Never help your enemy!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am inclined to agree with the article.

The NRA does not want to "win" back gun rights in its upper leadership, they want a long, protracted defeat or a possible eternal stalemate to keep fundraising high, their benefits high, and corporate money flowing.

IMO the NRA used to be about gun rights. More often than not it is a corporation that draws revenue from individuals hoping (usually in vain) for gun rights support and corporation interesting in maintaining lobby and protection of their rights to manufacture firearms related products.

.............that should start the kind of discussion that will get you a quick lock.

remember, the NRA opposed the Parker case, that is and of itself speaks volume on the real agenda.
 
i thought the article was pretty pathetic. it's all slobber and fury and no explanation as to why i should be against the NICS. It assumes I should be, then makes a bunch of frothy accusations which it totally fails to support.

I'm normally a big fan of the JPFO (and GOA), and most of the articles with their name on it are much better written.
 
JPFO normally produces better content and commentary than this. big 'thumbs down' on that article. All noise, no signal.
 
taliv said:
i thought the article was pretty pathetic. it's all slobber and fury and no explanation as to why i should be against the NICS. It assumes I should be, then makes a bunch of frothy accusations which it totally fails to support.
Click to expand...
+1. Well said.
 
....and the military that liberated Europe in two successive world wars, that distributed food and clothing and chewing gum to starving kids, now massacres entire neighborhoods, and terrorizes and tortures helpless prisoners.
Click to expand...

That's where he lost me, and I'm a supporter of the JPFO.

Politics is the art of the possible. Congress was going to pass something gun related in the wake of the VT shootings. While 2640 is not great, it could be a lot worse. Then L. Neil Smith could spend his time writing that the NRA did nothing while HR 1022 was passed.

Which is worse a law in which we (as Gun Owners with the NRA as our lobbyists) had a voice in or one with no input and we just have to accept what the the current congress rams down our throat. (Mr. and Mrs. America: Turn 'em all in.)

Yes, the NRA is not prefect, but it's a hell of lot better then what's in second place.
 
Last edited:
i thought the article was pretty pathetic. it's all slobber and fury and no explanation as to why i should be against the NICS. It assumes I should be, then makes a bunch of frothy accusations which it totally fails to support.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I felt the same way reading it.

I read it twice because I thought I missed something. It's just yet another person spouting off rhetoric with nothing to back it up. I like articles that have like, facts and stuff.
 
JPFO...That was enough to turn me off to the article right there. And it's certainly not because I'm anti-semitic (my mother's maiden name was Baron and my great-great grandfather's name was Simons <hint hint>) But when I read the article I saw how much further down the radical-extremist road JPFO has traveled. All the more reason for me to stay far away!
 
the NRA opposed the Parker case, that is and of itself speaks volume on the real agenda
Click to expand...

Uh, opposing a case that, depending on the whims of the SCOTUS bench, could render the 2nd Amendment moot, is not the same as opposing gun rights.

SCOTUS cases are necessarily strategic.

Right now, a good number of justices don't seem to be bound by anything but their personal feelings, and others want to make very narrow rulings, even when firmly rooted in the Constitution.

Sandra Froman's professional opinion as a longtime DC attorney was that this is not the best time. The last session of SCOTUS might have changed her mind a little, but I see no reason to believe she is against gun rights. That's actually a silly point of view.

Furthermore, even if SCOTUS puts to rest the "collective rights" view, there'll be plenty of gun laws for the NRA to fight. They need not worry about losing revenue for a while, so the premise that they oppose gun rights out of self-interest fails the common-sense test.

Can't we have some gun rights groups that coexist with the NRA, rather than constantly attacking it? It's these groups that help the enemy by doing their job for them. The Brady Bunch fights against the NRA -- no other group has any political clout worth fighting.

I need to ask why, even if there is some disagreement with the NRA, do GOA and JPFO objectively assist the Brady Bunch? How will this help our gun rights?

You know, there are many groups that advocate conservation of natural environments. While they may disagree on some things, I don't see the Sierra Club spending all their time attacking the Nature Conservancy. Are we REALLY that much dumber than they are? It seems some of us are.
 
As I grow older, I grow less tolerant of fools, and less willing to expend any time listening to them.

This was my thought upon reading the "by" line.

Nonetheless, in the spirit of academic integrity, and against my better judgement, I forced myself to read, and have soberly concluded that I want a full and complete refund of those 90 seconds of my life.

{sits back, munches popcorn, waiting for the innevitable charge of closet statism for failing to embrace absolutist libertarian dogma.}
 
If any group knows about incremental strategies it’s the Jewish people. I assume that is what this is about. I didn't read the article.
 
If the NRA were as militant as this writer apparently wants it to be, would it have nearly as many members? Would it be able to mobilize nearly as many pro-gun votes as it does? And, if the answer to those questions is no, then would it have as much political clout as it does have in federal and state legislatures? No, it wouldn't.

So, the NRA can be ultra-militant and ineffectual, or be what it is and be a force that most politicians must at least be wary of.

K
 
nra

we had all better support some progun lobby.the nra is not perfect, but what human institution is? not the union, not the church, not big business.
i recently became a member again after letting my membership expire, not because i felt unrepresented, but because they made pests of themselves on the phone. called 17 times in one week, left no messages, caller unavailable on caller id, i finally answered and blew a gasket when i found out who it was. there were also hangups when the wife or girls answered. the nra caller explained that some wives were anti-nra, or just against being pestered.
this was not a good way to business
 
umm sure

now massacres entire neighborhoods, and terrorizes and tortures helpless prisoners.
Click to expand...

Dresden firebombing? Nagasaki?
If we were fighting like we did in ww2 we would have already
defeated the enemy.
 
The NRA does alot of good more so than anyone else. Enough with these foolish conspiracy theories if more people belonged to the NRA Congress would never have even fathomed the assault weapons ban.

Further the NRA will always have something to do i mean thier bread and butter is thier safety programs. My state actaully requires you to take an NRA approved safety course for your Concealed Carry permit!
 
There is always some bad with the good. Overall, I think the NRA does a good job watching out for the gun rights that many gun owners take for granted. I'm not talking about most of the people that are passionate about the right to keep and bear arms, such as those that participate on this and other gun forums, I'm talking about the people that purchase and own a gun, they may even know how to use it, but they don't have the fire that burns down deep inside that would fight to keep that right to own a gun.

Until I see something better come along, I will stick with the NRA and continue my membership. As I said, no organization is perfect, but they do a lot more good than harm.
 
If you want to be heard on Capital Hill, you need a really loud voice. For what we believe in regards to firearms, the NRA is that voice. I would rather have a pro-gun orginization that is 90% right but is heard by congress fighting for me than to have 20 100% right organizations being ignored.

As for the article, I only scanned over it, and won't be putting in my opinions out because they are not based on the full article. For those who have read the article in its entirety, the author did put his email address under his name, perhaps you should consider using it.
 
they made pests of themselves on the phone. called 17 times in one week, left no messages, caller unavailable on caller id, i finally answered and blew a gasket when i found out who it was. there were also hangups when the wife or girls answered. the nra caller explained that some wives were anti-nra, or just against being pestered.
this was not a good way to business
Click to expand...
Actually, it must be because you signed up.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top