ebd10
Member
OK, I give up. If that's what you want to believe, then by all means do so.
Blind, sycophantic ramblings like yours have convinced me that it's time to leave this thread to the sheep. Later.
NRA screwing us again!
- Thread starter ebd10
- Start date
- Status
OK, I give up. If that's what you want to believe, then by all means do so.
Blind, sycophantic ramblings like yours have convinced me that it's time to leave this thread to the sheep. Later.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
A small number of true believers will have a much greater effect in a population of 4 million than they will in a population of 200 million. If people who believe in RKBA only hang around other people with RKBA, our rights under the Second Amendment are dead already.
It is by convincing other people to get active and involved that we will ultimately secure our freedoms and those "squishy gun owners" are an excellent place to start since they are already much closer in sympathy and at least somewhat activist compared to the even squishier gun owners who don't do anything at all.
Edited to add:
To all: If you can't post civilly in this thread then don't post.
Waitone
Member
Heston is a racist. Oh that one is rich! One would have to be oblivious of civil rights history to hold the view. Shows that one's political underwear is showing.
Here is a choice for you to make. You don't get to make a third or alternative choice, you just get one of these two.
Choice #1--do nothing and lawsuits against gun mfgs continue. The purpose is to use litigation to do what congress would not do, destroy US based manufacturers. Make no bones about it. Lawsuits are designed to destroy.
Choice #2--enact legislation which would stop the suits cold in their tracks. A provision of the legislation would be to require mfgs to throwing in a cheap, ineffective Chinese made lock, something that a number of states either require or do gratis. Anyone with 1/2 brain knows it is pure eyewash and will have no effect.
So what you gonna do? Moan and groan because you don't get everything you want; meanwhile gun mfgs go out of business. Or to do do something meaningless and allow a healthy gun industry to grow.
The NRA is the single most effective grassroots lobby in DC. The fact that the NRA is on a particular case causes the Schumers and Feinsteins of the grabber movement to wet their pants. The NRA has been at this gig for something like 100 years and no organization, I repeat, no organization comes close to its instilled fear and effectiveness. So you want to off the whole organization because it thinks a small compromise is worth the net gain?
I don't like compromise but it is a fact of reality in these USofA. I'd favor an aggressive plan to rollback gun control legislation. Won't happen for a few years but that is what I want. In the meanwhile I'll take compromises like the one under consideration because it is a net advance in the cause. It ain't perfect, but perfection resides in the bosom of the young.
Here is a choice for you to make. You don't get to make a third or alternative choice, you just get one of these two.
Choice #1--do nothing and lawsuits against gun mfgs continue. The purpose is to use litigation to do what congress would not do, destroy US based manufacturers. Make no bones about it. Lawsuits are designed to destroy.
Choice #2--enact legislation which would stop the suits cold in their tracks. A provision of the legislation would be to require mfgs to throwing in a cheap, ineffective Chinese made lock, something that a number of states either require or do gratis. Anyone with 1/2 brain knows it is pure eyewash and will have no effect.
So what you gonna do? Moan and groan because you don't get everything you want; meanwhile gun mfgs go out of business. Or to do do something meaningless and allow a healthy gun industry to grow.
The NRA is the single most effective grassroots lobby in DC. The fact that the NRA is on a particular case causes the Schumers and Feinsteins of the grabber movement to wet their pants. The NRA has been at this gig for something like 100 years and no organization, I repeat, no organization comes close to its instilled fear and effectiveness. So you want to off the whole organization because it thinks a small compromise is worth the net gain?
I don't like compromise but it is a fact of reality in these USofA. I'd favor an aggressive plan to rollback gun control legislation. Won't happen for a few years but that is what I want. In the meanwhile I'll take compromises like the one under consideration because it is a net advance in the cause. It ain't perfect, but perfection resides in the bosom of the young.
B
Boss Spearman
Guest
I believe when my NRA membership expires, I'll not renew it. I'll instead renew my memberships in GOA and the Second Amendment Foundation.
JohnBT
Member
"It's hard to focus on the problem at hand when you're dodging the daggers from behind."
So true. Not quite the way you meant it, but true nevertheless.
"You don't think that having all of those skeet and trap shooters that are against people owning .50 caliber rifles within the ranks is counterproductive?"
Heck no. You're not going to have many supporters left if you insist on driving off this gun owner and that gun owner simply because they don't think the way you do. Let's be inclusive and educational.
"He did more damage to us with his one comment about private ownership of AK-47's than Feinstein ever did."
Did not.
"Those that refuse to do so get OFF-ed "
Tacky word play. Not funny.
John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Endowment Member
So true. Not quite the way you meant it, but true nevertheless.
"You don't think that having all of those skeet and trap shooters that are against people owning .50 caliber rifles within the ranks is counterproductive?"
Heck no. You're not going to have many supporters left if you insist on driving off this gun owner and that gun owner simply because they don't think the way you do. Let's be inclusive and educational.
"He did more damage to us with his one comment about private ownership of AK-47's than Feinstein ever did."
Did not.
"Those that refuse to do so get OFF-ed "
Tacky word play. Not funny.
John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Endowment Member
FPrice
Member
From oregonfirearms.org
From ebd10:
So you do compromise. And when you compromise it's a good thing but when the NRA compromises it's a bad thing? No matter how you try to justify it do you not see any hypocrisy or double-standard there?
Look, we could continue to throw brickbats and charges at one another but where is that going to get us? It only continues a split in our ranks that we really don't need or can afford. We already have too many such divisive arguements. What we really need is a renewed effort to work together and, if we have differences such as typified by this thread, work in a civil manner to resolve them, not try to smear the other.
Now, we could put a halt to passage of S.397 on the grounds that it has two clauses which we don't like and being the no-compromise types we would rather allow nuisance lawsuits to continue to be filed and drain more money from gun manufacturers while we continue to argue over these two points (which already exist) and possibly lose more ground next time. Or we could support S.397 and, as Chris Knox has said, "Let's pass it and get to work cleaning up the larger mess."
I'd like to address one more point here. I give this every time there is a discussion about which organization a shooter should join. I do not believe that it is an either/or proposition. I strongly believe that every firearms owner should belong to a minimum of three organizations (within your financial ability to do this):
1. Local: You should belong to or support your local range. Many ranges are under attack by a variety of environmental/neighborhood/anti-gun organizations which would like to close these ranges down and keep us from being able to shoot. Ranges need membership support to keep going and they need local firearms owners to be aware of local political initiatives and support those that support our RKBA and work to defeat those that work against us. As the late Boston politico Tip O'Neil once observed, "All politics is local.".
2. State: Every state (hopefully) has an organization that works to promote shooting activities and our rights within that state. In Massachusetts it is the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL). In Oregon you have the Oregon Firearms organization. These are the people who should know what is going on in your state and work to organize firearms owners and clubs in a cohesive force to protect your rights from state encroachment. They should reach down to the clubs and individual firearms owners to mobilize them into a politial force and upwards to a national organization for their help and support.
3. National: On the national level we need an organization which has the stature to address shooting and firearms issues on this level. There are several organizations which attempt to do this but only one which provides leadership in the political and legal arena, training, hunting, and shooting competitions. Whether you realize it or not the latter three help us as firearms owners by providing those programs which keep shooting activities safe and alive, much to the diamay of the anti-gun people. This is as important as fighting for our rights because if these activities did not exist, many people (and gun manufacturers) might just give up on firearms ownership as a right to be continued and preserved.
Now, if you can't bring yourself to join the NRA then you should join one of the other groups. But don't bad-mouth the NRA. In fact, don't bad-mouth anyone trying to work for our rights. Civil conversation and disagreement can help. If you see what you consider to be a problem address it. In strong terms even. But accusing another organization of promoting "gun control" in order to make your organization look good is non-productive. If your organization is that good, then publicizing what you do and how you do it should be enough to attract members.
From ebd10:
So you do compromise. And when you compromise it's a good thing but when the NRA compromises it's a bad thing? No matter how you try to justify it do you not see any hypocrisy or double-standard there?
Look, we could continue to throw brickbats and charges at one another but where is that going to get us? It only continues a split in our ranks that we really don't need or can afford. We already have too many such divisive arguements. What we really need is a renewed effort to work together and, if we have differences such as typified by this thread, work in a civil manner to resolve them, not try to smear the other.
Now, we could put a halt to passage of S.397 on the grounds that it has two clauses which we don't like and being the no-compromise types we would rather allow nuisance lawsuits to continue to be filed and drain more money from gun manufacturers while we continue to argue over these two points (which already exist) and possibly lose more ground next time. Or we could support S.397 and, as Chris Knox has said, "Let's pass it and get to work cleaning up the larger mess."
I'd like to address one more point here. I give this every time there is a discussion about which organization a shooter should join. I do not believe that it is an either/or proposition. I strongly believe that every firearms owner should belong to a minimum of three organizations (within your financial ability to do this):
1. Local: You should belong to or support your local range. Many ranges are under attack by a variety of environmental/neighborhood/anti-gun organizations which would like to close these ranges down and keep us from being able to shoot. Ranges need membership support to keep going and they need local firearms owners to be aware of local political initiatives and support those that support our RKBA and work to defeat those that work against us. As the late Boston politico Tip O'Neil once observed, "All politics is local.".
2. State: Every state (hopefully) has an organization that works to promote shooting activities and our rights within that state. In Massachusetts it is the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL). In Oregon you have the Oregon Firearms organization. These are the people who should know what is going on in your state and work to organize firearms owners and clubs in a cohesive force to protect your rights from state encroachment. They should reach down to the clubs and individual firearms owners to mobilize them into a politial force and upwards to a national organization for their help and support.
3. National: On the national level we need an organization which has the stature to address shooting and firearms issues on this level. There are several organizations which attempt to do this but only one which provides leadership in the political and legal arena, training, hunting, and shooting competitions. Whether you realize it or not the latter three help us as firearms owners by providing those programs which keep shooting activities safe and alive, much to the diamay of the anti-gun people. This is as important as fighting for our rights because if these activities did not exist, many people (and gun manufacturers) might just give up on firearms ownership as a right to be continued and preserved.
Now, if you can't bring yourself to join the NRA then you should join one of the other groups. But don't bad-mouth the NRA. In fact, don't bad-mouth anyone trying to work for our rights. Civil conversation and disagreement can help. If you see what you consider to be a problem address it. In strong terms even. But accusing another organization of promoting "gun control" in order to make your organization look good is non-productive. If your organization is that good, then publicizing what you do and how you do it should be enough to attract members.
El wrongo. The Nuge is THE man, and they should embrace this patriot even closer. What on earth would make you describe him as an alleged 'idiot'? He's probably got 1.5 to twice the IQ of myself and yourself (not bad-mouthing; just that he's a very intelligent dude, literally). AND he espouses uncompromised freedom and the 2A, as well as promoting hunting rights vigorously. What's not to like? Heston was a good move too. Although he didn't hoist an AR, he's was very good for the org overall, and NOT a racist. They DO need to become more no-compromise. That's why I joined life member, so I can vote for directors. THAT's how you change things. Join up and vote for the directors who will change things; not just the status quo directors.
JohnBT
Member
Before this thread I couldn't even spell "sycophantic ramblings"
Learn something new every day.
JohnBaabaaT
Learn something new every day.
JohnBaabaaT
FPrice
Member
But, can you do one now?
Tom Servo
Member
Nothing at all. I hope to be one someday myself
Point is, public perception is that it's ONLY us hicks who seem to be fighting for the 2A and arguing against the "it's for your own good" gun controls being pushed through. With the media the way it is in this country, perception=reality, and the perception is that the NRA is a redneck dinosaur. That needs to change.
Maybe I was a bit harsh on Heston and Nugent, but c'mon, can't they get someone more moderate and a bit less "scary" to the average person (unlike Nugent) and less dottering (unlike Heston)?
The average person in this country knows what the media tells them, and that's it. Notice lately that they no longer teach Civics in our schools? Most people think that guns are only good for hunting, and that the 2A is an anachronism from the days of King George. As much as some among us may cheer for Heston or Nugent, the average person just sees them as extremist weirdos. There's alot of misinformation to overcome, and these aren't the guys to do it.
fallingblock
Member
Join the NRA....the GOA...JPFO.....
But do take notice that when the congresscritters recognize who is the
"anti-gun gorilla" they pay heed to, it is the NRA.
If you don't like what NRA is doing, get involved...vote within the organization. Lobby the board members for changes you want to see.
Bailing out of NRA because of some crack-pot, half-baked claim that NRA
"sold us out"...
when we are getting a major success in the struggle against frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry -
Why, that is just plain dimwitted.
If 'dimwitted' is too suggestive for Art's grammaw,
then substitute "counterproductive".
Y'all obviously haven't had the experience of being squashed like a bug by a government while lacking any organized pro-gun lobby to stand up to it.
:banghead:
Australia's experience ought to convince folks of the necessity of having that
"anti-gun gorilla" in place and operational at all times.
Australia's few 'radical' pro-gun folks were easily swept aside by the media's anti-gun avalanche and there was no effective national organization with lobbying experience or positioning to challenge the government. End of story.
Join/remain in the NRA - involve yourself in the political conflict instead of just moaning and complaining about those in the NRA who are achieving positive results.
But do take notice that when the congresscritters recognize who is the
"anti-gun gorilla" they pay heed to, it is the NRA.
If you don't like what NRA is doing, get involved...vote within the organization. Lobby the board members for changes you want to see.
Bailing out of NRA because of some crack-pot, half-baked claim that NRA
"sold us out"...
when we are getting a major success in the struggle against frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry -
Why, that is just plain dimwitted.
If 'dimwitted' is too suggestive for Art's grammaw,
then substitute "counterproductive".
Y'all obviously haven't had the experience of being squashed like a bug by a government while lacking any organized pro-gun lobby to stand up to it.
:banghead:
Australia's experience ought to convince folks of the necessity of having that
"anti-gun gorilla" in place and operational at all times.
Australia's few 'radical' pro-gun folks were easily swept aside by the media's anti-gun avalanche and there was no effective national organization with lobbying experience or positioning to challenge the government. End of story.
Join/remain in the NRA - involve yourself in the political conflict instead of just moaning and complaining about those in the NRA who are achieving positive results.
straightShot
Member
I won't get sucked into this "bashing the NRA" vortex. These sorts of threads seem to be popping up with greater frequency around here. I wonder why.
I'm going to the range.
I'm going to the range.
Hold on there ebd10
Not all of anyone is one way or another.
I shoot a LOT of skeet and almost all of the shooters I talk to are NOT opposed to private ownership rights - they may think were wacky for wanting to own military profile weapons, but they are pro-gun rights. And they are not particularly aware of my interest, so I think they're fairly open about it.
Believe it or not, (as a rule) they are some pretty bright people, successful and committed. I am sure there are some who can't be bothered by the cause, but MOST are on board with us.
And to Eric:
As for " Bowling", anyone who gives that piece of feces any creedance needs re-programming. Heston as a "racist" is an outright smear. Moore is the real racist and bigot.
I support several pro-gun groups, but the single most effective (though not perfect) group out there is the NRA. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater to get support for GOA, CCRKBA and the other groups - support them all! Look at what the Anti's have done - created clone groups to give themselves the image of "size". Don't you think that those myriad groups have interlocking memberships? Cough up the measley $25 and join another pro-gun group - any pro-gun group. Invest in the cause to the level of importance you place on it.
Steve Haynie
NRA Patron Member
Not all of anyone is one way or another.
I shoot a LOT of skeet and almost all of the shooters I talk to are NOT opposed to private ownership rights - they may think were wacky for wanting to own military profile weapons, but they are pro-gun rights. And they are not particularly aware of my interest, so I think they're fairly open about it.
Believe it or not, (as a rule) they are some pretty bright people, successful and committed. I am sure there are some who can't be bothered by the cause, but MOST are on board with us.
And to Eric:
As for " Bowling", anyone who gives that piece of feces any creedance needs re-programming. Heston as a "racist" is an outright smear. Moore is the real racist and bigot.
I support several pro-gun groups, but the single most effective (though not perfect) group out there is the NRA. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater to get support for GOA, CCRKBA and the other groups - support them all! Look at what the Anti's have done - created clone groups to give themselves the image of "size". Don't you think that those myriad groups have interlocking memberships? Cough up the measley $25 and join another pro-gun group - any pro-gun group. Invest in the cause to the level of importance you place on it.
Steve Haynie
NRA Patron Member
Just a few questions...
Is GOA actually a gun rights organization? Or are they in fact an anti-NRA organization? I think they're a plant from the VPC designed to split gun owners and weaken the NRA.
We've heard a lot of these tin-hat anti-NRA conspiracy theories over the years. Just last year, these people were saying that the NRA was going to "compromise" with Fienstein et al, bargaining a renewal of the AWB in order to get the liability protection law passed, because, the theory went, the NRA is all about the gun manufacturers and dealers and doesn't care about gun rights. Then of course reality kicked in, and when the Senate attached AWB renewal to the liability law, the NRA killed the bill, thus violating every premise put forth by the tin-hat anti-NRA conspiracy crowd. That's the problem with conspiracy theorists, though, they don't let reality stand in their way. Give 'em ten minutes, and they'll cook up another crackpot conspiracy theory.
And to the notion that the gun liability lawsuits are a "red herring," or that they "aren't going anywhere," well, to an extent, it is true that the lawsuits haven't made much progress YET (And the NRA has been key in opposing them). But remember there were years of "close but no cigar" tobacco lawsuits until a few of them hit the jackpot. Now the retail price of cigarettes has doubled, because when hit with these lawsuits manufacturers do the only thing they can do; raise prices to cover the liability. Tobacco companies have an army of addicts out there to support them, gun manufacturers don't. If these same kind of lawsuits got traction against guns and ammo, you'd see a lot of your local gun stores shut down, a lot of the big chain stores quit carrying guns and ammo (as a few have already), and a huge price increase to consumers. The gun lawsuit threat is real, and it is not just a threat to manufacturers.
Is GOA actually a gun rights organization? Or are they in fact an anti-NRA organization? I think they're a plant from the VPC designed to split gun owners and weaken the NRA.
We've heard a lot of these tin-hat anti-NRA conspiracy theories over the years. Just last year, these people were saying that the NRA was going to "compromise" with Fienstein et al, bargaining a renewal of the AWB in order to get the liability protection law passed, because, the theory went, the NRA is all about the gun manufacturers and dealers and doesn't care about gun rights. Then of course reality kicked in, and when the Senate attached AWB renewal to the liability law, the NRA killed the bill, thus violating every premise put forth by the tin-hat anti-NRA conspiracy crowd. That's the problem with conspiracy theorists, though, they don't let reality stand in their way. Give 'em ten minutes, and they'll cook up another crackpot conspiracy theory.
And to the notion that the gun liability lawsuits are a "red herring," or that they "aren't going anywhere," well, to an extent, it is true that the lawsuits haven't made much progress YET (And the NRA has been key in opposing them). But remember there were years of "close but no cigar" tobacco lawsuits until a few of them hit the jackpot. Now the retail price of cigarettes has doubled, because when hit with these lawsuits manufacturers do the only thing they can do; raise prices to cover the liability. Tobacco companies have an army of addicts out there to support them, gun manufacturers don't. If these same kind of lawsuits got traction against guns and ammo, you'd see a lot of your local gun stores shut down, a lot of the big chain stores quit carrying guns and ammo (as a few have already), and a huge price increase to consumers. The gun lawsuit threat is real, and it is not just a threat to manufacturers.
NineseveN
member
The NRA pom-poms came in early this year, eh? Nice.
Yeah, sure, I'm from the DU because I don't agree with the politics of the 'untouchable' NRA.
Remember kiddies, we must not criticize the NRA, we must take our lumps in quiet. Thou shalt not speaketh of the NRA without swooning o'er them. If we don't hump the leg of the NRA, then we're anti-gun plants.
Yay! Another thread where anyone that doesn't go along with the crowd is going to be insulted and belittled by reddnecks who like to swing their NRA wangs about the room and demand envy and subservience from the rest of us. Woohoo, just what I was hoping for.
This is the absolute dumbest thing I have ever read. If everyone left the NRA and went to the GoA (which I would never suggest, go where you feel best represented), we'd still have a HUGE gun lobby (one more in-tune with the 2A, less in-tune with hunting and skeet), so what are you NRA folks afraid of? Competition? It's a free market right, or is your socialism showing?
God, why do I even bother.? History here has shown that you can't discuss the NRA objectively, because of all the ardent true believers and fanboys and their propensity to attack anyone that says anything other than what they think you should say. I might as well head on over to Glock Talk and ask them what they think about police brutality.
Yeah, sure, I'm from the DU because I don't agree with the politics of the 'untouchable' NRA.
Remember kiddies, we must not criticize the NRA, we must take our lumps in quiet. Thou shalt not speaketh of the NRA without swooning o'er them. If we don't hump the leg of the NRA, then we're anti-gun plants.
Yay! Another thread where anyone that doesn't go along with the crowd is going to be insulted and belittled by reddnecks who like to swing their NRA wangs about the room and demand envy and subservience from the rest of us. Woohoo, just what I was hoping for.
This is the absolute dumbest thing I have ever read. If everyone left the NRA and went to the GoA (which I would never suggest, go where you feel best represented), we'd still have a HUGE gun lobby (one more in-tune with the 2A, less in-tune with hunting and skeet), so what are you NRA folks afraid of? Competition? It's a free market right, or is your socialism showing?
God, why do I even bother.? History here has shown that you can't discuss the NRA objectively, because of all the ardent true believers and fanboys and their propensity to attack anyone that says anything other than what they think you should say. I might as well head on over to Glock Talk and ask them what they think about police brutality.
ClarkEMyers
Member
How quickly people forget
I was at Cincinnatti for one very long night of not going along with the NRA and I was at Seattle for another disagreement in which some say some of the Cincinnatti reforms were rolled back. I've voted at other annual meetings in which different things happened. For my money Gunweek and some of people associated with it earned the eternal gratitude of gun owners and NRA members in the period leading up to Cincinatti and enduring until today.
Just the same I'm a Patron Member of the NRA today and a strong NRA supporter.
The NRA really is a national membership organization. Local and State Associations are the best guardians of rights at the local and state level.
I was at Cincinnatti for one very long night of not going along with the NRA and I was at Seattle for another disagreement in which some say some of the Cincinnatti reforms were rolled back. I've voted at other annual meetings in which different things happened. For my money Gunweek and some of people associated with it earned the eternal gratitude of gun owners and NRA members in the period leading up to Cincinatti and enduring until today.
Just the same I'm a Patron Member of the NRA today and a strong NRA supporter.
The NRA really is a national membership organization. Local and State Associations are the best guardians of rights at the local and state level.
JohnBT
Member
Rednecks? Here? Anyway, there's only one d in redneck. If you're going to insult us at least put some effort into it.
Where are my NRA pom-poms? I didn't get any pom-poms.
Now if I had some pom-poms I'd be set...
John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Endowment Member
Where are my NRA pom-poms? I didn't get any pom-poms.
Now if I had some pom-poms I'd be set...
John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Endowment Member
NineseveN
member
JohnBT, I'd hope you'd know, I wasn't trying to insult self-proclaimed rednecks in any ay, nor am I trying to insult NRA members, I simply have an issue with a small fraction of NRA-zealots that attack anyone non-conforming and I also happen to disagree with a good bit of what the NRA does. If that insults you, it is not intentional.
JohnBT
Member
It sure reads like a bunch of juvenile name calling. Why don't you go back and read it.
John
John
NineseveN
member
When you start criticizing the insults from the pro-NRA crowd as much as you do from the non-NRA folks, then we can discuss
FPrice
Member
NineseveN...
If you will go back and read carefully, you will note that this thread, like many others, started off by insulting the NRA. As in accusing the NRA of supporting gun control:
Just how often do you see a thread in which an NRA member starts off by insulting other groups? Hint: Not nearly as often as you see the other. In fact it seems that more NRA members recommend joining other groups in addition to the NRA than the other way around.
It just seems to many of us that "some" members of other groups have no hook with which to entice people to join their organization other than to criticize the NRA and spread falsehoods about the "real" goal of the NRA.
Pretty sad commentary on the stature and effectiveness of the group being promoted.
If you will go back and read carefully, you will note that this thread, like many others, started off by insulting the NRA. As in accusing the NRA of supporting gun control:
Just how often do you see a thread in which an NRA member starts off by insulting other groups? Hint: Not nearly as often as you see the other. In fact it seems that more NRA members recommend joining other groups in addition to the NRA than the other way around.
It just seems to many of us that "some" members of other groups have no hook with which to entice people to join their organization other than to criticize the NRA and spread falsehoods about the "real" goal of the NRA.
Pretty sad commentary on the stature and effectiveness of the group being promoted.
NineseveN
member
Here's the rub friend, they do. Even the NRA admits to accepting 'reasonable restrictions'. What are restrictions on a right? Control. It's not an insult, though perhaps the OP meant it in that manner. The fact that NRA members are sensitive to the fact that the NRA has and does support some level of control does not make it an insult, it may be insulting to their sensitivities, but it is not an insult.
Now, some folks are fine with a level of control. Some folks don't care. Some do. Regardless, there's a difference between insulting an organization (i.e. the Packers Management sucks this year) and insulting an individual belonging to that group (i.e. Packers fans suck).
I don't like the NRA. I never said I did not like the NRA members. If you cannot differentiate between the two, there is no use to an open discussion, now is there?
I would think that it matters not who started it, as we're not all in first grade. the conduct tat one engages in during the course of a discussion is important, not who did what first. Waiting until someone else does it is no excuse for repeatedly poor behavior.
Actually, most non-NRA folks are members of another group (JPFO, GOA etc...) and they do advocate joining those groups, not sure what your point is here.
I don't need to entice you to join the GOA. If the NRA serves you well, I am happy for you. They (the NRA) do not serve me well, so I do not belong anymore. The problem is, not belonging to the NRA gets you an insult on this board. Belonging to the NRA does not get you an insult, though we do criticize and even insult the "ORGANIZATION/COMPANY/LEADERSHIP", which is nowhere near the same.
gunsmith
member
huh???
don't mess with Ted or Charlton
The Nuge is a great American!!!!
Mr Heston is no racist and mike moore is a dirtbag buffoon for trying to paint him as one.
if you knew anything about C Heston you would know how stupid that statement is....You might as well know that statement has caused me to send the NRA/ILA more money
don't mess with Ted or Charlton
The Nuge is a great American!!!!
Mr Heston is no racist and mike moore is a dirtbag buffoon for trying to paint him as one.
if you knew anything about C Heston you would know how stupid that statement is....You might as well know that statement has caused me to send the NRA/ILA more money
-----quote-------------
Quote:
Is GOA actually a gun rights organization? Or are they in fact an anti-NRA organization? I think they're a plant from the VPC designed to split gun owners and weaken the NRA.
NineseveN:
This is the absolute dumbest thing I have ever read. If everyone left the NRA and went to the GoA (which I would never suggest, go where you feel best represented), we'd still have a HUGE gun lobby (one more in-tune with the 2A, less in-tune with hunting and skeet), so what are you NRA folks afraid of? Competition? It's a free market right, or is your socialism showing?
------------------------
Um, that was meant to be a parody of the anti-NRA crowd who are always accusing the NRA of having secret anti-gun agendas. Obviously any attempts at parodying conspiracy theorists tend to be lost on actual conspiracy theorists.
I have never said people should not join GOA or JPFO or any of the other smaller gun rights groups. I just said that if you want to effectively support RKBA, you should not EXCLUDE the NRA from your support. It is true that some of the other groups have a more absolute interpretation of RKBA. But, they are by definition small splinter groups and there are some things the NRA can do that the small splinter groups cannot.
Let's take an example: let's say I am personally committed to the idea that all US citizens should have the right to own tactical nuclear weapons, and that all US households should be required to own at least one crew-served infantry weapon. I'm also opposed to firearms licensing and registration.
I am obviously going to have some diffferences with the NRA, because although the NRA does support my views on licensing and registration, they have never supported private ownership of nuclear weapons nor have they ever supported mandatory weapons ownership.
If I follow the example of NineseveN and others here, I will withdraw support from the NRA, actively campaign against the NRA, and support only my own tiny fringe organization which is in favor of private nukes and mandatory mortars and HMG's.
The opposition - the Brady Bunch, VPC, and so on - would LOVE for us all to follow this pattern. By splintering all the gun owner groups into smaller, less effective, narrow-interest groups, there will be no organized unified opposition next time they try to pass a national firearms registration and licensing scheme.
The rational thing for this hypothetical pro-nuke, pro-crew-served-weapons me to do is to go ahead and support the NRA, despite the fact they are lukewarm on my most absolute legislation, because they are on my side on the battles that are actually likely to be contended and they are likely to be my most effective ally on the issues where we agree.
Of course, I can and should also support my favorite nukes-and-crew-served-weapons group, too.
And that has always been my response to people who ask about supporting the NRA. It is a very effective organization on a broad range of issues that most gun owners agree on. There are certainly some other organizations out there that are more absolutist, more "ideologically pure," and more committed to some specific issues. By all means, support them too. But don't support them EXCLUSIVE of supporting the NRA.
In fact, that is my only disagreement with the "splinter group" adherents who post here. If the message is, "here's a great organization, it does something the NRA doesn't do, please support it," then I'm fine with that. But that's not the message - the message is, "The NRA falls short of my expectations, therefore you should withdraw all support from the NRA and only support my pet splinter fringe group." Not only is the latter message petulant and childish, it is also bad politics that will hurt gun owner rights if it is widely followed.
And no, I don't think the NRA is frightened of the "competition" from smaller gun rights groups. Just the fact that you are thinking in those terms shows you do not understand effective political action. Effective political action does not come about through defeating groups that are basically on your side with a few areas of difference. Effective political action comes when different groups recognize their fundamental common interests, put aside their narrow differences, and work in coalition.
Quote:
Is GOA actually a gun rights organization? Or are they in fact an anti-NRA organization? I think they're a plant from the VPC designed to split gun owners and weaken the NRA.
NineseveN:
This is the absolute dumbest thing I have ever read. If everyone left the NRA and went to the GoA (which I would never suggest, go where you feel best represented), we'd still have a HUGE gun lobby (one more in-tune with the 2A, less in-tune with hunting and skeet), so what are you NRA folks afraid of? Competition? It's a free market right, or is your socialism showing?
------------------------
Um, that was meant to be a parody of the anti-NRA crowd who are always accusing the NRA of having secret anti-gun agendas. Obviously any attempts at parodying conspiracy theorists tend to be lost on actual conspiracy theorists.
I have never said people should not join GOA or JPFO or any of the other smaller gun rights groups. I just said that if you want to effectively support RKBA, you should not EXCLUDE the NRA from your support. It is true that some of the other groups have a more absolute interpretation of RKBA. But, they are by definition small splinter groups and there are some things the NRA can do that the small splinter groups cannot.
Let's take an example: let's say I am personally committed to the idea that all US citizens should have the right to own tactical nuclear weapons, and that all US households should be required to own at least one crew-served infantry weapon. I'm also opposed to firearms licensing and registration.
I am obviously going to have some diffferences with the NRA, because although the NRA does support my views on licensing and registration, they have never supported private ownership of nuclear weapons nor have they ever supported mandatory weapons ownership.
If I follow the example of NineseveN and others here, I will withdraw support from the NRA, actively campaign against the NRA, and support only my own tiny fringe organization which is in favor of private nukes and mandatory mortars and HMG's.
The opposition - the Brady Bunch, VPC, and so on - would LOVE for us all to follow this pattern. By splintering all the gun owner groups into smaller, less effective, narrow-interest groups, there will be no organized unified opposition next time they try to pass a national firearms registration and licensing scheme.
The rational thing for this hypothetical pro-nuke, pro-crew-served-weapons me to do is to go ahead and support the NRA, despite the fact they are lukewarm on my most absolute legislation, because they are on my side on the battles that are actually likely to be contended and they are likely to be my most effective ally on the issues where we agree.
Of course, I can and should also support my favorite nukes-and-crew-served-weapons group, too.
And that has always been my response to people who ask about supporting the NRA. It is a very effective organization on a broad range of issues that most gun owners agree on. There are certainly some other organizations out there that are more absolutist, more "ideologically pure," and more committed to some specific issues. By all means, support them too. But don't support them EXCLUSIVE of supporting the NRA.
In fact, that is my only disagreement with the "splinter group" adherents who post here. If the message is, "here's a great organization, it does something the NRA doesn't do, please support it," then I'm fine with that. But that's not the message - the message is, "The NRA falls short of my expectations, therefore you should withdraw all support from the NRA and only support my pet splinter fringe group." Not only is the latter message petulant and childish, it is also bad politics that will hurt gun owner rights if it is widely followed.
And no, I don't think the NRA is frightened of the "competition" from smaller gun rights groups. Just the fact that you are thinking in those terms shows you do not understand effective political action. Effective political action does not come about through defeating groups that are basically on your side with a few areas of difference. Effective political action comes when different groups recognize their fundamental common interests, put aside their narrow differences, and work in coalition.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked