250
February 21, 2009, 10:55 AM
When you said in part,".........I fail to see the civilian use............."\

You are going down a very slippery slope my friend. There was a Gun editor
who got on that slope and he crashed a burned.

SaxonPig
February 21, 2009, 11:18 AM
Either mdog is a mole working for a gun control group and pretending to be a legitimate gun owner who sees no need for guns he doesn't like or he really is a gun owner who doesn't like some guns and therefore feels that nobody should have them because he doesn't like them.

Either way he is misguided and acting foolishly and should be ignored.

The Foo
February 21, 2009, 12:14 PM
So, a polymer Glock that shoots 9mm is fine.

But this polymer firearm that shoots 9mm isn't?

Str8Shooter
February 21, 2009, 01:16 PM
Respectively yours,

I think you meant "respectfully yours"

DaveBeal
February 21, 2009, 01:41 PM
mdog, I had thoughts similar to yours when I read that article in AR. It's a fairly ridiculous gun - ugly, oversized, overpriced and impractical. And yes, as a derivative of an automatic combat pistol, it's the kind of firearm that anti-gun folks describe as "a gun that's only meant to kill people". But I've been called a troll here, too.

yokel
February 21, 2009, 02:02 PM
While were at it, let's have a look at what the NRA bylaws say at Article II - Purpose and Objectives:

1. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use firearms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens;
2. To promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense;
3. To train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the militia, and people of good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of small arms."

If that is true, you would expect to read reviews of modern day militia arms such as revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, shotguns, carbines, assault rifles, rifles, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, RPGs, and hand grenades.

camslam
February 21, 2009, 02:31 PM
Javelin: Count me in as officially jealous. Other than the caliber on that beauty, I want it. :)

Dave Beal and Mdog: obviously you guys haven't been around anti's a whole lot, because if you had, you would understand they don't care if its a .22 LR, a .50 BMG, an AR-15, an AK, a water pistol, this DS Arms gun, a BB gun, it just doesn't matter.

IF IT IS A GUN, THEY DON'T LIKE IT!

Everybody has plenty of opinions about what guns they like and for what purposes. I've read my fair share of posts on this website from people that don't like my Glocks or AK, but to me they are a functional, reliable, thing of beauty.

Why don't you guys focus on making sure people can own guns rather than taking issue with the type of guns they choose to own. Just an idea. :rolleyes:

GonHuntin
February 21, 2009, 02:37 PM
However, guns like the Mac 10, Tec 9 and now this B&T MP9 maybe fantastic tactical weapons for special ops, but I fail to see the civilian use of a semi-automatic version of any of these guns.


Me too! I think they should have been left as designed, as a select fire weapon......and I think we should be able to buy them at WalMart with no more paperwork than it takes to buy a 22 pistol..........


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v380/GonHuntin/MACATTACK.jpg

GTFord1
February 21, 2009, 02:42 PM
That's one oddball letter, and response to the reponses.

ants
February 21, 2009, 02:53 PM
His opinions differ from yours and he said so.
It's his First Amendment right, and I'll fight for him to keep it.

In fact, many men and women already fought for him to keep it. Honor that right.





Let him express his opinion. Then express your own.
Be careful of hypocrisy. Don't tell him to shut up, if we're not going to shut up.

We need to preserve all rights, not just the First Amendment.
That's the lesson we need to teach you, mdog.
You have the right to express your opinion, but preserving all rights includes preserving our right to possess a TP9.

devildog66
February 21, 2009, 03:00 PM
No infringement of 1st Amendment right here. None of us have that power, so far as I know, to infringe on that. That said, all are entitled to their opinion. The exception seems to be that this 2A brother seems to think his distaste for a weapon system should limit my choice of the same.

rickomatic
February 21, 2009, 03:12 PM
I too looked back at mdogs other posts and while numbering in the "few" (2 others if I remember) they weren't along anti lines at all. And they span a couple years timeframe. He may be a lurker, but I doubt a troll.

mdog, I'm sorry if ,the you know what ,hit the fan in regards to the responses you got. You may have been well intentioned with your letter. Maybe you are a fairly recent member of the brotherhood. If so, welcome. But you need to remember something very important. It is the very idea that you expressed in your post and letter that has led to the erosion of our rights that we've witnessed ever since the 1934 Gun Control Act. It is a divide and conquer stragegy of the antis that needs to be batted down whenever it rears it ugly head. Your stance on the "need" or "reason" or "purpose" of any particular firearm is anathema to those of us who understand the true meaning of the 2nd Ammendment and the utter necessity to not only preserve it, but to remove any and all existing impediments to it.
Someone else's "opinion" about the ownership of any firearm, or the public at large's perception of it are meaningless. The 2nd Ammendment is unequivical. You touched a nerve.
Stick around and join in to other discussions. I will try my best not to be condesending or too knee jerked in my responses to you. But don't think that there aren't a lot of us here, and other places that are willing to tell it like it is when needed.

GTFord1
February 21, 2009, 03:21 PM
His opinions differ from yours and he said so.
It's his First Amendment right, and I'll fight for him to keep it.

In fact, many men and women already fought for him to keep it. Honor that right.

Um, last time I checked, disagreeing with someone doesn't "infringe their first amendment rights."

mdog
February 21, 2009, 06:09 PM
This is the third time I have tried to post this response so if three similar messages appear I apologize.

I gather a troll is an anti-gunner who posts messages to cause trouble. I assure you I am not an anti-gun advocate nor am I a troll. I am a lifetime endowment member of the NRA and back this up with financial contributions and my efforts to recruit new members. I belong to two gun clubs and shoot 2-3 times a week. In order of preference I shoot skeet, trap , pistol and rifle. I have a safe full of firearms and stopped counting years ago. I saw what was coming and stocked up on ammunition over a year ago. Boy, am I glad I did.

If a lurker is someone who reads the forum 1-2 times a week but never contributes to a discussion, I am guilty. I chose this forum to post my message because it is the one I respect the most and I thought I would get the best discussion. I welcome criticism to my original post but it is all the name calling that surprises me. Sticks and stones... life goes on.

I do appreciate the negative comments and wish I could respond to each individually. They generally fall under the cliches, "give an inch and they will take a mile" or "it's all or nothing." Some of the members at my club feel the same way and you may be right. I tend to agree with most of what the NRA lobbies for and a little of what the anti-gunners promote. Rest assured my heart belongs to the NRA and the right to bear arms.

I am very concerned with the battles the NRA has in store during the next four years with Obama in office. If I had read the article about the TP9 in Soldier of Fortune, I would have thought nothing of it. However, American Rifleman is one of the premier NRA publications. I don't want to see an anti-gun lobbyist waving a copy of American Rifleman shouting, "See what the NRA condones!" And the person who posted the picture of the Glock with the 30 round magazine and silencer, yes, that scares me. I am not questioning your right to own it, more power to you. However, when the general public sees such a weapon, they are shocked and this is exactly what the anti-gunners wants. Someone else commented on the fact that a Glock and the TP9 are both polymer 9mm semiautomatic pistols. But looks do make a difference when the non-gun owning public looks at the pictures.

The NRA has the difficult task of educating the non-gun owning public. What is normal for you and I can be shocking and outrageous to the public. Look how long it has taken the general public to accept the AR-15 as a legitimate hunting rifle. As silly as this sounds, I believe putting camoflage on the Evil Black Rifle has done more than anything else to help this issue. You and I know the parts inside are the same no matter what the color of the rifle is.

If you want a TP9 for home defense, buy one. My concern is with American Rifleman judgment in publishing the article and hurting the cause. And again I repeat this is just my opinion and you do not need to agree with me.

If and when I hear from the NRA, I will post their reply. I sent a letter to Wayne LaPierre and a copy to Mark Keefe, editor of American Rifleman.

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2009, 06:18 PM
And yes, as a derivative of an automatic combat pistol, it's the kind of firearm that anti-gun folks describe as "a gun that's only meant to kill people". But I've been called a troll here, too.

So was the Garand, the Mosin Nagant, the 1903 Springfield, and many others.

Under your system would you ban them as well? Their original intent was to kill people in time of war, therefore they must be bad.

Let's see, so what you are saying is that any firearm or cartridge derivative of a military arm should be banned.

That leaves us..... uh...... hmmm....... I'll get back to you, can't think of any right now.

So basically you'd ban them all.

Well the least you could do is just come out and say it.

61chalk
February 21, 2009, 06:27 PM
"..Fail to see civilian use of semi-auto versions...."

When the second ammendment took place, they only had muzzle loaders...do you only want muzzle loaders? Thats why they didn't say muzzle loader...

Also you called the AR 15 that "Evil Black Gun"....I prefer what Henry Winkler called it in "Hero"...."IMPLEMENT of DESTRUCTION"..... by the way, ALL guns are FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SaxonPig
February 21, 2009, 07:06 PM
mdog- You claim to be sincere, so I will assume you are.

You have to realize that the people who want to ban assault weapons also want to ban hunting shotguns. They want to ban all guns. They are starting with the ones they see as the easiest targets, the ones they can convince people like you to join them in banning. Then they will come after the next type of gun and the next and the next.

To protect the right to own ANY gun you must defend the right to own ALL guns. There are no bad guns, only bad people who misuse them.

If they can ban ANY gun, they can... and will... ban ALL guns. You are playing right into their hands when you say we don't "need" this gun or that gun. It's not about what guns we need. It's about our right to own any gun we choose.

Interceptor_Knight
February 21, 2009, 07:15 PM
This is a copy of a letter I just mailed to Mr. LaPierre of the NRA. I am interested in your reaction, good or bad, to my letter.

However, guns like the Mac 10, Tec 9 and now this B&T MP9 maybe fantastic tactical weapons for special ops, but I fail to see the civilian use of a semi-automatic version of any of these guns. For those who have not read the article, DS Arms has taken the B&T MP9 and made a semiautomatic version called the TP9. In my opinion these guns are more likely to be used in a bank robbery or gang violence than target practice or hunting.
What is normal for you and I can be shocking and outrageous to the public.
My reaction is that you sound like someone who supports gun bans. My reaction is that you are not an advocate for gun rights. Let me repeat that it is opinions such as yours which fuel gun bans. You feel that you are personally entitled to judge whether or not a firearm has a sporting purpose. This is the attitude of the Brady Bunch, Pelosi, McCarthy, etc who wish to ban guns based on cosmetic features.
You have stepped right into the trap of advocating "reasonable" gun control.
It is attitudes like yours from within which are the greatest danger to shooting sports in general. Your judgemental statements show a lack of respect for the Second Amendment and Gun Rights in general.
The civilian use of fully automatic firearms, short barrel firearms, suppressed firearms and scary looking offensive black guns is for recreational use, hunting and defense if desired. It is frankly none of your or anyone else's business why I would wish to purchase own and shoot such guns if by doing so I am harming no one and breaking no laws.
How dare you advocate restricting the ownership and/or promotion of ownership of unique and unusual firearms because you personally do not have a use for them.
You want to know what kind of person is hurting the cause? Look in the mirror.
Precisely what cause are you referring to? Certainly not the defense of the Second Amendment to our Constitution and the ability for each and every US citizen to bear arms. The defense of unique and unusual firearms, full auto firearms, offensive looking black firearms etc is exactly the cause we are fighting right now. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Defending only bolt, pump, lever and break action firearms is not being a Second Amendment advocate.
You do realize that there are an exponentially larger number of these types of firearms owned by reasonable responsible adults who hunt and sport shoot than the very tiny number of these types of firearms actually used in crimes, right??:cool:

If they can ban ANY gun, they can... and will... ban ALL guns. You are playing right into their hands when you say we don't "need" this gun or that gun. It's not about what guns we need. It's about our right to own any gun we choose.
Exactly!!!:)

GonHuntin
February 21, 2009, 07:51 PM
mdog

I'm guessing you would get a lot more support for your letter if you posted it at Bradycampaign.org or Handgun Control Inc.

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2009, 08:23 PM
I'm guessing you would get a lot more support for your letter if you posted it at Bradycampaign.org or Handgun Control Inc.

That's probably where it was cut and pasted from :)

DaveBeal
February 21, 2009, 08:36 PM
And yes, as a derivative of an automatic combat pistol, it's the kind of firearm that anti-gun folks describe as "a gun that's only meant to kill people". But I've been called a troll here, too.
...
So basically you'd ban them all.

Well the least you could do is just come out and say it.


Eh? Nowhere in my post did I mention or even suggest banning anything.

I just said that I agreed with mdog that running this article in the flagship publication of the nation's best known gun rights organization might not be helping the 2A cause among non-gun owners.

Autopistola
February 21, 2009, 08:41 PM
+1, GonHuntin!

The TP9 was the only gun I found interesting in that issue, and the MP9 is my favorite SMG! That said, the TP9 is ridiculous, expensive, and probably fun. Nothing wrong with owning/shooting military-styled weapons for novelty and entertainment. Just 'cause it looks evil doesn't mean it'll be used that way.

Do anti-gunners actually subscribe to American Rifleman just to single out the the black weapons which look like they belong in an action movie? Hell, if they cut those types of guns out of AR I probably wouldn't bother skimming through it.

Geezer Glide
February 21, 2009, 08:48 PM
You know, I don't think I will ever have the "need" to own a Barrett .50 cal rifle but, I don't have a problem with anyone else owning one, as long as they are legally allowed to own firearms. If we only had the things that we need, we sure wouldn't have many things, would we?

U.S.SFC_RET
February 21, 2009, 08:51 PM
Mdog you are entitled to your letter to the NRA. You are entitled to what you post. My advice to you is this. As a new poster you will be taken as a troll because you have a low number of posts. Welcome to THR. I personally don't believe you to be a troll on this site as others have posted before me.
Contribute to and pick up some great information from THR.

SFC_RET

rickomatic
February 21, 2009, 09:01 PM
Our purpose and our task is not to look politically correct to the rest of the world. It is to educate the rest of the world in the FACT that WE are right, and they are wrong. We will not give one more inch. We have given too many inches over the past 75 years. It's time to start taking back ground. Let's start that by becoming a unified voice, not one of factions. I thought we all learned that last year with Zumbo.
There are aspects of the shooting sports that I might not be involved in, and maybe even might think are silly. But you know what? Anyone and EVERYONE who is involved in any aspect of shooting, short of gang bangers, is a brother or sister of mine. It's an often overused line, but it still rings true. "If we don't hang together, we are destined to hang seperately".

Speer
February 21, 2009, 09:04 PM
You have to realize that the people who want to ban assault weapons also want to ban hunting shotguns.

Right. The "scary" guns go first. Then they come for the rest.

It's worth repeating. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or having fun. It's a buddy system between We The People and the government to safe guard our rights together. And doing that means having access to the best tools for the job. Bolt actions ain't gonna cut it. Sadly, some very loud and powerful forces have big issues with an armed society.

Sam1911
February 21, 2009, 09:08 PM
running this article in the flagship publication of the nation's best known gun rights organization might not be helping the 2A cause.

Say WHAT? :what:

Who better to feature a professional, factual, anti-hype, article that presents a gun (ANY gun) in the most upstanding and positive light possible? 20 years ago folks said the same horse***** about AR-15 rifles. "The flagship publication of the nation's best known gun rights organization" and a lot of other mainstream gun press were a big part of the growth of the "acceptability" of black rifles for civilian use -- and the Zumbo fiasco of a few months ago was the exception that "proofs" that progress.

Who the he!! do you expect to present a positive view of firearms in all their variety if NOT /American Rifleman/?

Look at your own statements for a moment. You've actually proposed that "the flagship publication of the nation's best known gun rights organization" should act as though WE'RE ALL AFRAID OF THEM, TOO!

I do not mean to disrespect you, but this is an ABOMINABLE load of CRAP.

Sincerely,

-Sam

Sam1911
February 21, 2009, 09:14 PM
And the person who posted the picture of the Glock with the 30 round magazine and silencer, yes, that scares me.

Look at the expanding proliferation of positive articles about suppressors. The mainstream gun media is starting to show the truth about them, too.

1) That they are a great means of reducing noise pollution -- which makes for friendlier range neighbors.
2) That they make training a new shooter easier due to the reduced blast (and often recoil).
3) That they greatly reduce cumulative hearing loss (even when using muffs or plugs). Etc., etc.

And yet, when someone posts a picture of one of the most common handguns in the world sporting a "can", you guys shudder like you just stepped on a copperhead?

How can we expect "society" to accept something so benevolent as a noise suppressor when those in our own ranks shriek and hide like schoolgirls at the sight of one?

Sad. Again, meaning no disrespect, but there is something just ... sad about it.

-Sam

warnerwh
February 21, 2009, 11:09 PM
I don't believe someone would post that.

Dravur
February 21, 2009, 11:49 PM
It just occured to me...

Mdog... You claim that you are upset because the NRA magazine might scare off people who are fence sitters, etc....

How many of them read the NRA magazines?

Im pretty sure, the VAST majority of the people reading the mags are gun people in the first place....

So, who are you worried about?

crazy-mp
February 22, 2009, 12:52 AM
Have you seen the magazine called "Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement"? Every month they have either a AR, Tactical sniper rifle or a Fifty cal on the cover, oh wait they did have one of those 10 pound semi auto pistols, How are you supposed to holster a pistol with a silencer, flashlight, laser, scope, 30 round mag and tripod attached?

Ok I made the tripod part up, it was a under barrel pepper spray device :D

If that magazine doesnít scare off a fence sitter the NRA magazine has nothing to worry about.

Ranb
February 22, 2009, 12:53 AM
mdog, you said, "And the person who posted the picture of the Glock with the 30 round magazine and silencer, yes, that scares me. I am not questioning your right to own it, more power to you. However, when the general public sees such a weapon, they are shocked and this is exactly what the anti-gunners wants."

This statement makes me lump you in with all the other self loathing gun owners I have met online and in person. A self loathing gun owner is one of those people who own guns, but only certain guns they consider to be politically correct. People like the ones who run the Brady campaign and the Violence Policy Center. You are the perfect target for those who will eventually support a ban on all civilian firearms ownership.

Silencers on guns are used by people for the same reasons that mufflers are used on cars. The make them safer to use, for shooters and bystanders alike. That you claim silencers scare you is just more of the same propaganda that people like Joe Biden use when he says that gun owners who call their guns baby are mentally ill.

The general public used to be against mixed race marriages and birth control. Education is an amazing thing. You should be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Believe me when I say that uneducated people and prejudiced person like yourself are a problem.

Just so you know, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. I do not think you are a troll, you are just emotionally immature and hoplophobic (afraid of guns).

Ranb

2RCO
February 22, 2009, 01:17 AM
"a gun that's only meant to kill people".

Did I just read this on THR!!!:eek::fire::cuss::barf:

Yeah these were nearly the exact words Clinton used to justify the AWB!

rizbunk77
February 22, 2009, 01:49 AM
mdog,

Your posts have been well written and structured in a grammatical sense. However your viewpoint is not at all a help to those of us who are working to preserve the 2nd amendment for its intended purpose: to help all Americans fend off oppression and tyranny. I know that Mr. La Pierre will give your letter the treatment it deserves.
BTW no semi automatic should ever be banned, shunned or feared, and if it weren't for a few gangsters in the 30's the 2nd amendment would still be as it was meant to be.
I am on the other side of current gun control trends. I think every American male between 18 and 65 should be required to keep either an M16 or a semi auto shotgun in their home,and be required to produce such weapon for annual training and inspection, and to make himself and such weapon available in the event of national emergency, with whatever legitimate exceptions may exist.

Blast
February 22, 2009, 02:05 AM
No, I can see what he's saying. There may not be anything wrong with the gun, or supporting the gun, or whatever, but it takes tact to work toward a larger goal, namely beating back the bias of "GUN BAD, PEOPLE GOOD". There are strategic times where it may be wiser to be quiet, especially now when Obama hasn't taken a firm stance on whether he wants to ban handguns now that's he's in or not.

30.06
February 22, 2009, 02:16 AM
Apparently since you have a problem understanding ' the right of The People to keep and bear Arms ' , you would likewise have trouble understanding ' shall not be infringed ' as well .

No where , in there , does it describe arms , as , for sporting purposes .

Rather it makes clear in ' being necessary for a free state ' , that military arms , are , what are referred to .

Letting Anti-Gun , Anti-Free State , Shills of the UN , describe what is acceptable and what is not is absolute folly .

The Men who signed that Declaration of Independence , and The Constitution of the United States would say Treasonous .

The Constitution of The United States " ...it's only keepers , the people . " George Washington

Threeband
February 22, 2009, 02:26 AM
You can not appease the antis by being "reasonable."

That's the mistake the RINOs are constantly making, trying to gain the approval of their political opponants.

The antis love to hold up the NRA as their favorite bogeyman, with absolutely no regard for any facts about the NRA. They are not picking through copies of American Rifleman looking for individual items to which they can object.



They object to EVERYTHING.

They object to the Evil Sniper Rifle on the cover.

They object to the Semiautomatic Assault Pistol on the back cover.

They object to the Breechloading Flintlock Assault Rifle on page 51.

The magazine could contain nothing but YOUR Skeet gun, and they would object to that also.



They will vilify the NRA because it suits their agenda to do so. Nothing the NRA does can placate them. Nothing. The antis simply don't care about any facts whatsoever. They don't believe their own arguments: they only care about their agenda, and their agenda is NOT gun control. It is Control.



I don't think you're a troll. I don't think you WANT to ban anything.

But we are NOT going to make a positive impression by leaving funny looking guns out of American Rifleman. And we WILL NOT hurt the cause by INCLUDING scary guns in A.R. It makes no difference.



Edited to add:

... but it takes tact to work toward a larger goal, namely beating back the bias ...


(Sigh!)

While you are tactfully being reasonable, the antis are smirking at your naivete. It's not about cherrypicking articles in American Rifleman to demonstrate how reasonable we are, or to avoid offending someone. You are offending them just by your existence, and guns have little to do with it.

Their bias is not against guns. Banning your single-barrel trap gun is just one more step on the Long March...

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates24.html)


-------------------------


--------------------------

Interceptor_Knight
February 22, 2009, 07:30 AM
mdog, I had thoughts similar to yours when I read that article in AR. It's a fairly ridiculous gun - ugly, oversized, overpriced and impractical. And yes, as a derivative of an automatic combat pistol, it's the kind of firearm that anti-gun folks describe as "a gun that's only meant to kill people". But I've been called a troll here, too.
No, I can see what he's saying. There may not be anything wrong with the gun, or supporting the gun, or whatever, but it takes tact to work toward a larger goal, namely beating back the bias of "GUN BAD, PEOPLE GOOD". There are strategic times where it may be wiser to be quiet, especially now when Obama hasn't taken a firm stance on whether he wants to ban handguns now that's he's in or not.
The name of the magazine is not Shotgun World because shotguns do not need defending.......yet. These are exactly the kindas of firearms which we need to be defending. Obama has already made a firm stance years ago. There is no question that he wants a ban. It is up to the rest of America to express their outrage over the very idea that reasonable rational responsible adults can not be trusted with automatic weapons and semiautomatic versions of them. With the exception of states which have never heard of the 2nd Amendment, currently anyone who can legally purchase a single shot 12 gauge can legally purchase a fully automatic machine gun by paying the $200 tax and doing the paperwork. This is one of those out of sight out of mind things for the gun grabbers. They are focusing on firearms which only look scary yet are no more dangerous than the average deer rifle....

akodo
February 22, 2009, 08:50 AM
A few points of clarification:

A "troll" is someone who enters any internet forum with the intent to cause strife by disagreeing with a basic tenant. This need not be gun related. Going to an ElvisFans.com and declaring Elvis was unoriginal would be an example of being a troll.

Troll has a very negative connotation.

Lurker is someone who reads but does not post. Lurking and Lurker do not have a negative connotation. It is the internet equivalent of 'long time listener, first time caller.'



Now, regarding this issue specifically of you seeing no 'good reason' for owning a non-sporting firearm.

I can definately see the wisdom of advising someone who wants an urban rifle to choose a lever action marlin in 30-30 vs a pimped out SKS in a fake dragnov stock, simply because there is a small chance that if it was used in a self defense shooting the prosecution may try and use the gun's appearance against you.

However, the NRA needs to get behind ALL firearms. I am GLAD they are expanding beyond 'walnut and blue' of the sporting clay fields and deer stands.

I wish Charlton Heston had held an AR-15 or FN-FAL over his head when declaring 'from my cold dead hands'

We will never win if we play into the media's hands and the anti's hands and act ashamed of the appearance of certian classes of weapons we believe should be legal.

Why is there shame in a legal firearm? Shame should only come from immoral or illegal actions.

Saying it should be shameful to display that gun is also saying it is shameful to own...and shameful to own is saying that while it isn't currently illegal, it should be.

Ranb
February 22, 2009, 01:28 PM
I had an Enfield rifle in 303 that was made back in 1918. It was worn out and kept on breaking the brass when loaded at any level more than the minimum in the loading manual, even when neck sizing only. It had no collector's value. It gathered dust in the safe for ten years until I re-barreled it to 45 ACP.

Not wanting to just leave it alone, I profiled the barrel to accept a large silencer that I made for another rifle, and attached a AK under folding stock. I have been told it better shoot well as it is the ugliest rifle around. While it is quiet, it only shoots fair.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/enfieldfolded.jpg

So, all you hoplophobes, RINO's and self loathing gun owners; will you fight for my right to own this rifle? If you do not, why should I not be ashamed to call you fellow Americans? I'm talking to you mdog, and your pal Blast.

Ranb

Javelin
February 22, 2009, 01:32 PM
Ranb that is one *interesting* SBR you have there. And it has a scope!

:)

bp78
February 22, 2009, 01:36 PM
I think most of us here support the 2A as written and our senses are offended anytime a politician or organization speaks of 'hunting' or 'sporting' in the same breath as supporting the 2nd Amendment.

JImbothefiveth
February 22, 2009, 01:40 PM
However, guns like the Mac 10, Tec 9 and now this B&T MP9 maybe fantastic tactical weapons for special ops, but I fail to see the civilian use of a semi-automatic version of any of these guns.
I'm not sure what they would be used for, but I doubt they are really more dangerous than, say, an AR. For those who have not read the article, DS Arms has taken the B&T MP9 and made a semiautomatic version called the TP9. In my opinion these guns are more likely to be used in a bank robbery or gang violence than target practice or hunting.
They cost $1250. I doubt they'd make a good crime weapon. Even weapons like the MAC 10 are not usually used in crime. (You have to figure out how many of them were sold, and how many were used in a crime. Chances are most of them weren't used in a crime.)

I also believe there are more defensive uses of firearms than criminal uses each year, so most guns would follow that rule.


No, I can see what he's saying. There may not be anything wrong with the gun, or supporting the gun, or whatever, but it takes tact to work toward a larger goal, namely beating back the bias of "GUN BAD, PEOPLE GOOD". There are strategic times where it may be wiser to be quiet, especially now when Obama hasn't taken a firm stance on whether he wants to ban handguns now that's he's in or not.
Since most readers of American rifleman are already pro-gun, I think it makes sense to defend that gun in there. If the politicians are fighting over whether or not to ban guns like this, they can't ban other guns. Also, it shows the pro-gun crowd that this gun isn't exceptionally dangerous.

Also, if someone's undecided, let them shoot something like this. It will show them they aren't exceptionally dangerous.

Ranb
February 22, 2009, 02:08 PM
Javelin,

That is not an SBR, they are contraband in WA, except those registered before 1994. It has a 16" barrel. The pic shown is with a silencer shaped shroud I use when shooting it in WA, as silencer use is prohibited here. The real silencer is 4 inches longer. I replaced the large scope shown with a smaller shotgun scope. It is good for a 6 inch group at 100 yards.

Ranb

MaterDei
February 22, 2009, 03:18 PM
I don't think it's fair that we are ganging up on this poor fellow. Afterall, he is not saying that all guns are bad, only that certain ones that have no sporting purpose are bad.

In an attempt to even the playing field I submit the following so that he won't be alone in this discussion.

To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.
Sarah Brady
Jackson, Keeping the Battle Alive, Tampa Tribune
1993-10-21

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."
Barbara Fass
ABC News Special, Peter Jennings: Guns
Stockton, CA Mayor
1991-04-11

And nobody is talking about taking guns away from hunters or sportsmen or banning all guns. Nobody is talking about that.
Al Gore
Larry King Live
U.S. Vice President
1999-09-17

Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose.
Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General

..the only people who use them [so-called assault weapons] are mass murderers...
Charles Schumer
PBS debate with Bill McCollum
U.S. Senator (D-NY)
1996

Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Josh Sugarmann
"Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation"
1989-03-00

leathermanwave
February 23, 2009, 12:29 AM
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin.

sig220mw
February 23, 2009, 12:58 AM
Back in the 60's when they debated gun control and finally passed the GCA of 1968 the argument that the antis used was against SPORTING ARMS and they said "civilians should only own military style weapons because that is what the 2nd amendment really was meant to protect". See how their argument has changed over the years. Back then pro gun people said that all firearms were protected and managed to save both types. There weren't as many nutty antis in those days as now and they also didn't have so much support in the media. Times have changed. But the reality is that whatever we give them will never be enough it will always be a "good first step" to put it in their words. Let's not give them anything. Let's make them have to come take them.

earlthegoat2
February 23, 2009, 12:58 AM
I can understand where the OP is coming from but unfortunately I am one of those all or nothing types. If the government can have it the people should be able to have it otherwise the 2nd amendment is worthless as there would be prominent firearm technology disparity.

novaDAK
February 23, 2009, 01:00 AM
Mdog used the term "common sense".

'nuff said.

jimmyraythomason
February 23, 2009, 01:05 AM
leathermanwave, I believe that quote is generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin;)

Guitargod1985
February 23, 2009, 02:40 AM
By publishing an article in a national magazine you are inferring that you support the sale of such weapon.

I hate to be the grammar police, but to infer is to draw a conclusion from something. I believe the word are looking for is "imply."

Kindrox
February 23, 2009, 03:28 AM
I feel the OP is nothing but a troll but I will chime in anyway.

I don't think he is a troll. There are a number of folks who think if we throw the "unfriendly" firearms under the bus, they will be allowed to keep their "friendly" firearm.

Those of us who know there arn't any "friendly" firearms to a true anti (just asked the UK) don't buy this argument for a minute, but also in reality there are still levels of anti gun folks. My MIL thinks DC should be able to ban firearms because there are "important" people in DC, but thinks she should be able to own a .22. Of course she is crazy as a jaybird, and the OP's letter is just the kind of crazy talk she'd write.

Drusagas
February 23, 2009, 03:37 AM
man, all I've gotta say is that TP9 pistol looks reeeaaallly fun. Wish I had the funds, those are however going towards some ar lowers just in case a ban comes

Davek1977
February 23, 2009, 03:51 AM
I have absolutely NO issue witht the NRA suporting the sale of "black guns" or guns otherwise unpopular with those who don't like guns. By taking a stand against this gun, you've fully succombed to the "divide and conquor" strategies the anti-gunners love to employ. Not only do they want to turn the popluation at large against gun ownbers, but its even more of a success when they can turn gunners against one another. I'd like to take this time to thank you, mdog, for feeding right into the hands of the anti-gun community. I'm sure the Brady's are thrilled with your letter, probably infintively moreso than the NRA was.

solareclipse
February 23, 2009, 06:29 AM
Here we go again.. everybody run! its an UZI clone!

JohnBT
February 23, 2009, 09:28 AM
Okay, I finally got around to reading the article.

"that TP9 pistol looks reeeaaallly fun"

Except for the parts about weighing 3 pounds, having a bad trigger and costing $1200. And being ugly. ;)

John

leathermanwave
February 23, 2009, 12:29 PM
leathermanwave, I believe that quote is generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin Okay, after a little google magic it looks like you are right.

Lightninstrike
February 23, 2009, 12:41 PM
They are focusing on firearms which only look scary yet are no more dangerous than the average deer rifle....

Yep. Most deer rifles would put an EBR to shame when it comes to raw power.

XD9WBT
February 23, 2009, 12:48 PM
Thanks Mdog, for a while I have had an itch for something Exotic and Scary. I think you just scratched it which makes me think that was the point of your thread anyway.

No matter I want one.

http://www.dsarms.com/images/BTTP9.gif

bdickens
February 23, 2009, 01:44 PM
I think the NRA puts its "stamp of approval" on this firearm because they support the legal ownership of legal firearms to be used for any legal purpose by any law-abiding American. The Second Amendment isn't just about Parker shotguns with deep blue-black barrels and walnut stocks with hand-rubbed oil finishes. The Second Amendment is about all firearms no matter how pretty or ugly.

Maybe the ACLU should only support the use of certain mdog-approved computers, word processing software, and cameras. How would that float your boat? I mean, nobody really needs a rack mounted, multi-core server, do they? Nobody really needs a Nikon D3x (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/592951-REG/Nikon_25442_D3x_SLR_Digital_Camera.html), do they?

HexHead
February 23, 2009, 01:51 PM
While I don't agree with the OP, I see the point he was trying to make. In the current political environment, highlighting that pistol could be construed as akin to waving a red flag at a bull.

Sam1911
February 23, 2009, 03:13 PM
I see the point he was trying to make. In the current political environment, highlighting that pistol could be construed as akin to waving a red flag at a bull.

Yes, of course, I think everyone comprehends that point. However, the point is irrelevant, invalid, and unworthy of consideration.

The bull may be enraged. The bull is ALWAYS enraged, regardless of the target. It is not our duty to give credence, support, or succor to "the bull's" view of the world.


O.K.?


Having said that, the "current political environment" -- with the exception of the current sitting POTUS and Legislature, is better than it ever has been in most of our lifetimes. Civilian gun ownership is through the roof. EBRs in general, and even "exotics" like SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, .50 BMG rifles, and even the silly little TP-9, are more popular than ever before. Selling by the 10s of 1000s. CCW laws are VASTLY better than ever in the last century or so. We can carry in National Parks for G*d's sake, and just last year the SCOTUS just affirmed the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment! This is NOT the time to start hiding under a rock or pretending we don't exist! Progress may get rocky, but if we don't back down we shouldn't be willing to lose the ground we've gained.

Of course, if we have to field a grass roots effort to oppose the whims of OUR OWN BENEFACTOR MEMBERS, maybe we should just give up!
:fire:

-Sam

rbernie
February 23, 2009, 03:30 PM
Considering that the OP hasn't checked in on this thread for several days, it would seem that we're all preaching to ourselves. I'm going to go ahead and lock this one as done unless the OP contacts me and asked me to re-open it for further dialogue.

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