Pro-gun ownership but not pro-NRA?

[ArmedBear]

Calling someone a troll because they refuse to get in an argument with you

I didn't start an argument with you. I didn't post anything that remotely resembles starting an argument with you, Owlnmole. Can you point to any post of mine that does?

Your refusal was simple: a few people (not even I) asked you a simple question, when you started the discussion using certain terms. They asked you to define something YOU had posted.

If you sense "knee-jerk aggresssion", you are wrong.

What I sense is someone who will only ask questions, and refuses to explain what he has posted -- terms that do need elaboration to be meaningful. That defines a troll, all over the 'net.

You are a troll in this thread, because you are acting like one in this thread, and for no other reason. What you post elsewhere doesn't matter here.

Troll has a definition.

 

[THe Dove]

And if you act now you can get a bag embroidered with the NRA logo at no additional charge!

BWAHAHAHA

I never got mine!

The Dove

 

[Deanimator]

Deanimator and ArmedBear, while I may not have thousands of posts to my name, a quick review of my posts to date will show that I am a contributing member of this virtual community.

If they were here, I'm sure that Sarah Brady and Chuck Schumer would be "contributing members" as well. WHAT you contribute matters. What you're "contributing" now appears to come from the AHSA playbook.

When I see attacks on the NRA coupled with references to "responsible gun ownership", "reasonable restrictions" and "commonsense laws" are never far behind.

 

[cluttonfred]

This is me not rising to the bait. Please fish elsewhere.

 

[Deanimator]

Maybe I don't like EVERYTHING they do, but which other organization does as much?

AHSA?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:

Can you tell I like absurdist humor?

 

[ArmedBear]

When I see attacks on the NRA coupled with references to "responsible gun ownership", "reasonable restrictions" and "commonsense laws" are never far behind.

See, Owlnmole, those who were asking you what you meant were giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was, too.

If you don't want to answer, then Deanimator is probably right. It's not about an "argument". It's about you using words that are often "code words" of the anti-gun movement. I'm sure that, since you are clearly an intelligent person, you are perfectly aware of this.

If you don't want to clear that up, that's how you will be interpreted. Obviously, you know that, too.

...which is why I figure you're trolling.

 

[Deanimator]

This is me not rising to the bait. Please fish elsewhere.

No, that's you not having the courage of your "convictions"... or maybe no convictions at all.

Something is beginning to smell like fish though...

 

[TexasRifleman]

Calling someone a troll because they refuse to get in an argument with you is childish and not particularly THR, IMHO.

It's not refusing to get in an argument, that's generally a great idea.

The issue here is that you've posted your opinions of an organization and why you think it's a problem but you have offered no alternative or solution.

Starting a thread with no suggestions for how to address the problem, then posting later saying "I refuse to discuss this with you" is confusing to say the least.

Do you propose an alternative to the NRA? Do you believe that ANY organization should lobby politicians for gun rights? If so, which one do you like? Do you have a way of protecting gun rights without partisan politics and lobbying?

Is the point of your starting this thread to offer any input at all or simply to look for people that agree with you? If the latter, that's sort of trollish to be perfectly honest and I would say that about anyone, no matter how many posts they have. That's a useless number. Personally I wish vbulletin could ignore post counts, they don't seem to serve any purpose, but that's beside the point.

The point is, what is your alternative proposal?

 

[kda]

I recently realized that the NRA is the ONLY THING between my 2nd amendment rights and the Anti-Gun lobby that is so anxious to disarm honest people and leave us at the mercy of the bad guys.

Perfect? No. But then neither am I. But I must ask, is anyone else effectively looking out for my gun rights at the level and scope of the NRA? I don't think so.

Climb on your high horse if you must. Find excuses that work for you and allow you to avoid stepping up to the plate, avoid paying your 'dues' and avoid actually helping those who are looking out for you. It is a free country and we'll continue to carry you.

For my part, I am proud to be part of the solution.

 

[paintballdude902]

here is the thread i made 2 years ago on the topic

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=321479&highlight=nra

 

[Justin]

Deanimator and ArmedBear, while I may not have thousands of posts to my name, a quick review of my posts to date will show that I am a contributing member of this virtual community. Calling someone a troll because they refuse to get in an argument with you is childish and not particularly THR, IMHO. In fact, the knee-jerk aggression towards someone who appears to disagree with you on some points illustrates my point about the NRA rather well.

Please leave the moderating to staff members.

In the meantime, answer the question that was posed in the second post of this thread:
"Please define "responsible gun ownership" and how you feel that the NRA does not."

 

[JohnBT]

"I think that those of us who tried to discuss this with you were merely "taking the bait."

Oops."

A concise summary. He gets to set the parameters of the conversation and define the terms to be used as he goes along. Why? Because he said so.

In other news, it's not a bad idea to belong to one or more, or all, of the gun rights organizations. There's plenty of work to do.

In other news part 2, NONE of the NRA dues money can be used for lobbying and political support and such. It's federal law. That's why the NRA-PVF and NRA-ILA exist and function on donations. No dues money at all.

But total membership matters. A lot. Why? Because the politicians assume that members really vote.

John

 

[lobo9er]

I feel that GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA is a little more down to earth. Not saying NRA is bad just saying i hear representaives for GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA more often, and they seem more in tune with the common man than the NRA.

 

[InkEd]

I think that lobbying is a big problem in the govt. However it is not going away or even declining from what I can observe. That being the case I want there to be one that has the strength go protect my rights because apparently the simple spelling them out in the bill of rights was not clear or good enough for some politicians who no nothing about me, my family, or much of anything other than further things for their own agendas. The NRA uses extreme measure to fight extreme people who have the lifelong goal of taking away people's ability to defend themselves from criminals and keep potential tyrants from doing whatever they want and survive an emergency without the aid of other people.

 

[9mm+]

This is what can happen when we DON'T stand up for our rights and liberties. We all need NRA to keep up the fight for us!

Although this video is a bit dated, the message is still germane regarding supporting pro-2A groups like NRA, GOA, and others. Once you've lost a few rights, it's a slippery slope from there...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdBxpKqUvs&feature=related

 

[lobo9er]

i agree that NRA is good for us all, 100%.

 

[cluttonfred]

In the meantime, answer the question that was posed in the second post of this thread:
"Please define "responsible gun ownership" and how you feel that the NRA does not."

Nope, I am not going to get into a circular argument parsing the wording of my original post, which I thought was simply a polite way of saying "is anyone here pro-gun but anti-NRA?" Quite honestly, I am disheartened that some members feel the need to seek an argument at all costs and disappointed that as a moderator you seem to condone it.

 

[oneounceload]

Nope, I have not replied to that question as I have been around long enough, I think, to know when not to take the bait. As I said, I am not going to get into a partisan debate here. I am frequently disturbed by the party politics displayed on this site, not because I am opposed to party politics, but because they detract from this site as a place for firearms enthusiasts to discuss our common interest.

HUH....YOU made the comment...OK, all I did, (and nicely I might add), was try to ascertain what you meant by that.....does that mean licenses, restrictions, or what? A very simple question - which if you refuse to answer now makes me think you're just trolling. Can't have a debate if we don't know what you mean....:banghead:

 

[cluttonfred]

oneounceload, I did not take offense at your question, it just chose not to respond as it seemed to be seizing on phrasing and not on the gist of the post. I was simply asking if other pro-gun ownership members of this site are turned off by the NRA? If that doesn't describe you, then fair enough, but we both know that responding to your question would have taken this thread down a very different path (where it has ended up anyway).

 

[Cosmoline]

The NRA is viewed as the end-all and be-all of gun rights by the MSM and the anti-gun left. Yet in many respects they are no longer at the cutting edge of gun rights and haven't been for some time. They were wrongly credited with the Zumbo backlash in most of the MSM, with some reporters going so far as to claim an NRA letter started the whole thing. They were also wrongly cited as the moving force behind the epic Second Amendment victories of the past few years. In fact they did not want to risk a ruling and did not jump on board until late in the game.

The NRA is famous for being a strong arm lobbying group in DC and they've done a lot of good blocking bad laws and helping good ones. But they've also been willing to compromise on many fronts and work actively to enforce existing gun laws. And they've become far too wedded to the GOP.

In short, they have a definite role to play as the nation's largest and strongest gun owners organization. But they're only one part of the offensive line. The strongest players remain the voters themselves, and it's fear of a backlash from these voters which keeps the politicians in check. In some ways just having the NRA as a symbol to take the heat has been helpful, since it's helped keep the real game off the radar screens of the antis. They devote enormous money and energy to attacking the NRA instead of dealing with the movement towards shall-issue laws or the judicial movement towards recognizing the Second.

 

[oneounceload]

kinda hard for me to want to agree or disagree with your post when I don't understand YOUR definition. If you don't want to, or can't defend your position, OK, I can live with that. You sound, IMO, like someone who is basically a Democrat and has a hard time with it because you like guns, but your party doesn't, while the NRA IS basically a Republican leaning group, merely because along party lines, Republicans tend to be pro-gun and Democrats are not. I get that impression from the "responsible gun ownership" comment. If I'm wrong, OK - been wrong before......

 

[Deanimator]

Nope, I am not going to get into a circular argument parsing the wording of my original post,

Translation: "Nope, I am not going to justify what I said, or even explain it, because it would reveal my TRUE motivations."

This has EVERY hallmark of the dismal intellectual caliber of AHSA "thought".

 

[mljdeckard]

Whether you like them or not, they do the bulk of the heavy lifting in the fight to keep and bear arms.

If you are not a member, but you are a gun owner, you are luxuriating in the protection they provide. If every gun owner in America was a member, we wouldn't be worrying about these challenges to the right to keep and bear arms, we would be ON THE OFFENSIVE.

I am not only a member, I go out of my way to buy from businesses like Brownell's, Midway, and Kimber, who go over and above to support the NRA and ask for donations. (I always give a donation when I order from Brownell's or Midway. Brownell's gives a discount to servicemen, which I in turn donate to the NRA. Midway does their "Round Up" program, which lets you give your change or a bit more to the NRA.

Are they thugs? You betcher bippie. They're MY THUGS. The forces seeking to take away my guns use lies, strong-arm tactics, extortion, propaganda, obfuscation, and THEIR lobbyists to work against my rights. I not only LIKE that the NRA is the biggest, meanest, most influential lobby in Washington, I WANT THEM BIGGER. If it wasn't for the NRA, your gun rights would have been gone a LONG time ago.

You may find this difficult to believe, but there is often a struggle for power and ongoing rivalry in the struggle to secure the Second Amendment. There are those who are just as interested in gaining influence and advancing their position as they are in fighting for RKBA.

Are they perfect? No. Do I agree with everything they do? No. Do I think that they are my best chance for keeping my right to keep and bear arms? Absolutely. Join GOA, SAF, etc. Fine. Back whomever you want to in this fight. But don't kid yourself and say that they have more influence or do more good than the NRA. Join the NRA FIRST, THEN join the others.

 

[chuckusaret]

Pro-gun ownership but not pro-NRA?

Hey, this is still Good Old America, you don't have to join, support, like, dislike or what ever, you still have that right for short time. I would like to ask one thing-----does the country you are in allow their people to own guns? Does it allow you to have a gun?

 

[mljdeckard]

Owlnmole. The only one in here fishing is YOU. You just don't like what you caught. You came in with perceptions that are flawed, and when you were questioned, you clammed up.

Do you work for Al Gore's publicity agency?