View Full Version : Who poses a greater threat to us: Anti-gun groups or politicians?
11-02-2007, 10:49 AM
PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING:
Obviously, politicians pose a huge threat to gun-owners as they are the ones who actually author and vote for or against anti-gun legislation, BUT - are they truly our biggest threat?
In most cases, I do not believe that the politicians actually come up with the ideas for, say, microstamping or lead ammo bans - those are the brainchildren of various environmental, anti-gun, and other special interest groups.
More examples are the ammo registration and loss/theft reporting ordinances that recently passed in Sacramento and other cities and state legislation that was attempted - those ordinances were the direct result of LCAV, Legal Community Against Violence, a SF-based group of attorneys who donate their time and expertise to anti-gun causes.
SO, with all of this in mind, who poses the greatest threat to gun owners: politicians or special interest groups?
11-02-2007, 10:54 AM
The anti-gun groups are probably the people who draft 90% of all the anti-gun legislation, then just hand it to their buddy buddy politicians for submission into Congress or at the state or local level.
The way I'm looking at this question is "if either of the choices was gone, which would have the greater effect on gun rights?" So my choice is that politicians are the greater threat. Even if the anti-gun groups were gone tomorrow, anti-gun legislation would continue to be pushed.
11-02-2007, 10:56 AM
Yes, the politicians already go into office with antigun views or carry in the antigun views of their urban/metro base - regardless of the minimal presence/absence of Brady types.
We should also note California's unique situation where the stunning incompetency (or under-the-table evil) of two "pro-gun" groups, GOC and CRPA, has led to passage of quite a few CA gun laws. Because of their results, these groups should be regarded as anti-gun due to their behavior/outcome - they are not just yammering irrelevancies like GOA/JPFO.
11-02-2007, 11:12 AM
I take the "but for" approach. But for the politician willing to vote such proposals into law, the anti gun groups would greatly diminish due to lack of positive results.
I'd be curious to know, how active (and how many members) of the Brady group and their associates are there in Idaho, Montana, Alaska and the Dakotas? Unless they're driving to California, not many I'd guess.
You forgot the journalists. Many pose as much threat as the other two.
Politicians are always the bigger threat. Regardless of their beliefs, a majority these people mainly exist to promote themselves and their personal interests. This, inevitably, leads to laws that intrude into our personal lives.
11-02-2007, 1:31 PM
The biggest threat is ourselves.
"I don't have an A15, so why do I care?"
"I don't hunt, so why do I care?"
"I have a CCW, so everything is peachy in in my neck of the woods."
"I don't vote because it is a waste of time. The antis are going to win anyway."
I could go on, but we are our biggest problem.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead
11-02-2007, 5:06 PM
I voted for anti-gun groups.
If we don't have guns we lose the last and final check and balance available to the people.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry, spoken during Virginia's ratification convention, June 14, 1788
11-02-2007, 5:44 PM
11-02-2007, 6:41 PM
I voted first and agree with my choice.
Politicians. Gotta love the stupid laws they have been passing lately.
11-03-2007, 10:03 AM
2. Anti-gun groups
4. All of the above
If I would have created this poll, I would have included four choices. My choice is 4 "All of the above."
I think gunowners by our human nature fail to regard an infringement that doesn't directly effect us, as non-threatening. Divide and conquer. I think that's exactly what politicians and anti-gunners are doing here. If all I have is a shotgun for self defense, I don't hunt, I don't have a handgun and I think "black rifles" should only be in the hands of the police and the military, the AWB, microstamping, and lead ammo ban don't effect me. The the fact of the matter is, they do. Because as soon as those firearms are controlled and no longer available to private citizens, a case will be made for taking shotguns or limiting the type of ammunition that a person can purchase for a shotgun. It's called incrementalism and it will eventually effect our kids or their kids. At this point gunowners should all be one issue voters. Everything else can be dealt with once gun control is itself brought under control. Legislators taught us a valuable lesson this year. If a bill fails, reintroduce it next year. And if it fails next year, resubmit it the following year. That's what Marion Hammer did with Right to Carry in Florida. It took her seven years to get Right to Carry. We tried once with AB1369, and when it failed we decided that it couldn't be done. So I vote for all of the above. Gunowners have an equal share in the blame for guncontrol.
11-03-2007, 10:32 AM
anti-gun groups are nothing without politicos to do their bidding.
11-04-2007, 8:52 AM
Collectively, all of the politicians are an anti group.:p
11-06-2007, 1:52 PM
I say the gun owners. Because many sit back and do nothing.
Politicians are second we elect them.
Outlaw Josey Wales
11-06-2007, 4:35 PM
Collectively, all of the politicians are an anti group.:p
Isn't it ironic that politicians are required to take an oath to uphold and defend the very Constitution that they seem so intent on destroying once in office. Seems like an offense on the scale of treason and should be punished as such. How in the hell did things ever come to this? :mad:
11-09-2007, 11:57 AM
...We should also note California's unique situation where the stunning incompetency (or under-the-table evil) of two "pro-gun" groups, GOC and CRPA, has led to passage of quite a few CA gun laws. Because of their results, these groups should be regarded as anti-gun due to their behavior/outcome - they are not just yammering irrelevancies like GOA/JPFO.
I believe groups like CRPA and GOC are *MORE* dangerous than anti-gun politicians and groups because they MISREPRESENT themselves to be friends of gun-owners but in reality, INSIST on playing their own games behind closed doors.
Those games cause anti-gun laws like Microstamping and Lead Ammo bans to become law, but they also undermine NRA's good work as well as the activism of many thousands of volunteers. They water down NRA-sponsored bills while cutting deals with anti-hunting groups and supporting mail order bans on ammo.
I believe this is much more damaging because, through these groups, gun-owners unknowingly support their own demise. We KNOW what the Brady Campaign is uop to, no suprise when LCAV lobbys to restrict legal gun ownership, but what AVERAGE gun-owner wouykld suspect that CRPA supports anti-hunting measures right along with PETA - just look at the list of supporters here... especially the 14th name in the list...
I consider betrayal and treachery much more dangerous than those who attack outright. BTW, have added a history of links on the issue at:
11-09-2007, 12:41 PM
Politicians, by far. anti gun groups can only push an agenda Politicians can make it law.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.