Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
NRA-PVF endorses Pelosi/Reid ally instead of Conservative
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DirtyDawg" data-source="post: 1342250" data-attributes="member: 9113"><p>The simple fact that the NRA cleverly endorsed Harry Reid instead of his conservative opponent Sharon Angle should make all NRA members concerned about the leadership and true intentions of the organization.</p><p></p><p>My assessment, which is based on my knowledge of the history of the NRA, the past internal efforts to drive a real Amendment II agenda and the plain fact that most americans do not believe that Amendment II means what it says, leads me to a general conclusion.</p><p></p><p>First, the upper echelon and the board of the NRA are made up almost entirely of Amendment II compromisers. The nominating committee routinely ensures that Amendment II compromisers are near exclusively 'approved' to be on the ballot. </p><p></p><p>With the driving force of the NRA comprised of those who believe that government has the right and duty to regulate the what, who, how and where of firearms and who may possess and carry them, the NRA remains 'relevant' in DC power-circles and backroom dealing/lobbying efforts. </p><p></p><p>The NRA is supportive of gun-ownership for self-defense, hunting, shooting sports and other purposes, but the caveat is that they are firmly of the position that the government must regulate, approve and control (read infringe) the who, what, why, how and where of it.</p><p></p><p>This is diametrically opposite to what Amendment II states and the easily discernible founders intent in enumerating the RKBA.</p><p></p><p>They have set themselves up as the 'staunch defender' of the Second Amendment to their membership, all the while they regularly work for 'gun privileges' rather than restoration of the 'fundamental right'.</p><p></p><p>The NRA has mastered the game and found the balance between their real actions vs their claimed and perceived actions by the faithful membership.</p><p></p><p>The NRA has a historical trust with the American people. They are considered an American Institution.</p><p></p><p>Many people have family that are generational members of the NRA and they have that 'institutional trust and faith' that seems to blind most people who own guns and who are NRA members. </p><p></p><p>Most NRA members are merely gun owners and hunters. They may have a couple or a few guns, but most are NOT aware, studied and knowing constitutionalists or gun-rights advocates.</p><p></p><p>After all, dad, grandpa, grandma and uncle skippy have all been proud members of the NRA. Gun-owners 'who care about and do something for their rights' are NRA members, right?</p><p></p><p>I <u>was</u> one of those members who had historical family NRA membership and support. Then I became aware over the years, based on what I actually saw being done, not what I was led to believe and/or was told was being done and why. </p><p></p><p>Fact is, that most of the NRA membership and most of the citizens of this nation are abjectly ill-informed about the Constitutional and about any of our fundamental, constitutionally-enumerated natural rights.</p><p></p><p>It is the lazy and/or trusting way for the ignorant to allow or expect someone else to be the watchdog of such things. </p><p></p><p>The NRA uses this trust and ignorance to great effect. </p><p></p><p>They crow about being the 'staunch defender' of the Second Amendment, they publish flashy magazines which crow about this 'staunch defense', they crow about liberty and freedom, yet they do not defend the Amendment II enumerated in the BOR's. </p><p></p><p>They join efforts at times in defense of the ability to carry and own guns and then claim that these efforts are defense of the Second Amendment, which are subsequently trumpeted by the NRA and then by the faithful membership. </p><p></p><p>These claims are accepted, since most are either ignorant or agree with government controls of firearms.</p><p></p><p>The insidious cycle generates fear and faith in near equal measure and the 'staunch' NRA is ever ready to solicit your money so they can 'continue to fight for your Second Amendment rights'.</p><p></p><p>The money flows, the trust and belief (false) is maintained and the power and prestige is there. </p><p></p><p>We 'need' the NRA, for without them and their efforts, we wouldn't have any guns and we wouldn't have a Second Amendment...or so I've been told, time and again.</p><p></p><p>And so it continues...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DirtyDawg, post: 1342250, member: 9113"] The simple fact that the NRA cleverly endorsed Harry Reid instead of his conservative opponent Sharon Angle should make all NRA members concerned about the leadership and true intentions of the organization. My assessment, which is based on my knowledge of the history of the NRA, the past internal efforts to drive a real Amendment II agenda and the plain fact that most americans do not believe that Amendment II means what it says, leads me to a general conclusion. First, the upper echelon and the board of the NRA are made up almost entirely of Amendment II compromisers. The nominating committee routinely ensures that Amendment II compromisers are near exclusively 'approved' to be on the ballot. With the driving force of the NRA comprised of those who believe that government has the right and duty to regulate the what, who, how and where of firearms and who may possess and carry them, the NRA remains 'relevant' in DC power-circles and backroom dealing/lobbying efforts. The NRA is supportive of gun-ownership for self-defense, hunting, shooting sports and other purposes, but the caveat is that they are firmly of the position that the government must regulate, approve and control (read infringe) the who, what, why, how and where of it. This is diametrically opposite to what Amendment II states and the easily discernible founders intent in enumerating the RKBA. They have set themselves up as the 'staunch defender' of the Second Amendment to their membership, all the while they regularly work for 'gun privileges' rather than restoration of the 'fundamental right'. The NRA has mastered the game and found the balance between their real actions vs their claimed and perceived actions by the faithful membership. The NRA has a historical trust with the American people. They are considered an American Institution. Many people have family that are generational members of the NRA and they have that 'institutional trust and faith' that seems to blind most people who own guns and who are NRA members. Most NRA members are merely gun owners and hunters. They may have a couple or a few guns, but most are NOT aware, studied and knowing constitutionalists or gun-rights advocates. After all, dad, grandpa, grandma and uncle skippy have all been proud members of the NRA. Gun-owners 'who care about and do something for their rights' are NRA members, right? I [U]was[/U] one of those members who had historical family NRA membership and support. Then I became aware over the years, based on what I actually saw being done, not what I was led to believe and/or was told was being done and why. Fact is, that most of the NRA membership and most of the citizens of this nation are abjectly ill-informed about the Constitutional and about any of our fundamental, constitutionally-enumerated natural rights. It is the lazy and/or trusting way for the ignorant to allow or expect someone else to be the watchdog of such things. The NRA uses this trust and ignorance to great effect. They crow about being the 'staunch defender' of the Second Amendment, they publish flashy magazines which crow about this 'staunch defense', they crow about liberty and freedom, yet they do not defend the Amendment II enumerated in the BOR's. They join efforts at times in defense of the ability to carry and own guns and then claim that these efforts are defense of the Second Amendment, which are subsequently trumpeted by the NRA and then by the faithful membership. These claims are accepted, since most are either ignorant or agree with government controls of firearms. The insidious cycle generates fear and faith in near equal measure and the 'staunch' NRA is ever ready to solicit your money so they can 'continue to fight for your Second Amendment rights'. The money flows, the trust and belief (false) is maintained and the power and prestige is there. We 'need' the NRA, for without them and their efforts, we wouldn't have any guns and we wouldn't have a Second Amendment...or so I've been told, time and again. And so it continues... [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
NRA-PVF endorses Pelosi/Reid ally instead of Conservative
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
