PDA

View Full Version : NRA: Ready to defend 2nd amendment


Ding126
11-18-2008, 4:00 PM
http://bucyrustelegraphforum.com/article/20081118/NEWS01/311180003/1002/rss01


ASHLAND — The National Rifle Association is ready to defend the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms if it’s challenged by the new administration of President-elect Barrack Obama.
Advertisement

NRA executive vice president and CEO, Wayne LaPierre, made that pledge during a speech Monday at Ashland University. The address was part of the John M. Ashbrook Center’s Fall 2008 Major Issues Lecture Series.

LaPierre told an estimated 700 students and adults in the AU Convocation Center that he believes there will be a challenge because of a June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a firearms ban in Washington D.C. He said there is an “elite ruling class” that feels the Court made a mistake, that people can’t be trusted and there is a need for restrictions on the new firearms freedoms.

“If the founders and framers of our Constitution were sitting here today, they would say we have made progress toward equality, justice and freedom for all people but would they also see storm clouds where other Americans see only change?” LaPierre said.

He quoted writings of several Founding Fathers to show that it is “clear enough for a third-grader” to understand what the Second Amendment means.

LaPierre said all roads to the origin of anti-gun efforts lead back to the United Nations, where he contends those who promoted a nuclear weapons freeze “morphed” their lobbying once their initial goal was achieved.

“The U.N. position is that self defense is not a human right — that’s the government's responsibility,” LaPierre said.

According to LaPierre, crime has “skyrocketed” in countries that have adopted handgun bans — including the United Kingdom and South Africa — and backed his claim with excerpts from television network news coverage in which British citizens talked about their experiences since the ban. He also showed U.S. network reports from New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in which residents talked about their experiences with looters and the lack of police response after the mayor ordered the police chief to confiscate all firearms from anyone who stayed behind.

“It was the first time in American history that armed troops went door-to-door, took guns without receipts or paperwork and left them defenseless,” he said. “They were marooned there with no power, no 911 and no police to be found, yet looters wandered the streets to pick on people and rob, rape and murder.”

LaPierre said the NRA went to federal court and won a cease and desist order to stop the gun confiscation. Later, the organization successfully promoted a bill signed by President Bush that prevents the government from going into homes and confiscating guns after any natural disaster.

Currently, the gun organization has filed lawsuits in a number of cities to repeal handgun bans similar to the one the Supreme Court overturned in Washington D.C. LaPierre noted the NRA also convinced San Francisco officials to overturn an administrative decision to ban public housing residents from owning firearms for personal protection.

“Once the Supreme Court says something is an individual right, you have to take it to the rest of the country,” he said. “It’s the same as speech, religion and other individual freedoms — every law-abiding citizen has to get to it.”

LaPierre noted polls show a majority of Americans favor individual freedom to own guns even though politicians still try to ban them.

“The great thing about the United States is that, after all is said and done, it’s still we the people who rule this country and if we stand up for what we believe in, we’ll never lose these great freedoms that make our country the envy of the entire world.”

SOneThreeCoupe
11-18-2008, 4:54 PM
Is this the same NRA which endorsed McCain, former mouthpiece for Americans for Gun Safety?

http://www.goapvf.org/mccain.htm

The NRA is ready to defend the Second Amendment when it's convenient and they can pretend there's a major party candidate "friendly" to the Second.

They sit for what they believe in. They're definitely not standing, and they're definitely not lying down.

Hopi
11-18-2008, 5:10 PM
Is this the same NRA which endorsed McCain, former mouthpiece for Americans for Gun Safety?

http://www.goapvf.org/mccain.htm

The NRA is ready to defend the Second Amendment when it's convenient and they can pretend there's a major party candidate "friendly" to the Second.

They sit for what they believe in. They're definitely not standing, and they're definitely not lying down.

There is winning and losing. Figure out which one you want to be a part of and then get with the program.

Solidsnake87
11-18-2008, 5:11 PM
We are soooo long overdue for a revolution its not even funny. I'm not content being a freaking sheep. I guess its better to be an American sheep than a British one though. :rolleyes:

6172crew
11-18-2008, 6:06 PM
Is this the same NRA which endorsed McCain, former mouthpiece for Americans for Gun Safety?

http://www.goapvf.org/mccain.htm

The NRA is ready to defend the Second Amendment when it's convenient and they can pretend there's a major party candidate "friendly" to the Second.

They sit for what they believe in. They're definitely not standing, and they're definitely not lying down.

Go to the next local meeting and you might find the NRA is doing more than you think. The NRA is me and over half the other members here and we do a pretty good job each year IMO. It's about time for folks to step up and change what you don't like about the NRA not just complain.;)

bulgron
11-18-2008, 6:39 PM
I watched the OC board of supervisors meeting today in which they discussed the new sheriff's CCW policy. I saw a bunch of gun owners there, many of whom identified themselves as NRA members. I also saw Paul Payne and Ed Worley there, both of whom are NRA employees.

Funny thing, though, I didn't see any OTHER "pro-gun" organizations there.

So could the NRA bashers around here please tell me where their pro-gun organization of choice was today as the OC struggled with the issue of a sheriff who wants to restrict CCWs to an unacceptable level?

More to the point, if the NRA "doesn't do nothin'", then what the hell were they doing at that meeting? Is that 'nothing'?

SOneThreeCoupe
11-18-2008, 6:58 PM
There is winning and losing. Figure out which one you want to be a part of and then get with the program.

Winning entirely, or not at all.

I'm a member of the NRA because my favorite range requires it. I need practice if I'm going to be a decent freedom fighter. From my cold dead hands, and not through lawsuits.

Feel free to point out where I said the NRA does nothing.

Accept what they feed you and keep paying their dues, advertising their association, and wearing their hats. They do some good, but since when is some good acceptable?

Hopi
11-18-2008, 7:58 PM
Winning entirely, or not at all.

I'm a member of the NRA because my favorite range requires it. I need practice if I'm going to be a decent freedom fighter. From my cold dead hands, and not through lawsuits.

Feel free to point out where I said the NRA does nothing.

Accept what they feed you and keep paying their dues, advertising their association, and wearing their hats. They do some good, but since when is some good acceptable?

36 months from now, when we are enjoying all the protections afforded by a restored 2nd amend., the NRA will be high on your list of folks to thank. Keep dissenting all that you want, it only makes the resolve of our membership stronger, just don't forget to pay your dues.

xxdabroxx
11-18-2008, 9:28 PM
Is this the same NRA which endorsed McCain, former mouthpiece for Americans for Gun Safety?

http://www.goapvf.org/mccain.htm

The NRA is ready to defend the Second Amendment when it's convenient and they can pretend there's a major party candidate "friendly" to the Second.

They sit for what they believe in. They're definitely not standing, and they're definitely not lying down.

are you serious? who would you rather have them support, Obama? thats laughable.

on a side note, firefox doesnt recognize the spelling of obama! plus one for the "right" browser!

LibertyGuy
11-18-2008, 10:15 PM
Just joined the NRA. It's about time

gazzavc
11-18-2008, 11:07 PM
Just bought a membership for my son's 9th birthday, in two weeks !!

(Honestly !! )

Lee F. Smith
11-18-2008, 11:33 PM
Winning entirely, or not at all.

I'm a member of the NRA because my favorite range requires it. I need practice if I'm going to be a decent freedom fighter. From my cold dead hands, and not through lawsuits.

Feel free to point out where I said the NRA does nothing.

Accept what they feed you and keep paying their dues, advertising their association, and wearing their hats. They do some good, but since when is some good acceptable?

That sir, is what got us in the situation we are in today. I assume that you subscribe to the Neal Knox approach of all or nothing. When you take that approach and you are in the minority on the issue you will have nothing. The opposition understood this long before our side did. It resulted in what we have today.

So you go ahead and take your scorched earth policy, we can always make use of the rabid pit bull on the end of a chain, but I am going with my best chance at preserving the Second Amendment.

CalNRA
11-19-2008, 1:41 AM
Is this the same NRA which endorsed McCain, former mouthpiece for Americans for Gun Safety?

http://www.goapvf.org/mccain.htm

The NRA is ready to defend the Second Amendment when it's convenient and they can pretend there's a major party candidate "friendly" to the Second.

They sit for what they believe in. They're definitely not standing, and they're definitely not lying down.

oh I get it, I didn't think it made sense until I read this:

Someone needs to get to the GOP and stop their Zionist propaganda. They've brainwashed you into thinking that Israeli matters are our matters.

I would help Israel fight for Israel's safety under the employ of Israel, but never would I support them as an American. I agree that Israel deserves to exist, but they need to fight their fight without our help. They've done it for thousands of years; are we really so arrogant as to think without us, the nation of Zion will collapse?

We shouldn't have bases ANYWHERE but HERE. Those bases should be for practicing the art of being a soldier. Soldiers could be mercenaries for other armies when not training. We should drastically decrease the size of the military and begin training a militia.

The size and scope of our military is ridiculous.

SOneThreeCoupe
11-19-2008, 7:05 AM
36 months from now, when we are enjoying all the protections afforded by a restored 2nd amend., the NRA will be high on your list of folks to thank. Keep dissenting all that you want, it only makes the resolve of our membership stronger, just don't forget to pay your dues.

That is completely and utterly preposterous. How could you think that, in this current political climate, our true Second Amendment rights will be restored in thirty-six months without some sort of radical change enacted by the people, and not through the courts? Are you that naive?

I would rather the NRA supported Ron Paul, just so they could say they claimed the high ground and stood for a no-compromise pro-gun candidate.

You get it, CalNRA? You get that a return to a country the Founders would be proud to live in requires retracting the tentacles of big government from every facet of the globe? That the GOP and the Dems are just two faces on the same platform of bigger government and more oppressed people?

The NRA set its attack dogs on Obama and the left. Why doesn't it go after every neoliberal puke in the Republican party? Oh yeah, because its members are overwhelmingly conservative, mostly neoconservative and they vote party line, time and time again.

We need change in this country, and it's not the change Obama's claiming to want to create. It's not the change that McCain would've created. It's the change that brings the country back to control of the people, by the people, and the NRA's not on the right track.

yellowfin
11-19-2008, 7:23 AM
^ Some of that change was seen yesterday afternoon in Orange County.

tango-52
11-19-2008, 7:40 AM
Yes, it was good to see the NRA at yesterday's Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting. However, I feel the need to clarify that the organizing group behind that effort was Ordinary California Citizens Concerned With Safety, OCCCWS, http://www.occcws.com/

The green badges that people were wearing were from that group. Two hundred were passed out at yesterday's meeting. It was an outstanding effort from ordinary citizens (many of whom are NRA members) to bring this issue to the forefront. Hopefully, this effort will spread to other restrictive issue counties.

bulgron
11-19-2008, 8:05 AM
That is completely and utterly preposterous. How could you think that, in this current political climate, our true Second Amendment rights will be restored in thirty-six months without some sort of radical change enacted by the people, and not through the courts? Are you that naive?

I'll be happy if inside of 36 months we have:

1. Incorporation of the 2A
2. A drastically weakened if not completely tossed-out California AW ban.
3. Movement in the courts recognizing my right to openly carry a loaded firearm in public.

I'll be shocked if we somehow inside of 36 months get any movement on shall-issue CCW in this state, which is my primary interest in the gun rights movement.

In the meantime, we're going to have to deal with a very hostile federal government, increasing propaganda in the press which will scream about every shooting that ever happens (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_re_us/fbi_agent_shot_2), the use of environmental concerns to attempt to limit our 2A rights (lead ammo will be on the forefront of this debate), various punitive taxation schemes, possibly a renewed federal AW ban, playing defense on court appointments, and fighting to make sure that any "universal healthcare" program the feds implement cannot be used to limit firearms in the home.

It's going to be a busy time in the gun rights fight. Reading the tea-leaves, I'd say it's best not to have overly high expectations.

That said, you gotta start somewhere.

And, for what it's worth, we currently have momentum on our side. Whether we keep it will depend on how hard the Democrats come out of the gate charging after gun control. In many ways, I'd rather they overstepped now than later. As it is, the Democrats are a tick away from complete control of all of government. Them overstepping now will cause equilibrium to be restored in Washington in 2010.

Anyway you look at it, we have dark times ahead.

bwiese
11-19-2008, 10:44 AM
I would rather the NRA supported Ron Paul, just so they could say they claimed the high ground and stood for a no-compromise pro-gun candidate.


How can Ron Paul be considered pro-gun if he voted against PLCAA, probably the most important piece of gun legislation on our side?

RP's "purity" explanation is idiotic, when our fight is in the real world.

CoinStar
11-19-2008, 1:22 PM
It's about time for folks to step up and change what you don't like about the NRA not just complain.;)

Agreed.

However, if I were to base the NRA's reaction to legitimate complaints just from the responses of those who are beholden to the group here on CalGuns, I would guess that any amount of "step[ping] up" would be met with truckloads of resistance.

It seems that any complaint regarding NRA protocol is swiftly relegated to the "bashing" category and summarily dismissed as "whining".

rayra
11-19-2008, 4:17 PM
There is winning and losing. Figure out which one you want to be a part of and then get with the program.

You mean like the NRA did with the Heller case, first they were against it, then when it looked like it really would succeed they flipped and were suddenly Great Supporters?

NRA needs to expand their focus outside the Beltway and start heavily counter-propagandizing the American people. Full-blown education campaigns via ads, published ads, public service announcements, mail campaigns, the works. COUNTER THE LEFT'S LIES ABOUT GUNS AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

And until they do they can stop clogging my inboxes with solicitation$. And WHEN they do, when the take up the public education task they've utterly neglected since the '94 AWB, I'll return to their ranks with my wallet.


And for those that don't know how weak and falsley the NRA 'defended the 2nd Amendment' in the Heller case, here's some light reading -

http://www.reason.com/news/show/129991.html

The NRA v. Heller

The Heller case quickly found a powerful opponent in the National Rifle Association. This surprises nearly every layman I discuss the case with, most of whom assume the NRA was behind the lawsuit in the first place. The Parker lawyers received backroom visits from allies of the NRA before their case was filed, discouraging them from going forward. The Supreme Court (which still had Sandra Day O’Conner back then) would not reliably deliver a victory, they argued, and an authoritative statement from the Supremes that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right could prove devastating to the long-term cause.

This was an intellectually respectable objection, the Levy team thought, but ultimately too fearful. If no one would fight for the Second Amendment qua Second Amendment in a relevant case, then its supposed paladins were as complicit in its irrelevance as were the most rabid partisans for the idea that the Second Amendment only applied to militias and is thus a dead letter.

“The second problem the NRA had with our case was territorial,” Gura says. “They didn’t want something like this going on that they didn’t have their hands in.” In fact, in April 2003, less than two months from Parker’s filing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a new lawsuit challenging D.C.’s gun laws, Seegars v. Ashcroft, was filed with the backing of the NRA and its longtime Second Amendment legal eagle Stephen Halbrook in charge.

As per then-standard NRA practice, Halbrook offered the court a menu of options to choose from to overthrow D.C. gun laws, hoping one of them might work even if a direct Second Amendment challenge did not. Among them were claims that Congress had only empowered D.C. to create for itself regulations that were “usual and reasonable,” and that D.C.’s gun laws, being the most severe ones in the nation, were therefore unusual and unreasonable.

Unlike the Levy team, Halbrook and the NRA chose to sue not only Washington, D.C., but the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ is a significantly more formidable opponent than the District of Columbia. To add insult to injury, because of their unease with Levy and his comparatively inexperienced crew, the NRA team used Seegars as an excuse to try to scuttle Parker altogether by taking over the case, through the legal gambit of “consolidation.” That’s when two cases that are asking courts to decide on essentially the same matter can be combined, whether or not one of the parties really wants it—a hostile takeover of the litigation, as it were. The consolidation request, made to the court in April 2003, was denied.

Then in January 2004, at the D.C. District Court, all but one Seegars plaintiff—a woman with a registered shotgun contesting the trigger-lock aspect of D.C.’s laws—were denied standing. The last remaining plaintiff lost the case on a basic “doesn’t belong to a militia” argument. The Seegars team appealed, bringing their case into the appeals process before Parker had even been considered at the District Court. It wasn’t until March 31, 2004 that that court dismissed Parker, basically on the grounds that those plaintiffs weren’t in a militia, either. The Levy team expected this initial loss, but appealed, determined to fight the case all the way through the appeals process.

Because the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the issues in both cases were essentially the same, they halted the appeals progress of Parker, at D.C.’s request, pending resolution of Seegars. Then in a February 2005 decision, Seegars was wrecked on the rock of standing, for D.C. Circuit-specific peculiarities explained further below.

The NRA also harmed Parker through its decision to bring DOJ into the case. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in coming down with its Parker decision on March 9, 2007, booted five of the original plaintiffs off the case, for the same reason of standing that the five Seegars plaintiffs were all tossed away. The standing argument had been introduced to the case by the Justice Department; D.C. hadn’t thought of it on its own.

Sure, Parker and her compatriots might think that a core, fundamental constitutional right was being denied them. But by the D.C. Circuit’s standard, they had suffered no specific injury such that they had standing to sue.

The D.C. Circuit has a peculiar position on standing, more stringent than in any other circuit. The 1997 case Navegar v. U.S., coincidentally involving a gun manufacturer, established that plaintiffs must, in the language of D.C.’s filing to dismiss the plaintiffs in Parker, “demonstrate a threat of prosecution that is ‘credible and immediate,’ or imminent, and ‘not merely abstract or speculative.’ ” More or less, D.C. said that since the plaintiffs might be able to get away with breaking the gun laws, they had no standing to challenge those laws.

How is it that Heller alone survived the standing challenge? Even before the Parker case was officially filed, his friend Dane vonBreichenruchardt knew Heller was involved and intending to be a plaintiff—it was vonBreichenruchardt, who already knew Levy, who had introduced Heller to Levy.

VonBreichenruchardt had been a plaintiff in a previous case against certain regulations affecting the operations of nonprofits, rules that he felt amounted to a prior restraint on his First Amendment rights. He saw his case dismissed for lack of standing, for various reasons, one of which was that since he had not actually been punished for violating the law, it could be said that his claim that the regulations in question violated his rights was merely speculative.

So vonBreichenruchardt encouraged Heller to fill out a form to register one of the handguns Heller owned (apparently stored outside the district), even though he knew there was no way the city would actually accept the illegal pistol.

“It makes all the difference in the world that this one guy went down and filled out an absolutely meaningless piece of paper which you knew in advance was a futile act,” Neily says. “It was not intentional on the part of Alan, Bob, and myself, but it was intentional on the part of Dick and Dane, and it was very important that Dane had that insight and did that.” Heller slid in because he had a permit denied: a clear injury with a paper trail.

Standing wasn’t the only issue the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided on March 9, 2007. The other action judges took that day proved to be better news for the Parker team. In a two-one vote, the three-judge panel sent the case back to District Court with an order: Grant summary judgment to Heller. Translation: Heller wins.

The decision was a glorious victory for the Levy team and for the Second Amendment. Judge Laurence H. Silberman, in his majority opinion, hit all the right points. He decided that the “people” referred to in the Amendment meant the people, that is, all of us as individuals. He decided that “bear arms” had more than just a military meaning in the idiom of the Founding era.

Silberman’s decision interpreted the 1939 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Miller, the dominant precedent regarding the Second Amendment, to say that cases hinged on the type of weapon the right affected, and whether the weapon had potential militia use, not on whether persons claiming the right were themselves in a militia. The judge did not accept D.C.’s claim that any constitutional infringement was mitigated because the city might not punish a long-gun owner for loading and using his weapon in self-defense in defiance of the letter of the law. “Judicial leniency,” he wrote, “cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a right.”

yellowfin
11-19-2008, 4:26 PM
Mail campaigns and PSA's would dwindle resources too quickly. The guerilla methods like those employed by the opposition would be more effective: infiltrate academia, buddy up with indirects like prevention of violence against women (What better market for CCW could possibly exist than anti-rape?) and minorities, print ads in magazines other than hunting and gun magazines, and work much more actively on college campuses to the non-sporting crowd ala SCCC.

Hopi
11-19-2008, 4:31 PM
There is winning and losing. Figure out which one you want to be a part of and then get with the program.

You mean like the NRA did with the Heller case,

Yep, they recognized a winning team and joined it. That is all I'm asking of you time-wasting, counterproductive, hail-marry-strategy proponents.

MP301
11-19-2008, 6:39 PM
When is some good acceptable? What kind of question is that? Soem good is so much better then no good, is it not? Read the article I posted titles "very intelligent realization" and take it to heart! for decades the anti-gun people have been chipping away at our 2nd amendment rights and they are getting away with it because they are out smarting us! They take what they can get each time and it chips away at us again and again.....please, get with the program.l We have to fight smarter and stop whining when we dont get our way...just keep at it...The NRA is not perfect and never will be, but they are the best and most effective with some 3.5 to 4 million members. How much worse do you think we would be without the NRA???? Seriously?

CCWFacts
11-19-2008, 7:17 PM
Just joined the NRA. It's about time

THANK YOU.

SOneThreeCoupe
11-19-2008, 7:59 PM
It seems that any complaint regarding NRA protocol is swiftly relegated to the "bashing" category and summarily dismissed as "whining".

Bingo.

Ron Paul voted against the PLCAA because he feared it would be an unconstitutional enhancement of federal power over states' rights.

Our Founders didn't wait for lawsuits to go through to enact change.

Hopi
11-19-2008, 8:39 PM
Bingo.

Ron Paul voted against the PLCAA because he feared it would be an unconstitutional enhancement of federal power over states' rights.



Ron Paul is irrelevant. He is an idealist and has fringe support at best.

And while I agree that limiting Federal powers is of paramount importance, I'm smart enough to recognize that losing in the first round of a tennis tournament is not the best way to win a championship.


Our Founders didn't wait for lawsuits to go through to enact change.

So what are you waiting for? Seriously.

SOneThreeCoupe
11-20-2008, 6:00 AM
So what are you waiting for? Seriously.

Not enough ammo and not enough knowledge right now.

One individual cannot bring the system down unless he has like-minded individuals on his side.

Even in the firearm community, I am the odd one out. If I was not, I'd be a member of the flock.

We are all beholden to a corrupt and unjustifiable system of laws aimed not at curbing crime but at curbing impulse, at creating a system of societal laws within which the people must act. We are all beholden to act like everyone else. They are herding the flock toward a cliff, driving them closer and closer, quicker and quicker.

By the times the first have fallen, it will be too late for the rest.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-20-2008, 6:46 AM
You mean like the NRA did with the Heller case, first they were against it, then when it looked like it really would succeed they flipped and were suddenly Great Supporters?

NRA needs to expand their focus outside the Beltway and start heavily counter-propagandizing the American people. Full-blown education campaigns via ads, published ads, public service announcements, mail campaigns, the works. COUNTER THE LEFT'S LIES ABOUT GUNS AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

And until they do they can stop clogging my inboxes with solicitation$. And WHEN they do, when the take up the public education task they've utterly neglected since the '94 AWB, I'll return to their ranks with my wallet.


And for those that don't know how weak and falsley the NRA 'defended the 2nd Amendment' in the Heller case, here's some light reading -

http://www.reason.com/news/show/129991.html


Yup, that's all correct. When/if that changes, I'll join too. And not until then.

The Raisuli

JDoe
11-20-2008, 7:17 AM
SOneThreeCoupe, your attitude of all or nothing, support for armed revolution in the streets of America and spilling the blood of your own countrymen disturbs me. With people like you talking about training to kill their fellow Americans and mentally preparing for their own violent death should the anti-gun crowd fear the NRA at all?

Winning entirely, or not at all.

I'm a member of the NRA because my favorite range requires it. I need practice if I'm going to be a decent freedom fighter. From my cold dead hands, and not through lawsuits.

Not enough ammo and not enough knowledge right now.

One individual cannot bring the system down unless he has like-minded individuals on his side.

Even in the firearm community, I am the odd one out. If I was not, I'd be a member of the flock.

We are all beholden to a corrupt and unjustifiable system of laws aimed not at curbing crime but at curbing impulse, at creating a system of societal laws within which the people must act. We are all beholden to act like everyone else. They are herding the flock toward a cliff, driving them closer and closer, quicker and quicker.

By the times the first have fallen, it will be too late for the rest.

The line is ten feet back and a couple feet over.

This country will continue to change and something big will be orchestrated by the freedom-loving true patriots.

We will either go back, split up, or be utterly devastated.

SOneThreeCoupe
11-20-2008, 12:02 PM
SOneThreeCoupe, your attitude of all or nothing, support for armed revolution in the streets of America and spilling the blood of your own countrymen disturbs me. With people like you talking about training to kill their fellow Americans and mentally preparing for their own violent death should the anti-gun crowd fear the NRA at all?

I've not said that. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not "training to kill my fellow Americans." You're beginning to sound a little like the mainstream media.

What should disturb you is what doesn't disturb you at all.

yellowfin
11-20-2008, 12:34 PM
SOneThreeCoupe, your attitude of all or nothing, support for armed revolution in the streets of America and spilling the blood of your own countrymen disturbs me. With people like you talking about training to kill their fellow Americans and mentally preparing for their own violent death should the anti-gun crowd fear the NRA at all?It is an unpleasant and hopefully distant possibility. You are correct to say it should not be in the forefront of our thoughts and certainly not the marquee message to the public. However, the complete removal of willingness to act against tyranny, remote yet less and less so every day, is equally a mistake. The willingness to resist what oppressions could come guarantees that they will.

70% tax rates. Dollar losing 80% of its value. Your particular religion outlawed to the point of you being jailed. News stations that aren't ultra left being taken over. Farfetched? Perhaps, but at the same time, just what exactly is telling the powers that be not to do that in a way they cannot ignore? A nudge every 2-4 years? Please. Angry letter or two? In the trash bin in 5 seconds or less. If the one thing that can keep government in check when the chips are really down wasn't what it is, they wouldn't be trying so damn hard to ban it.

Peragro
11-20-2008, 1:58 PM
How can Ron Paul be considered pro-gun if he voted against PLCAA, probably the most important piece of gun legislation on our side?

RP's "purity" explanation is idiotic, when our fight is in the real world.

Care to help a fellow calgunner improve his education? What is PLCAA? I don't think this that I found on google (http://www.grolawnplus.com/plcaa.html)is it.

SOneThreeCoupe
11-20-2008, 3:18 PM
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-397

PLCAA stands for Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

.223
11-20-2008, 7:09 PM
SOneThreeCoupe, your attitude of all or nothing, support for armed revolution in the streets of America and spilling the blood of your own countrymen disturbs me. With people like you talking about training to kill their fellow Americans and mentally preparing for their own violent death should the anti-gun crowd fear the NRA at all?

Armed revolution is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. The fact that this concept disturbs you disturbs me.

Also, can you really call a corrupt, power-hungry legislature your countrymen?

Kestryll
11-20-2008, 8:32 PM
Not enough ammo and not enough knowledge right now.

One individual cannot bring the system down unless he has like-minded individuals on his side.

I've not said that. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not "training to kill my fellow Americans." You're beginning to sound a little like the mainstream media.

What should disturb you is what doesn't disturb you at all.
Yes, you very clearly made your intentions known.
"Not enough ammo..."

In simple terms you are a fool.
You are the kind of ignorant 'kill them all' fool that makes us all look like idiots.

Be my guest, charge right in to the machine gun screaming 'I'm the only true patriot.
I'll watch with a cold soda and popcorn.
You will die or be terminally marginalized and your legacy will be nothing less then being one of the ones that helped to bring down the Second Amendment.
You will be remembered but not as you were dreaming about.




Armed revolution is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. The fact that this concept disturbs you disturbs me.

Also, can you really call a corrupt, power-hungry legislature your countrymen?
Armed revolution may one day be necessary but we are a fair bit down the road from it right now.
The thought of a necessary revolution does not disturb me.
The thought of some yoyo trying to start one now does.

slowfire
11-20-2008, 9:01 PM
Yes, it was good to see the NRA at yesterday's Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting. However, I feel the need to clarify that the organizing group behind that effort was Ordinary California Citizens Concerned With Safety, OCCCWS, http://www.occcws.com/

The green badges that people were wearing were from that group. Two hundred were passed out at yesterday's meeting. It was an outstanding effort from ordinary citizens (many of whom are NRA members) to bring this issue to the forefront. Hopefully, this effort will spread to other restrictive issue counties.

This is true. I got one of the green buttons from an Asian gentleman who was handing them out. He is an NRA member also but he said that OCCCWS was the group that organized the gathering. He thanked me for showing up and helping them support CCWs for Californians.

Ten Rounder
11-20-2008, 10:57 PM
Armed revolution may one day be necessary but we are a fair bit down the road from it right now.
The thought of a necessary revolution does not disturb me.
The thought of some yoyo trying to start one now does.

Once America is perceived to be weak and penetrable, I foresee an outside force trying to gain control as a governing direction. Only at that time our nation will seek the will of the hidden populace for protection to defend our very freedom and way of life. At that juncture we should be able to confront the evils of government and begin anew. I do train for that day, but will not spin it out of control. Will I see it in my life time? Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell.

SOneThreeCoupe
11-21-2008, 7:34 AM
Yes, you very clearly made your intentions known.
"Not enough ammo..."

In simple terms you are a fool.
You are the kind of ignorant 'kill them all' fool that makes us all look like idiots.

I've stated "kill them all" how many times, exactly?

I've extrapolated on "not enough ammo" to warrant what, exactly?

Because my strategy relies not on the courts but on the strength of the American spirit, I am a fool?

You're too quick to judge.

Do you think an armed revolution at this point in time would get public opinion on one's side? Do you think an armed revolution at this point in time would create a stable government? Be real; how stupid do you think I am?

By the way, what's your opinion on Waco and Ruby Ridge? Both were a combination of Second Amendment and income tax cases.

yellowfin
11-21-2008, 1:18 PM
Once America is perceived to be weak and penetrable, I foresee an outside force trying to gain control as a governing direction. Already happened in the mid 60's.

SOneThreeCoupe
11-21-2008, 7:17 PM
I'd say 1968 as the exact year.

Tarn_Helm
11-21-2008, 8:59 PM
http://bucyrustelegraphforum.com/article/20081118/NEWS01/311180003/1002/rss01

ASHLAND — The National Rifle Association is ready to defend the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms if it’s challenged by the new administration of President-elect Barrack Obama. . .

. . . “Once the Supreme Court says something is an individual right, you have to take it to the rest of the country,” [Wayne LaPierre] said. “It’s the same as speech, religion and other individual freedoms — every law-abiding citizen has to get to it.”

. . . “The great thing about the United States is that, after all is said and done, it’s still we the people who rule this country and if we stand up for what we believe in, we’ll never lose these great freedoms that make our country the envy of the entire world.” [emphasis added throughout]

If the NRA fails as an organization to prevent the government from infringing our right to keep and bear arms, then we'll all just have to man up and exercise the right designed as the final means of fighting off oppression when talking things out in good faith has proven to be futile.

Let's hope it never comes to that.
:36:

Richie Rich
11-21-2008, 9:16 PM
Just reupped for 3 more years....

They are not perfect, they can be too timid at times and they did not (until recently) seem to focus much on EBRs. That seems to be changing.

If all us EBR owners keep joining the NRA and making our intentions known, we will bring change (God, I hate that word now) from within the orginization.

I honestly believe that we would be in MUCH worse shape then we are now if it were not for the NRA. They have a VERY tough uphill battle ahead of them as the incoming administration seems to be shaping up as a real "who's who" of enemies of the 2A. We need numbers, and lots of them.