1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.


Discussion in 'Activism' started by denfoote, Apr 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. denfoote

    denfoote Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    Near the border of occupied Azlan and Mexico.
    Carolyn McCarthy is at it again!!!
    This time with the help of a traitor, John Dingle!!
    Believe you me, John Dingle was on the NRA board before he turned on us and went over to the other side!! He has friends on the NRA. Enough such that the NRA is gonna look the other way on this!! This is from that "other" gun rights group: GOA.
    We gotta jump on this one fast before it gains a head of steam!!

  2. ProficientRifleman

    ProficientRifleman Member

    May 3, 2006
    As I said before. I'll send more money to the NRA when they work to repeal the GCA and the NFA.....Rotsuh Ruck G.I.!
  3. chemist308

    chemist308 Member

    Mar 28, 2007
    Pocono Area, PA
    Who's writing their house reps to tell them that though they are NRA members they do not support this?
  4. MikeHaas

    MikeHaas Member

    Oct 24, 2003
    Dingell has not turned on us. NRA supports preventing those who have been adjucated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others (a very specific standard) from buying a gun. That's common sense and nothing new. Dingell is a very pro-gun Democrat, always has been. He's not in that "black helicopter" you fear.

    Note that even some of the rabid anti Dems in Congress are not catering to the Brady's calls for gun bans - they are directing their attention to modifying mental heatlh regulations. This is a paradigm shift - in the wake of Columbine (1999), there was a strong attempt to pass gun control. But not here.

    And personally, I agree - it makes no sense to have an Instant Check system and not check for this obvious danger. So just who is the Instant Check system supposed to be checking - only healthy law-abiding gun-owners? Remember these are people that a court has determined are a danger to themselves or others. This does NOT include those who receive mental health treatment or therapy, simply under the care of a mental health doctor or those who exhibit "Brittney Spears" behavior, etc.

    Of course there is a potential for abuse, like when Clinton prohibited 90,000 veterans with "post-traumatic stress syndrome" from owning guns. NRA is still trying to straighten that out but is THE reason Dems now are thinking twice in the aftermath of this tragedy. Remember what it was like after Columbine? What a difference Charlton Heston, NRA and 7 years makes!

    I hope NRA is involved with this kind of effort so that we stay protected. Dems may not want to attack gun-rights right now, but elections have a way of changing things.

    IMO, the big danger to gun-owners here is coming from GOA and JPFO who, predictably, are already disagreeing with NRA's position. Anyone surprised? As often happens, our worst enemies are on our own side. These tiny "hate NRA, send us your money instead" groups will stop at nothing to fundraise, even adopting positions that make gun-owners look like neandrethals. Remember, their goal is to support themselves by convincing fellow neandrethals that NRA is betraying them. If they can convince .01% of NRA members to send them money instead of NRA, it's a financial boon for them! You see, AGREEING with NRA just doesn't pay - smart folks just send their money to NRA and ignore your tiny group. So they disagree and disagree and disagree, regardless of position and what it means to the Second Amendment. Always been that way. They know they are irrelevant to lawmakers (thank God) but try to fool enough well-intentioned but frustrated gun-owners to keep their mortgages paid. That's what preying on gun-rights is all, about - anything to keep a real job at bay.

  5. MattC

    MattC Member

    Mar 14, 2006
    Madison, WI
    Reps contacted. Mike, I hear your side of the story, and I agree with you that the NRA has a valid point of wanting to be clear that they do not support people legally judged of being a danger to others (though I disagree about forbidden ownership by people judged as being a danger to themselves). Coming out against that topic will diminish their support base and decrease their public credibility. And yes, other pro-RKBA organizations criticizing the NRA can be divisive, however squashing that criticism is a bad idea. As members of the NRA especially, we have an obligation to question and personally determine the merits of the NRA's actions.

    That said, I noted in my letter that I am an NRA member, and that I do disagree with the organization on this stance. I am not going to stop renewing my membership with the NRA. I support multiple organizations for this very reason--no one can fully represent me, and I do not fully agree with all that any of them do.

    Thank you, Mike, for presenting that side of the argument.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page