Why are you NOT a member of the NRA?

[Prometheus]

I don't dispute those thing but consider hat the director of the the NRA was soundly beaten up by the members for his stupid statements. He is only one director among a board and his views were trounced, his statement were widely publicized but that does not mean that his views are anything beyond his personal views!!!

You condemn the whole organization for the views of an unpopular director who took a public beating from the membership. That seems somewhat silly.

If it was just one BOD member, just one lobbyist or just one president, sure. When there is a systematic presence at all levels, especially in the upper echelons it becomes more than one rogue person. When this persists over many decades, it becomes there SOP.

As for the 40,000 Iraqi vets, I'm sorry but you are simply misreading the wording/intent and are wrong.

40,000+ returning Iraqi vets have been disarmed by this bill already... regardless of intent, thats the outcome. I seriously doubt all 40,000 shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms... especially considering they virtually all are still active or reserve status. The GOA and JPFO shouted from the rooftops the repercussions of this bill, but the nra plodded ahead. With 40,000 and counting disarmed vets the nra refuses to admit their mistakes. They can't claim no one saw it coming, they were warned. Why else you think fineswine and upchuck schumer were so in favor of this bill? Now they duck the issue and pretend it doesn't exist... and try and buy off the rest of the military with token memberships.

 

[Prometheus]

I understand enough to know a background check and waiting period does not "infringe" on your right to own a gun. Get a dictionary.

Perhaps you like the idea of the meth dealer next door to you, wandering down to Don's Gun's and buying an arsenal...

Back in the day you could walk into ace hardware and buy a full autoThompson sub machine gun, cash and carry. No checks, no waiting periods, no ID, nothing.

The idea that we are some how safer now with all these retarded checks and waiting periods is asinine. It's akin to mayor daley claiming that Chicago and DC are safer cities now after 30 years of a total ban on handguns. It's a crock and we aren't buying it.

More guns=less crime. Always.

Criminals will always acquire the guns and thanks to your waiting periods the domestic violence victim gets is getting put in the ground while her FFL calls to give her the good news that she can now come in and pick up her gun.

If a background check cannot be preformed INSTANTLY then the gun should go out the door that minute and someone at the NICS office should be fired. That simple. The only waiting period I'm for is the 30 seconds it takes for the guy other end of the line to type in the name.

USSC has already ruled: "A Right restricted is a Right denied." Why this doesn't apply to ALL Rights is beyond me.. liberal judges is my best guess.

 

[TRWXXA]

More guns=less crime. Always.

Not true. More guns in the hands of the law-abiding=less crime. More guns in the hands of criminals=more crime. Always.

Gun control is not a gun ban. Which is a good thing because gun bans don't work.

Criminals will always acquire the guns and thanks to your waiting periods the domestic violence victim gets is getting put in the ground while her FFL calls to give her the good news that she can now come in and pick up her gun.

Or perhaps your domestic violence victim intends to get a gun during a fit of rage, and give her significant-other a case of "lead poisoning", while he's passed out on the couch.

USSC has already ruled: "A Right restricted is a Right denied." Why this doesn't apply to ALL Rights is beyond me.. liberal judges is my best guess.

A panel of predominantly conservative USSC judges just upheld that your right to vote can be contingent upon proof of identification. All freedoms have resrictions. It's what keeps freedom from descending into anarchy.

 

[melensdad]

USSC has already ruled: "A Right restricted is a Right denied." Why this doesn't apply to ALL Rights is beyond me.. liberal judges is my best guess.

This does not apply to speech. Free speech is hobbled by restrictions. If speech can be legally restricted, and that has been upheld by the SCOTUS so it is reasonable to presume that you are using the term 'restricted' improperly.

 

[bigcraig]

I understand enough to know a background check and waiting period does not "infringe" on your right to own a gun. Get a dictionary.

Perhaps you like the idea of the meth dealer next door to you, wandering down to Don's Gun's and buying an arsenal...

Okay... bad example.

I will wait for my "betters" to show up and pick you apart on your theories, but in short, you sound alot like a liberal.[/qoute]I'm sure you won't have to wait long. No matter where you go, your "betters" are all around you.

And for the record: I'm so far to the right, that if Ann Coulter and I were in a car, she'd have to drive.
(If you don't get it, you can have one of your "betters" explain it to you.)

Sigh.... I just want this quoted, so it doesn't get removed later.

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : [SIZE=-1]ENCROACH[/SIZE] —in·fring·er noun
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 

[hunter480]

Not true. More guns in the hands of the law-abiding=less crime. More guns in the hands of criminals=more crime. Always.

Gun control is not a gun ban. Which is a good thing because gun bans don't work.

Or perhaps your domestic violence victim intends to get a gun during a fit of rage, and give her significant-other a case of "lead poisoning", while he's passed out on the couch.

A panel of predominantly conservative USSC judges just upheld that your right to vote can be contingent upon proof of identification. All freedoms have resrictions. It's what keeps freedom from descending into anarchy.

True enough, freedoms must have restrictions, but be aware to not be fooled by the packaging.

Ohio for example demands that a gun course be taken and "passed" before issuance of a CCP-sounds all good and safe and sensible and warm and freakin` fuzzy, but ANY right that the government can dole out to you, based on an arbitrary test quickly becomes not a right, but a privilidge.

 

[Prometheus]

This does not apply to speech. Free speech is hobbled by restrictions. If speech can be legally restricted, and that has been upheld by the SCOTUS so it is reasonable to presume that you are using the term 'restricted' improperly.

No, speech is punished if you abuse your Right to it. You don't have permits for a tongue or licenses for lips nor registration of your larynx.

Same should go for firearms. Abuse your Right, you are subject to lose it. A Right can never be premised as to have to gain permission first. It then becomes a privilege.

Should we license virgin women because they have a vagina and could use it to become a prostitute.

the notion being promulgated here is that a person should have to gain permission before being allowed to defend ones self.

We have a Right to self defense just as plain as we have a Right to live. My Right to self defense cannot nor should not be hampered by waiting periods or asinine laws, permits or licenses.

 

[Prometheus]

Or perhaps your domestic violence victim intends to get a gun during a fit of rage, and give her significant-other a case of "lead poisoning", while he's passed out on the couch.

A target asleep on the couch is prime for a steak knife, bat or food poisoning.

Hey, monkeys could fly from her bunghole and beat him to death with unripened bananas!

Fear mongering and paranoia can always be easily debunked. I'd suggest not living in fear. Living in a free society comes with a certain amount of risk. Living under tyranny (as it seems some of you prefer) also comes with risk. Personally I'm with Thomas Jefferson and Bern Franklin on this one:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."–Thomas Jefferson

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[melensdad]

No, speech is punished if you abuse your Right to it.

You can be jailed for inciting a riot.

You can be jailed for creating a public panic (yelling FIRE!!! in a crowded theater).

You can be jailed for verbally threatening someone with violence.

Once again I will suggest that you remove things from context, make absolute statements and they end up being wrong. Same is true for how you have interpreted some of the actions of the NRA. Remember I have not put up an absolute defense for the NRA, there are some actions where there have been missteps but you condemn them in the absolute when they are still the one organization that speaks most effectively on our behalf.

 

[TRWXXA]

[Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : [SIZE=-1]ENCROACH[/SIZE] —in·fring·er noun
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyesedit:

 

[Shay]

Although the NRA has several major flaws, I am an NRA life member.

For those of you willing to accept "reasonable" restrictions on the Second Amendment, WAKE UP!

Stop the government's creeping incrementalism. It is aided by your policy of continual appeasement and acquiescence.

Gun laws do not reduce crime or criminals. Period.

 

[Prometheus]

You can be jailed for inciting a riot.

You can be jailed for creating a public panic (yelling FIRE!!! in a crowded theater).

You can be jailed for verbally threatening someone with violence.

Once again I will suggest that you remove things from context, make absolute statements and they end up being wrong.

Please read the post you just quoted. You either have zero reading comprehension skills or are just baiting at this point. All three of your examples prove my point. They are AFTER THE FACT and AFTER the person has abused their Right.

I have to take issue with anyone who tried to restrict a persons Rights even though they have never done anything to suggest they will abuse those Rights.

We have a system of law in this country that presumes INNOCENCE. To suggest the entire populace is guilty by simply existing is ridiculous and presumptuous, at best.

Would you also suggest we should get a permit before having our fourth amendment Rights prevent unlawful search and seizure? How often should we renew such a license under your plan? Can we have a lifetime license for our 4th amendment Rights provided we keep our License to be secure in our paper and possessions up to date? How much would such a license cost?

Why the Second Amendment and the Right it guarantees is treated as a second class Right or as somehow less of Right as others is beyond belief. I cannot fathom how anyone could come to such a conclusion.

Suggested reading for you this evening: Declaration of Independence. I'm serious, please read it word for word. My favorite line is "Endowed by our Creator by certain inalienable Rights". It puts some perspective on what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Also I'd suggest a review of the entire Constitution and the First 10 Amendments.

A few points of clarity-

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is only a crime if there is no fire. It is not only acceptable to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if your discover a fire, you could be a hero for saving everyones lives. If things were your way the word "fire" would require a permit and you'd need a license to speak in addition to the registration of the vocal cords. The whole theater and everyone in it would be ashes before you even started to fill out the paperwork! :rolleyesedit:
Also in many states merely threatening violence (without making an effort to back it up) is not a crime.

You have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments; Rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
- John Adams, Second President of the United States

 

[turnandshoot4]

Taking a step back here.

My minor .02

Reasonable gun restricitons are what build to unreasonable laws. The government takes rights away like a river on a rock. Not by cracking the rock in half with a chisel. Look at where we are now vs when the constitution was written.

That being said I am not a member of the NRA. I refuse to choose the lesser of two evils. For me there is no compromise. I can only vote.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Even though I'm very pro-gun, I don't think EVERYONE should have them, and NOBODY needs to obtain one RIGHT THIS SECOND.
I applaud the idea of wait times to purchase guns, especially if that time is used for background checks. Keeping arms is the right of any responsible citizen. I don't object to having to prove that I am a responsible citizen before someone sells me a gun.

Wait times can be deadly. For someone who has been threatened. What are their options? They can't rely on LE to protect them so they have to defend themselves. Ok so in Indiana any good citizen can own a firearm same day and I like that.
The part I don't like is why do we have to have a Carry License to be able to carry said weapon? If we proved ourselves a good citizens with the NCIS why should we be forced to carry illegally until our Licenses are processed? We have a right to bear arms and that should not be infringed upon.
Does LE take matters of threats into consideration and issue temp licenses?

 

[dblagent]

This lady or her mother could have needed a gun RIGHT NOW, look at the time frame involved. Plus it happened this week so it's a good example.

Man Kills Self, Child, Mother-In-Law In Torrance Shooting - KNBC-TV - MSNBC.com


PS - Not really wanting to get involved in the whold discussion, but I did wan to share the above thought.

 

[abnk]

And for the record: I'm so far to the right, that if Ann Coulter and I were in a car, she'd have to drive.

Being right-wing does not make you right or pro-Constitution. You have quite obviously bought into the "common sense gun laws".

I agree with Prometheus on the Rights issue.

Now, on the subject, sure, the NRA has compromised before with the antis and probably still will, but the very fact that they are hated and feared by the anti-constitutionalists makes it worth to be a member.

I am an NRA and GOA life member.

 

[boilergonzo]

I do belong to the NRA. I don't view them as perfect, but I do view them as the most nationally cohesive lobbying group we have.

I will be renewing my membership soon.

 

[sparkyfender]

I am a proud member.

Wouldn't have it any other way.
Do I approve of, or even like, every move that they make?

Hell no!


But they do SOMETHING, which is something the non joiners cannot claim.

So you belong to the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership? I'm sure that sets the Brady group to quaking.............


disclaimer: I am a member of the JPFO

 

[SavageEagle]

the REAL nra

Because I only support pro-Second Amendment organizations. I don't support sportsmans groups that don't support my weapons and Rights.

I'm not bashing anyone's support for any group, but I am an active member in the NRA and have been since I turned Eagle Scout 11 years ago. on this page give by Prometheus it states:

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

That is very true. we all support gun control measures. THINK ABOUT IT. Do you want a convicted Murderer, Serial Rapist, Bank Robber running around CCing? How about an escaped metal patient?

Attorney Alan Gura has commented on the NRA's "sham litigation" to have Parker consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, and stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case"

That is a SHAM. I subscribe to America's First Freedom and anyone who reads it knows full and well where they stand. I have no experiance with GOA or the others, but if they really wanted a good membership base you would see things in the mailbox from them. Something. Anyway, until the NRA gives me a reason not to support them then I will be writing them a long letter. I still write the politicians on my own even after sending in the NRA letters. Especially the canidates for President. I don't care about their healthcare plans or fake lies about fixing the economy. I care that they don't leave Iraq behind and make our soldiers deaths, our friends' and families' deaths be in vain. I care that they don't destroy the military as MR. AND MRS. Clinton tried to do. (see "Deriliction of Duty" the book) As far as the NRA is concerned, they are the ONLY ones I see standing up for our gun rights. There are a few that wrote Amici to the Supreme Court on behalf of Dick Heller, but none more actively involved in this case or other legislation.

 

[Michiana]

I was a NRA member for many years as well as a FFL licensed dealer. I wanted to support the right to own and carry a firearm but got tired of the NRA wasting the money I paid them in dues sending almost weekly mailing of crap to me. They must have spent twice what I paid them in dues requesting more money from me. They should have an option for members to request being taken off their mailing list except for yearly renewals. Just my opinion.