Gun Clubs & NRA Membership

[Orion8472]

I fixed my spelling error.

I ask the questions I did, because I don't know the answers to them. Thanks.

 

[SwampWolf]

A very well thought-out response jfh. Thanks for the input.

 

[texas bulldog]

smoking357:

i'm a little late in reading your response to my question from a month ago.

suffice it to say that if you are openly supporting armed insurrection against our government, i'll take a pass at this time. if you haven't noticed, we are winning right now. public opinion has swung well in our favor, and the past few years have seen significant progress. i believe more is on the horizon. and despite your suggestions, the NRA has actually played a positive role in achieving that progress. sorry, i just don't think we're at the point of storming the capital steps.

for the record (and as pointed out countless times on this forum), the composition of the court was quite different when the NRA opposed filing Heller. like them, i believe we would have lost with the justices who were replaced. considering the precedent that would have been set, that would have been a crushing defeat.

as for the current proceedings, the court actually asked to hear from the NRA. would you expect them to decline in that case?


it's pretty clear that you fall on the "fantasy world" side of the question i posed. feel free to read my other posts to see where i stand on any particular gun rights issue. i think you'll find that we agree. however, my personal wants and desires don't become the law of the land just because it's what i want.

 

[texas bulldog]

Seriously, I thought it was the 2nd Amendment that gives me the right to keep and bear arms, not the NRA.

wrong. your right to self-defense and the effective means thereof come from God (or nature, if you prefer). this right existed long before the COTUS and will exist for eternity. the 2A merely affirmed that pre-existing right. the NRA-ILA, in turn, does what it can to defend that right against those who would see us all in chains, begging for scraps from the government's table.

if that image is comforting to you, by all means, don't support the NRA...

 

[texas bulldog]

There are times I wish they were. Lots of money goes into NRA, lots of money goes out, no major legislative changes. That's true. But that doesn't mean that NRA doesn't want it to change, just that change is a hell of a lot harder than it seems. With all the anti groups out there, maybe holding the status quo and small progress here and there is all we can hope for at the moment, ever consider that possibility?

this is a good point that too few gun owners seem to understand. there are two sides here. heck, george soros pours money into anti-gun groups by the tanker load, as does bloomberg. there are instances where simply "maintaining the status quo" is a victory, and an expensive one at that.

i will wholeheartedly agree that gun laws in this nation are not anywhere near where they ought to be. but attacking the NRA because you don't like how things stand is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[Orion8472]

Seriously, I thought it was the 2nd Amendment that gives me the right to keep and bear arms, not the NRA.

wrong. your right to self-defense and the effective means thereof come from God (or nature, if you prefer). this right existed long before the COTUS and will exist for eternity. the 2A merely affirmed that pre-existing right. the NRA-ILA, in turn, does what it can to defend that right against those who would see us all in chains, begging for scraps from the government's table.

if that image is comforting to you, by all means, don't support the NRA...

The law doesn't recognize "God", or "nature". The 2nd Amendment may have affirmed the notion of self protection, . . . but it also sets up a judicial weight upon it.

 

[texas bulldog]

The law doesn't recognize "God", or "nature". The 2nd Amendment may have affirmed the notion of self protection, . . . but it also sets up a judicial weight upon it.

perhaps, but the founding fathers certainly did. you know...something about all men being endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. it was these rights that the BOR was designed to affirm (not create).

are your rights granted to you by the government to be revoked at its discretion, or are you born with them?

i, for one, certainly believe the latter.

 

[Orion8472]

I believe that each person has the right to self preservation, whether or not a "creator" is thrown into the mix. Though the founding fathers utilized the concept, . . . and I'm glad they did, . . . they set up what must be amended, and it takes some fancy doing to amend. I'm glad for their foresight in keeping the government at bay by setting up the judicial "check and balance". And I think that is the reason for them setting up the amendment, because no one should be told that they can't defend themselves by a governing body.

I have nothing really against the NRA. I hope they continue to do all they can for those freedoms to keep from being infringed upon.

 

[SwampWolf]

I believe that each person has the right to self preservation, whether or not a "creator" is thrown into the mix. Though the founding fathers utilized the concept, . . . and I'm glad they did, . . . they set up what must be amended, and it takes some fancy doing to amend. I'm glad for their foresight in keeping the government at bay by setting up the judicial "check and balance".

It's not a matter of the "creator" being "thrown into the mix", it's an acknowledgement the Founders recognized and espoused; that only God allots rights and that the government grants nothing. Government is established to insure that our God-given rights are protected. Government doesn't give us any rights; those rights are intrinsic and were endowed by our Creator. The checks and balances you speak of involve an interaction between three branches of government; the legislature, the executive and the judicial. The judicial branch of government is also constrained by the other two branches (or should be). None can act unilaterally without "checks and balances" from the others-at least, that was the plan.

 

[stickhauler]

In truth, the founders didn't even believe they needed to enumerate the rights listed in the Bill Of Rights, it was considered a given that law abiding citizens held these rights courtesy of their creator, not a government.

The Bill Of Rights was only added as an enticement to persuade the states to ratify the Constitution, largely to entice Virginia to ratify it. It was the intent of the founders to elect Washington our first President, had Virginia not voted to ratify the Constitution, they wouldn't have been possible. Remember, back then, just as in the Civil War era, men considered their allegiance to their home state a priority, not any central governments wants or needs.

Had Lincoln had his way, Robert E. Lee would have commanded his army in the War of Northern Aggression. He opted to follow the lead of his home state instead, and entered the war with his fellow Virginians.

 

[Orion8472]

Again, I appreciate the devout stance, but any "creator" or "god" is irrelevant to established law. FWIW, people recognized the need for self preservation long before religions placed it upon ancient media. If anything, they are based in nature. Self preservation is just natural. . . . . . . . . . I don't mean to be offensive to a religious belief, but without a 2nd amendment laying down what it did, any belief that "a firearm is a god given right" would hold no water. Establishing a 2nd amendment, which is the PEOPLE'S "check and balance" upon the government, needs nothing more than what is stated.

The problem with just having it as "a god given right". . . . they could easily state, "you CAN protect yourself, but not with a firearm". The statement "it is a god given right for me to protect myself" it too broad and the conclusion could be anything.

 

[stickhauler]

I simply stated it like that because in the reading I've done of the founders own words on the subject at the time.

Many try to claim the amendment applies only to an militia, or only to defending one's self, and that sport shooting, or hunting isn't mentioned so it wasn't seen as a right by the founders. But that ignores the fact that many people fed their families from what game they could harvest at the time, or that frontiersmen often had contests to see who was the best shot among them, with livestock or the "pot" collected from the collected shooters as the prize for the person who won the contest.

Actually, the "well regulated" phrase was meant more that arms should be of a similar nature for a militia, so that if you ran out of ammo, your fellow soldiers could loan you a few rounds.

 

[Orion8472]

Yep! And that's why I try to stick to the NATO-ish rounds.

I was thinking about the wording of the 2nd Amendment, . . . sometimes I wonder if they should have included the words "Because of" at the beginning. The reason why I say this is because the founding fathers were meaning for the people to defend against enemies, both foreign and domestic, . . . which included a tyranical goveernment coming into power AND making use of the "state militias", or volunteer armed forces, to do their bidding. So, it would be "Because of a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [to protect from foreign enemies], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [to also help protect from foreign enemies, as well as domestic tyranny]."

Anyway, that's all I have to say on this topic, as it is taking a different direction from the OP.

I am unaware of my location's gun clubs requiring an NRA membership, but I have not attempted to join one, so I can't answer the OP with any specifics. Good topic.