NRA Sounds Alarms on Gun Control

[cherryriver]

The new gun control season is already underway here in the Chicago area. A week after the elections, Cook County amended its assault weapons ban ordinance to take out many more guns and magazines. Now all AR-pattern guns are gone, and so are all magazines over ten rounds capacity.
It was voted on on November 14th, 2006 and went into effect immediately. It calls for police confiscation of the banned guns and magazines and the destruction of same.
It's there in the Cook County Clerk site.
The statewide ban is coming up in the Legislature soon.
I'd say it's some cause for alarm, especially for those of us needing to actually get rid of guns and magazines.
Bill

 

[xd9fan]

love the NRA but if they are soooo concerned.....lets go with helping JPFO and give the BOOT to the BATFE.

 

[Glockfan.45]

The NRA has the same problem as the boy who cried wolf. For years they have fear mongered at every chance they get. Its now to the point that when something wicked this way comes in reality people will dismiss it as typical NRA doom and gloom predictions. I hate to speculate as to what is comming without some actual proof, the NRA would be well served to do the same. Here are some problems I found in this "leaked pamphlet".

It’s also inevitable that an anti-gun president will occupy the White House

Like the one we have in office now? Actually America has had an anti-gun president since 1981, nothing new there.

George Soros. "The Hungarian-born billionaire bankroller of a globalist jihad against firearm freedom, George Soros has been trying to revoke the Bill of Rights through his checkbook – to the tune of more than $100 million.

# Hillary Clinton. "It’s hard to find a more consistently anti-Second Amendment figure whose political success could turn back a quarter-century of advancement of our rights.”

# Sen. Dianne Feinstein. "Feinstein admitted that if it were up to her, guns would be banned and confiscated.”

# Sen. John Kerry. "Kerry has voted at least 51 times against gun owners’ rights, making him the most anti-gun presidential candidate in U.S. history.”

# Rep. Nancy Pelosi. "As the Democratic leader in the House, Pelosi represents a major threat to gun owners’ rights.”

These people have all been around for years the NRA just now sees them as a problem?

# People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "This eco-terrorism movement is so dangerous, the FBI has declared it America’s number one domestic terrorist threat.”

ROTFLMAO, they actually want you to take PETA as a serious threat, can you say grasping at straws?

For the first time in American history, New Orleans and other government officials ordered law enforcement officers to go door to door to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens at gunpoint

And they were quickly smacked on the bum for doing so. Afterwards we saw many cities pass laws preventing this very thing from repeating in the future.Honestly the only thing in this "leaked phamplet" I found to be logical was that future laws may come in the form of anti-terrorism legislation. Everything else however was just plain old fear mongering.

 

[HiroProX]

model 649, there's more younger shooters than you think. Thing is, many are starting later due to anti-gun parents. Instead of kids, look for the twentysomethings. Most aren't making much, so their purchases are on the low end, Mosins, Yugo Mausers, Yugo SKSs, Romanian WASRs, Garands, Chinese Winchester 1897 knockoffs, Saigas, Makarovs, CZ-52s, Nagant revolvers, Rock Island M1911A1s, AR-15s built from parts, and whatever they can find second hand at a price they can afford. Other odd thing is, most aren't hunters... most of them are the first to state that the 2nd isn't about duck hunting. Most aren't sociable about it, and nothing irritates them more than some sneering Fudd at the range asking them "Is that legal?" when they take their WASR or SKS out of their gun case.

My personal favorite was a couple of sundays ago when some twentysomething guy, with more metal on his face than a Glock has in the whole gun showed up at the range with a K31 and outshot one of the local cops practicing with his $2000 "tacticool" AR. They may be starting later, but they put in a lot of practice.

 

[antsi]

-quote-----
every year IS the worst year because things are always getting progressively worse.
-----------

Generally agree - the overall momentum trend is toward the anti side.

Despite this, we have been able to get some victories - the spread of CCW laws in 38 states is a good example. But all of these victories have come from scratching and clawing and fighting our rears off.

Whenever we relax and sit still and quit fighting, the general anti-gun gravity takes over and we start sliding downhill.

If I had to choose which was worse:
a) the NRA beating the drums and trying to rile us up
- or -
b) apathetic gun owners who don't complain too much as long as they can still shoot skeet, and roll their eyes and quit listening whenever anyone highlights a potential threat to their freedoms
I certainly know which one is more likely to lose us our RKBA.

It has been said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

It may be true that 8 out of 10 of the threats the NRA confronts never does materialize. But if the anti's win on just 2 out of every 10 schemes they try, we will surely lose our rights over time. They don't have to win every battle: if they just win some of them, they will eventually win. To maintain our rights (and for gosh sakes, actually restore them!) we have to win ALL of the battles. That's going to take a high level of vigilance and fanaticism, and that's exactly what I want from the NRA.

 

[JohnBT]

"These people have all been around for years the NRA just now sees them as a problem?"

Just now? You jest. I hope you jest. I suppose it's possible you haven't been reading what the NRA has been sending out year after year.

Some people say it's the same old message and some people say it's not the same old message. It just goes to show you can't please everyone.

John

 

[utahminirevolver]

The NRA is correct, there is a threat of gun control out there. Democrats haven't renounced this plank of their platform, and they just gained contol of Congress.

The usual suspects assure us that without gun control there are tragedies. Students of history know that with gun control there are genocides.

I think that any freedom loving American today who would pooh-pooh the NRA's message is hiding his head in the sand.

You can buy some cool stuff at www.NRAstore.com where 100% of the profits go directly to support vital NRA programs. I'm looking forward to the arrival in the mail of my new ODgreen tactical vest (okay,maybe I got overcome by nostalgia for Army garb).

 

[rmurfster]

No one is taking your guns????

nothing going on here, no threats to anyone. It's just the same old propoganda, no one is taking your guns. Who would do that? In fact, I've quit working out and training my shooting skills. . . I'm tired of being called chicken little. I just get home from work and watch T.V. and drink beer. Freedom will always exist. Someone else will defend it for me. Pass the remote, I'm tired, where's my medication?

Huh?? What planet are you living on? Tell that to the folks in DC who can't use a gun for self-defense or the people of New Orleans that had their guns forcefully confiscated... :banghead:

(Edit) -- After re-reading my post, I think you may have been being sarcastic... Say it is so!

OK - sorry, it was sarcasm.... Where's my medication

 

[Speer]

The man was using sarcasm to get his point across.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I don't blame the NRA for raising the alarums over the new Congress. I blame them for automatically declaring the Democratic Party the enemy. This leaves very little room for making any headway with more moderate members of the party. If anything, I would think this year is an excellent opportunity to build bridges, but instead, they seem more intent on digging the moat deeper. Unfortunately, siege tactics (and mentality) are generally unsuccessful.

 

[Wesson Smith]

The NRA works directly with Democrat candidates who are pro-2nd, or even leaning that way. In some cases their endorsements help to elect these folks. The NRA is correct, and justifiably so, in broad-brushing the Dems as enemies of the 2nd Amendment. Their leadership has historically made way to many pronouncements to that effect. It's all in the Congressional Record.

 

[JohnBT]

"The man was using sarcasm"

The sarcasm smilie can provide reinforcement when needed =>

 

[MikePGS]

love the NRA but if they are soooo concerned.....lets go with helping JPFO and give the BOOT to the BATFE.

I second that notion. The JPFO seems much more aggressive than the NRA.

 

[tellner]

Wesson Smith, they will work with them, but they don't really open up to them. Just for instance, Webb got an A-rating from the NRA. His opponent, who had the same record and positions got bumped up to an A+ for no apparent reason.

 

[DrewH]

Incorrect on Webb versus Allen in Virginia, Webb stated he would support closing the gun show loophole and Allen didn't. Their grades of A and A+ were earned.

 

[antsi]

--------quote---------
The JPFO seems much more aggressive than the NRA.
----------------------

This is true, but when people hammer on this they are showing a lack of understanding of politics.

Sometimes an interest (in our case, RKBA) is best served by more than one organization. Specifically, it can often be helpful to have a more-aggressive and a less-aggressive organization.

If you need to win a close vote in congress and get borderline/wavering congressmen to fall your way, you need a semi-mainstream organization with a lot of money and a lot of members.

Super-aggressive organizations proposing radical solutions can draw a small core of diehard followers, but they are not likely to appeal to a broad segment of gun owners. Super-aggressive organizations also serve a positive purpose by getting messages out there that are more radical, arguing for them, and persuading more people that perhaps the radical message isn't really so radical after all.

If the NRA was out there pushing hard for full auto, felon's rights, and other more controversial issues, they would drive off a large segment of their membership - the hunters and skeet shooters and even lots of concealed carryers.

At the same time, the smaller, hard-core organizations by definition are pushing a viewpoint that is only palatable to a small minority of the population. If you're trying to win a close vote in congress, they're not going to be able to do that because they don't have that many followers.

Bottom line: our RKBA is best served by both kinds of organization.

If you say say, "I support the NRA but my own beliefs are actually more aggressive so I also support a couple of the more aggressive organizations," then I say you're being smart and politically savvy. (And I happen to agree with you).

If you say "I won't support the NRA because they're too moderate, so I only support the more aggressive organizations," then I say you don't understand how practical politics really works and you are not pursuing a realistic strategy that is really going to help.

 

[Josey W]

At the same time, the smaller, hard-core organizations by definition are pushing a viewpoint that is only palatable to a small minority of the population.

Boy, you got me right there. All I've ever wanted from the government was to OBEY THE LAW and RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION. But nowadays, a point of view that demands the ancestoral promise of all Americans, i.e., the observation of the limitations imposed by the BILL Of RIGHTS, paints me as a vestigial throwback, a 'radical' whose views upset the delicate sensibilities of an acculturated mass of voters programmed by government schools and compliant media.

I'll try to change my ways to conform. I guess it would be better for all of us.

Don't want to rock the boat or anything.

 

[antsi]

Josey W,

Look, I agree with you that we have strayed very far from the constitution and our liberties are much eroded. I'd like to see that turned back to the way it is supposed to be.

Unfortunately, most of the population is not with us on this - at least not with us all the way, not yet.

If we want to get where we want to go, we are going to have to be smart and we are going to have to be politically savvy and we are going to have to use political strategies that actually work.

 

[Cliff47]

This year, I will donate funds to the Gun Owners of America. They seem to be the only ones who will NOT compromise with the Anti-2A crowd.

 

[ssr]

The anti gun crowd doesn't even know who GOA is.

This year I will donate to the NRA, GOA, Second Amendment Foundation, Ohioans for Concealed Carry, People's Rights Organization, Ohio Gun Collectors Association, and let's see, am I leaving anyone out? probably.

 

[MikePGS]

The fact of the matter is, that anything whatsoever that inhibits our rights to bear arms is illegal. Since all members of the government have to take an oath stating that they will uphold the constitution, they are all guilty of perjury. Its a shame that noone has the courage to arrest anyone who would attempt to do so. What kind of example do legislators set when they wantonly break the law without any legal reprucussions? I agree that you should suppourt as many progrun people as you can, i just wish that the entire argument was as unnecessary as the supreme law of the land states.

 

[Ms. Annie Oakley]

Well, when it comes down to it, the NRA is the best show out there. I don't think they are "extreme" enough, and I also don't think they really know how to go after younger shooters very well.

(As has been pointed out before, younger shooters generally are alot more pro-rkba simply because they aren't hunters. They don't shoot skeet. They shoot rifles long range, and they like semi-autos alot).

But, what they said, can you fight it? Can you stand against it? I looked at the Democrats on that stage. All of them advocates of gun control. To say we don't have a fight for our rights coming up is tantamount to sticking your head in the ground, and saying "LALALALA" as loud as possible.



Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

Hamlet Scene III, Act I

 

[Robert Hairless]

MikePGS:

The fact of the matter is, that anything whatsoever that inhibits our rights to bear arms is illegal. Since all members of the government have to take an oath stating that they will uphold the constitution, they are all guilty of perjury. Its a shame that noone has the courage to arrest anyone who would attempt to do so. What kind of example do legislators set when they wantonly break the law without any legal reprucussions? I agree that you should suppourt as many progrun people as you can, i just wish that the entire argument was as unnecessary as the supreme law of the land states.

Mike, I am proud of you. We don't need the NRA. All we need is for you to do citizens arrests of those awful people. Toss them all in jail, Mike, starting today if you have the time. Tomorrow would be okay too, but there's no time like the present.

I would help you but I don't want people calling me a lunatic.

 

[emitt1]

I don't believe Mike is the lunatic. His point is valid. They took the oath....

 

[Marshall]

Whether I'm hunting bear or defending myself, I would rather have more ammunition than less. With only one round, I could miss. I could miss with all rounds but the odds are better.