Will You Continue to Support the SAF After Their Involvment in ManchinToomey ?

Will You Continue to Support the SAF?


  • Total voters
    172
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave Kopel made some very specific allegations of sloppy drafting that to my knowledge, CCRKBA and SAF still haven't addressed. Personally, my perception is that SAF was out of their depth on this one and got snookered. I would hate to see that effect the good work they do; but this was a case of very poor judgment at best. I know I am going to be reluctant to donate more money to an organization that thought this was a smart move, with or without rights restoration.
This pretty much summed up my response here.

It's quite possible that the SAF acted in good faith. I've been convinced that Bill Ruger tried to act in good faith once, and he got screwed in the process, and as a result we all got screwed.

Looks like this almost happened to us again. And I'm disappointed that the SAF got snookered.
 
Derek, do the views laid out in the article quote surprise you as they did me? The SAF's top layer is in favor of restricting certain guns as well as UBC"s. I just don't like it. I was a very stern supporter of the organizations efforts to uphold rkba , but then I read that article and it changed my opinion. I wasn't all that shocked that they came out in favor of the Manchin Toomey just because I feel they would like to see a UBC system put in place. Don't get me wrong I was somewhat caught off guard.
 
Reading that article quoting Gura was a serious slap in the face. I've no doubt that he has personal lines of what he believes are reasonable restrictions and it would be silly to expect them to align perfectly with my own...

However, hearing it all tossed out in such a strident and insulting manner from someone so much at the tip of our spear, so to speak, is hard to take.
 
Bruno2,

My take was similar to Sam's. Gura had a 3-part plan, and our interests were aligned all the way through the first two steps. I'm grateful for what he's done to bring us to this point, but when it comes to UBCs, registries, banning full-auto firearms and other "reasonable" restrictions, I think we need to part ways.

I'm glad you linked the article, and I'm assuming it was accurate, but based on the support for UBCs we've seen recently I'm inclined to give the author the benefit of the doubt.
 
The part where Gura butts heads with the NRA was somewhat enlightening. It appears as though the NRA was frightened that the judgment handed down had potential to do more harm than good to the RKBA. The NRA lately has taken a more absolutist approach where they are scared to give up another inch in fear of a backlash from their members. IMO this is good. They are getting more in line with what I believe. If we continue with as much momentum as we have had in the last 6 months maybe we could possibly start to go the other way and actually start to get some things repealed. OTOH we are seeing more states get on the anti wagon. We used to have to worry about HI,CA,NY,IL and NJ. Now we have to add MA,CT, CO and MD to the list. The anti states are approaching 20% of the Union. This is a little scary and MA is set up to have more Draconian restrictive laws put in place after the marathon bombing.
 
Didn't the SAF end up not supporting Toomey-Manchin in the end? Their own freakin' bill? Something has gone seriously awry over in SAF-land and I need a real explanation from them about what went down before I will consider donating again.
 
If they couldn't turn the Sandy Hook tragedy into a SINGLE piece of federal anti-gun legislation after all the massive effort they poured into it, they aren't likely to be able to work up the momentum to get that ball rolling again for years to come.

We done GOOD.
Agreed.

Now we need to put the dagger in their heart by firing many antis in 2014. If we can do this, they will really be scared to touch gun control. I we don't, they will feel like they got away with pushing control without losing any jobs, which will ease their minds a bit.
 
people will always disagree on the best way to achieve political goals. personally, I think they were played here by the other side, and are just unwilling to admit to it.
 
I think they were played here by the other side, and are just unwilling to admit to it.
That certainly could be, and it may be the "Occam's Razor" answer to the whole thing. What politically active entity is ever going to admit, "Woah, we made a huge mistake and acted like a bunch of amateurs!!!"

The darker possibility, informed by the quotes Gura gave in that linked article, is that UBC and perhaps some other measures are actually DESIRED outcomes for him/them -- just as they are for the antis. That this wasn't hard compromise, but horrifyingly common goals.

Neither is acceptable, of course...
 
wana said:
All this hate toward the SAF reminds me of all the hate that the mere mention of the NRA often generates.

Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies!

This AND how many folks here are starting gun rights orgs, running them, out there fighting the fight? I'm not saying you guys are wrong - but if you give money to SAF, as I clearly do, SPEAK to them - tell them your displeasure and use your $ as leverage. If they make too many mistakes PULL the plug. They will listen if $'s stop so the point of this thread is well taken.
 
I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this -- that this was a well-intentioned attempt to actually increase legal protections for the right to keep and bear arms at the expense of (what was thought to be) a reasonable cost. I think the You Tube video of Gottlieb that circulated the weekend after Manchin-Toomey was announced supports this.

That said, I think tactically, they sold themselves too short. Parts of the bill were badly worded (as pointed out by Kopel,) and the one thing that didn't get much mention was the federally-funded committee to study gun violence that the bill would've installed, which would've just been an anti-second amendment propaganda machine.

If the left wants to make that kind of stuff law, they'd better expect to pay a more serious price for it -- national concealed-carry license reciprocity, for instance.
 
Well, when "we" say things like these:

Gura has said he is hardly a gun rights absolutist and has expressed support for banning machine guns, preventing felons from acquiring weapons, and allowing instant background checks for prospective gun buyers. Those positions have put him at odds with some of his usual allies. During the Heller oral arguments, he said there was no question that governments could ban certain types of firearms and appeared to endorse not just background checks, but also laws requiring gun owners to store their arms in a safe.

"I received a very negative reaction from the real far-out, anti–gun control crazies, who were really angry with me," author Adam Winkler quotes Gura as saying in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. In the book, Gura recalled being compared to Osama bin Laden and Benedict Arnold, and drawing the ire of both the Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association. "These people are crazy,"

... we're hardly our own best friends, now are we?

I'll laud your efforts and support you every way I can, so long as you're actually working for my interests. Start making statements or working towards goals I'm vehemently opposed to, and no, we really aren't buddies any more.

But hopefully there's a different result from all of this, and that is that folks on "our" side, including Gura, look at their allies and start listening to what their own supporters and friends are saying, and mature in their own views. We all do it. We all are, and should be, educated and influenced by those around us who share our general goals and who may present broader or deeper views on those goals than what we ourselves arrived at on our own.

Gura, Gottlieb, and probably quite a few others, need to take notice of the new position of strength and solidarity and boldness we possess and re-evaluate the efforts and long-term goals they are pursuing.





(...see "Zumbo.")
 
Looks like this almost happened to us again. And I'm disappointed that the SAF got snookered.

Alan Gottleib has always impressed me any time I've seen him comment or debate (going back decades). He has been around long enough to know how snakey/tricksy the other side is. I find it hard to believe that he could be snookered by them in any way. That is what disturbs me about his association with the Toomey deal.
 
Good things from bill: no transfer law between non-proscribed family members even if residents of other states, opening up pistol purchases to be the same as rifle and shotgun when out of state, forcing other states to match Missouri on adjudication reporting or suffer loss of funding from Safe Streets.

The VA having power over vets was garbage - would have been fixed by a failed amendment - as was a few of the amendments. National reciprocity would have been nice. Death of the AWB and magazine bans was a bonus. The changes of language to both FOPA and Dick Act would have made it possible to enact a registry under future bills.

Richard Feldman explained in an interview how this bill had the potential to fix several things that actually are broken but as it stood when it hit the floor it was unpassible. I agree with him.

the core of the bill, the Universal Background Check - is something I am opposed to on the grounds that it is stretching the Commerce Clause way beyond where it should be applied. Having the OPTION of using an FFL to transfer to folks you do NOT know for sure are not blocked is ok, being forced to do so by FEDERAL LAW when you are both verified residents of the same state is not good.
 
Well, when "we" say things like these:



... we're hardly our own best friends, now are we?

I'll laud your efforts and support you every way I can, so long as you're actually working for my interests. Start making statements or working towards goals I'm vehemently opposed to, and no, we really aren't buddies any more.

But hopefully there's a different result from all of this, and that is that folks on "our" side, including Gura, look at their allies and start listening to what their own supporters and friends are saying, and mature in their own views. We all do it. We all are, and should be, educated and influenced by those around us who share our general goals and who may present broader or deeper views on those goals than what we ourselves arrived at on our own.

Gura, Gottlieb, and probably quite a few others, need to take notice of the new position of strength and solidarity and boldness we possess and re-evaluate the efforts and long-term goals they are pursuing.





(...see "Zumbo.")

Sam1911, I sincerely appreciate your view, but would like to point out that some of your fellow moderators disagree with it, such as Frank Ettins. He is strongly in favor of background checks and other Second Amendment restrictions.

I have mixed feelings about the original Manchin/Toomey compromise that was drafted with the help of Gottlieb, but that was not the one voted on, and the SAF withdrew their support.

My point is that every time somebody says something we disagree with, we have to make them the ENEMY! Sometimes, I think we just need to disagree, and not try to ostracize them.

The SAF has done a lot to protect the Second Amendment, and I don't think they should be thrown under the bus just yet. The NRA has often come under fire for perceived lapses in the past, and I confidently predict them to do so again.

So, YES! I will continue to support the SAF, the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and heck, even the Pink Pistols. I don't have to agree with every subtle nuance of their agenda to know that helping them, helps me keep my Second Amendment Rights
 
Good things from bill: no transfer law between non-proscribed family members even if residents of other states, opening up pistol purchases to be the same as rifle and shotgun when out of state, forcing other states to match Missouri on adjudication reporting or suffer loss of funding from Safe Streets.

The VA having power over vets was garbage - would have been fixed by a failed amendment - as was a few of the amendments. National reciprocity would have been nice. Death of the AWB and magazine bans was a bonus. The changes of language to both FOPA and Dick Act would have made it possible to enact a registry under future bills.

Richard Feldman explained in an interview how this bill had the potential to fix several things that actually are broken but as it stood when it hit the floor it was unpassible. I agree with him.

the core of the bill, the Universal Background Check - is something I am opposed to on the grounds that it is stretching the Commerce Clause way beyond where it should be applied. Having the OPTION of using an FFL to transfer to folks you do NOT know for sure are not blocked is ok, being forced to do so by FEDERAL LAW when you are both verified residents of the same state is not good.

Well explained, and was why I somewhat supported the Bill, as it originally only expanded background checks at gun shows.

I strongly believe that there was enough to gain from it, that I don't think it's supporters are necessarily our enemy.
 
Well , also if you look at the premise of Heller it wasn't argued or decided on behalf of what the 2nd amendment is for. It's not about being able to keep a gun in your home. The 2A isn't about hunting either. I can see where the NRA is running into problems seeing eye to eye with the SAF. I have to admit that I have a better attitude towards the NRA after this last round of anti gunners attempts to dis arm our fellow countrymen. I was all out in support of the SAF before this and I have to admit that I was wrong about both orgs. The NRA is the undisputed champion of gun rights. They listen to what their base wants and then they make it happen.
 
WANA, if the SAF wants to do what feel like s their brand of gun freedom then so be it. Just do it on your own dime. They aren't representing some of the most important factors of the freedom that I am in favor of. If I throw them money and all of the sudden end up having to get gov supervision every time I buy or sell a gun then I wouldn't be happy about it. OTOH if they use funds from people that are in favor of that so be it. No harm no foul, but don't use my funds to do it.
 
Sam1911, I sincerely appreciate your view, but would like to point out that some of your fellow moderators disagree with it, such as Frank Ettins. He is strongly in favor of background checks and other Second Amendment restrictions.
Ok. I don't know if that's so or not. Maybe it would be best to let him say so, or not say so.

If it is, so what?

My point is that every time somebody says something we disagree with, we have to make them the ENEMY! Sometimes, I think we just need to disagree, and not try to ostracize them.
Right, and that's ok if we're just talking among ourselves. When someone is working for, or against, MY RIGHTS, they get my support and thanks, or they most heartily do not.

We can -- and MUST -- work as hard as we can to help our friends in this effort mature in their views by offering them as much encouragement as possible when they're right, and the firmest voice of constructive criticism that we're able when they are wrong. (So very DEAD wrong.)

The SAF has done a lot to protect the Second Amendment, and I don't think they should be thrown under the bus just yet.
Certainly. I think I said something similar way back at the beginning. If they dance back onto the straight and narrow most ricky-tick, I'll be happy to consider them to be working to repair any damage their lapse has caused our broader effort.

Again, though, it does give one pause when pondering where donation dollars will do the most good, if one of our favorite groups just got PLAYED like a bunch of grade-school dorks trying to beat a Vegas 3-card-monty hustler.

The NRA has often come under fire for perceived lapses in the past, and I confidently predict them to do so again.
Yes, but they seem to be a pretty shining example of an organization's views and efforts "maturing" in the right directions over the last 20-30 years. They aren't and won't ever be perfect, of course, but they're standing pretty strong these days and deserve our encouragement and support. (And still need our constructive criticism -- e.g. the anti-video games rant.)

So, YES! I will continue to support the SAF, the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and heck, even the Pink Pistols. I don't have to agree with every subtle nuance of their agenda to know that helping them, helps me keep my Second Amendment Rights
Certainly! But they need to hear from you when they bomb one badly, and money talks louder than anything else. If the pink pistols come out (LOL) against open carry or in favor of making silencers illegal, or some other such thing, I'm going to be working pretty hard to bring them back into the fold, not sending them another check and saying "keep up the good work."
 
Last edited:
They wanted a UBC system put in place.

I will look for the video where Allan Gottlieb explains their position and desires.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top