Will You Continue to Support the SAF After Their Involvment in ManchinToomey ?

[we are not amused]

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy!

For all of the people on this thread expressing outrage and hate toward Alan Gottlieb and the SAF, I want to ask a question.

What have you done on the level of the Heller decision and the MacDonald case?

There are plenty of Yahoo's on this site who openly spew hate toward certain gun companies because of statements made by the then owners, twenty years ago.

There are people on this site who openly express contempt toward avid gun rights supporters, for statements or actions which occurred over forty years ago.

Now there are people who are expressing contempt and hatred against the man and organization who won the Heller and MacDonald case. All because he apparently isn't ideologically "pure" enough.

Heck, there are a lot of people on this Forum, (including moderators) who don't support the Right to Bear Arms, that think it is a privilege to be granted or withheld at the whim of our Progressive Lords and Masters.

Yet, we are throwing someone who has done more to secure the Right to Keep and Bear Arms than anyone on this forum has ever done, simply because he isn't ideologically "pure" enough!

He has conducted several interviews with both Tom Grisham of Gun Talk,and Mark Walters of Armed America Radio. I urge everyone to look up the podcast, and listen to both those people. They decided they couldn't support his efforts, but they aren't throwing him under the bus.

Reasonable people can have differences of opinion and tactics, and still not be the enemy!

He is definitely someone who done a lot of good for our side, and we shouldn't be blackballing him.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR GUN RIGHTS, THAT IS ON PAR WITH WHAT ALAN GOTTLIEB HAS ACCOMPLISHED?

 

[Sam1911]

We are amused! But you're right to a degree. We do owe these guys a debt of gratitude for what they've done. In the past. But the past is not the present, nor the future, and where they've walked in the past does not dictate that their path is straight and narrow now, or in the future.

Because of that. we also owe them the benefit of our best counsel and honesty in pointing out where they've gone awry. They aren't the masters any more than HCI or the President is. This is a cooperative effort, and we, the voters, supporters, and affected citizens are part of the "team." We need to encourage them when they're discouraged, and ASSIST them when they falter. Sometimes that encouragement and assistence must take the form of constructive criticism and even constructive coercion in the form of withholding monetary support.

It is fun and facile to launch an "argument killer" like this ...

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR GUN RIGHTS, THAT IS ON PAR WITH WHAT ALAN GOTTLIEB HAS ACCOMPLISHED?

... but it's really a dodge. We are not all, and cannot be, constitutional litigators fighting cases before the SCOTUS. But we are all these litigators' CLIENTS. They work for us, the affected citizen who's rights hang in the balance. So "what have you..." is akin to saying, "Who are YOU to say that the doctor amputated the wrong leg? Where's YOUR medical degree?"

We don't need to hang these guys in effigy, yet at least, but we do need to tell the doctor that he's made a terrible mistake and needs to move heaven and earth to get back on the right track. His blunder has caused a severe loss of good faith with his patient and he'll have great trouble being as effective in the future.

 

[Bruno2]

Well, I gave them some of the money they used to get those decisions. I also lobbied for them to gain more money and that helped fund those suits. I also gave money to the NRA/ILA that helped fight the McDonald case too.

WANA, don't get me wrong or anybody else here for that matter. Most of us appreciate what has been done by SAF for RKBA. However, I am not in favor of any kind of UBC rather it be private , gov or whatever, records no records that's how I feel. I am having trouble sending them anymore money b/c I am scared they are going to litigate me into something I don't want. When the NRA tries to legislate me into something I am totally against I ill not fund them anymore as well.

Nobody is saying lets try to dismantle SAF or CCRKBA. We are just saying lets vote with our wallets to get them on board with what the majority of gun owners want and not their own personal agenda. Should they take it wrong or not agree with no UBC ever and decide to dissolve or continue full steam ahead on fighting for a UBC then to hell with them. We all have our own opinions.

 

[Bruno2]

Back to the top. The poll is about to close and I would like to give anybody the opportunity that hasn't voted or commented to do so.

 

[barnetmill]

I will consider my support on an issue by issue basis. They do serve a useful purpose in being a loose cannon that is independent from the NRA. They help keep everybody on their toes.
I did not vote since I see only two choices.

 

[Davek1977]

Being unpredictable, or a "loose cannon" is the LAST thing I want from people supposedly reflecting our views and opinions. I want them to steadfastly defend my rights, combat gun control, and prevent further intrusions/infringement. They instead supported something I never would, and that also runs contrary to how a LOT of gun owners feel, and appearently don't feel the least bit bad about doing so. We are the sum of our actions, and good deeds in the past don't make up for mucking up things presently. Until I see a wholehearted apology for basically throwing us under the bus, AND future work that reflects my personal values and opinions regarding guns and gun control, I see no reason to provide financial support at this time.

 

[Bruno2]

Well guys, the poll closed at a 70-30 score. Looks like according to THR that these guys have shot themselves in the foot. I hope by accident and maybe they have experienced one of BO's "teachable moments". We will see.

 

[Johannes_Paulsen]

Oddly, I received a call from SAF earlier today. I did not have time to talk, as I was in a car with a colleague at the time, but if they call back, I might quiz them on this....

 

[MechAg94]

A little late for me, but I think a lot of pro-gun people thought an a gun bill was inevitable and was going to pass. I applaud their attempt to get pro-gun amendments attached and essentially undermine the Feinstein bill, but accepting Antigun parts is not a great idea. In the end, support for it wasn't what some people thought.

I think this is essentially how we got the 1994 AWB I think. Maybe some older timers can correct me on that. I know the political support for gun control was even stronger then.

 

[phil dirt]

As I said earlier, I support Gottlieb and the SAF. I am a life member of his Citizens For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, and I'm also a life member of the SAF, the NRA and GOA. I don't always agree with any of them 100%, but these groups are the only reason we still have a Second Amendment in this country. I well remember a bunch of you guys got on your high horse and refused to support Romney, not that he was perfect by a long shot, but he was certainly less of a threat to us than the POS we now have as President. In politics, it seems we usually have our choice between the bad and the ugly, not that I consider Gottlieb to be either one. Looking at the big picture, I will continue to support all of the pro gun groups with my money. As we all know, I think, the anti-gunners are not going to give up, and they'd love to see us cut our own throats. If you have a problem with any of our pro gun groups, call them, write them and tell them about it, but if you think this war can be won without the money it takes to fight it, you can be sure we are going to loose!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I don't understand why they would support EBCs. Not even the supporters of EBC believe it would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have taken place in the last few years. So why have EBCs?

By the same token, a DOJ study found that firearms-related homicides have declined 39% in the last 18 years and firearms-related crime in general have declined 60%. Clearly, whatever we're doing now (and that's expanded concealed carry) is working.

If we want to reduce firearms-related crimes even farther, make CCW licenses good on the same basis as drivers licenses -- licensed on one state, licensed in all. And start removing prohibitions about where CCW holders can carry.

 

[Pointshoot]

IMO many 2A supporters seemed to miss one very important point after events like Sandy Hook and others. - - - Your odds of being a victim of a mass shooting are much less than being struck by lightning.(Look up the 10 year stats for both events). The arguments that you allow yourself to be drawn into, are a complete hoax. Its nothing but gaming you using emotionalism. Yet some think they should 'compromise' with the gangster/liars who are intent on taking away your rights that were recognized in the US Constitution. Are we completely clueless ? When a predator shows up on your doorstep demanding that he be allowed to rape your wife and two daughters, will you feel pleased at the 'compromise' of only letting him have his way with one daughter (this time around) ? Have years of public 'education' dumbed us down that much ?
I am currently a SAF member. They have done a lot of good legal work. But Univ Back-ground Checks are nothing but a way to national registration, and then confiscation. If you study a little bit of world history, this is obvious. If SAF is so dumb as to go along with UBC, all the work theyve done in the past means little. I will drop my support for them immediately.

None of these proposals are about reducing crimes. They are about disarming you.

Get it ?

 

[OilyPablo]

None of these proposals are about reducing crimes. They are about disarming you.

Of this there is little doubt.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As I have mentioned before, the DOJ just released a study showing homicides with firearms have declined 39% in the last 18 years, and all gun-related crimes have declined 60%.

So where's the crisis that "gun control" advocates are trying to solve?

 

[Rugerspyderon]

They deserve the benefit if the doubt. They have earned it more than the vast majority of us.

 

[Bruno2]

I somewhat agree Rugerspyderon. However, I think they need to come clean on their position regarding the UBC stance. Will they continue to do their will or will they do the will of the members? Their member base may have shifted to where they are doing the will of the members b/c everyone else not wanting the UBC jumped ship. I am just saying they need to clarify what their intentions in the future will be

 

[garymc]

Hope I'm not repeating someone else's idea. But I've come around to the thought that compromising 100% freedom to 50%, then compromising to 25%, then 12.5%, then, well, you see where it's headed. I was thinking Ed Ames' post #33 was sounding good. Give us an 800 number, let us make a background check on a private sale if there is doubt, case closed. Gun dealers wouldn't like to be cut out of the action. Then I realized, why do any of this crap? The SAF wanted to compromise when they thought we would be crushed under a tsunami of gun control sentiment by 90% of the voters. How gullible. They thought that because they were lied to and bluffed out. It's hard to blame them, because that was what was all over the media. Some states passed gun control measures, probably thinking 90% of their voters wanted it. Missouri and some other states passed laws or resolutions saying "We're not enforcing any federal gun control legislation." In Missouri, by a veto proof majority. That told me, if a majority of the professional politicians in the (bicameral) legislature passed this, then that 90% number was crap. I can't wait till 2014 elections to see what happens to the house and senate.

 

[Bruno2]

Walkalong said:
Agreed.

Now we need to put the dagger in their heart by firing many antis in 2014. If we can do this, they will really be scared to touch gun control. I we don't, they will feel like they got away with pushing control without losing any jobs, which will ease their minds a bit.

I am very happy the CO recall election turned out like it did.I am glad mainly because this sort of debunked the theory that most of the politicians that were voted out after the Brady Bill was passed in 94 were voted out for other reasons that their support of the Bill. That was the antis explanation of the backlash. Well, now that seems to be the only reason the CO politicians were fired. Also I am happy the recall election happened when it did because we all know how short the attention spans and memories of the voting public are. This sort of splashed some cold water on the sleeping memory of the people we will need to help us fire these antis in 2014.

I know the CO recall wont stop the most hardened of the antis like Feinstein or McCarthy , but maybe some of the politicians that like to straddle the fence will get the message and avoid gun control like the plague it is to politicos.

I still have yet to hear if the SAF has changed their tune . I don't hear a lot of chatter about them like I used to. Maybe they will see the writing on the wall after they do the books at the end of the year?

 

[phil dirt]

Yes, I will continue to support them, at least for now. SAF has done far more good for our cause than bad. That's more than I can say for those who insist on open carrying at Starbucks.