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
School me on Friends of NRA banquets
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: 2238026" data-attributes="member: 9113"><p>Is this who you want fighting for your rights?</p><p></p><p></p><p>First</p><p>I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment,</p><p>AS IT WAS WRITTEN.</p><p></p><p>What part of,</p><p>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED</p><p>or</p><p>The right to keep and BEAR arms,</p><p>is hard to understand???</p><p></p><p>Second,</p><p>THE WHOLE TRUTH,</p><p>If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.</p><p></p><p>Or are some so afraid of the WHOLE truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?</p><p></p><p>It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative about the NRA. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional!</p><p></p><p>Even if you work within "their system" to change, the problem is, as with politicians, if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting MANY of them passed.</p><p></p><p>Third,</p><p></p><p>Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win some if they didn't, that 3-4 million membership number would fade away quickly. We had 2 terms of a republican president. How many gun laws did the NRA even TRY to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a Vermont/Alaska style CCW law in? How many states have they turned a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT (to bear arms) into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE (CCW) with the government deciding on who is ALLOWED to bear arms. (once the - fee - is paid, of course)</p><p></p><p>I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?</p><p></p><p>*****</p><p></p><p>Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.</p><p>What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the "compromise" in this?</p><p></p><p>*****</p><p></p><p>What HARM can they do / have they done?</p><p></p><p>Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act of 1932" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.</p><p></p><p>The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934" was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby "starting" an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements. Not so, the NRA was first.</p><p></p><p>"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate</p><p>and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.</p><p></p><p>The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.</p><p></p><p>In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.</p><p>Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:</p><p>1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;</p><p>2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;</p><p>3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgment of notification to local police;</p><p>4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;</p><p>5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;</p><p>6. Increasing penalties for violation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DirtyDawg, post: 2238026, member: 9113"] Is this who you want fighting for your rights? First I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment, AS IT WAS WRITTEN. What part of, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED or The right to keep and BEAR arms, is hard to understand??? Second, THE WHOLE TRUTH, If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away. Or are some so afraid of the WHOLE truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not? It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative about the NRA. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional! Even if you work within "their system" to change, the problem is, as with politicians, if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting MANY of them passed. Third, Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win some if they didn't, that 3-4 million membership number would fade away quickly. We had 2 terms of a republican president. How many gun laws did the NRA even TRY to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a Vermont/Alaska style CCW law in? How many states have they turned a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT (to bear arms) into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE (CCW) with the government deciding on who is ALLOWED to bear arms. (once the - fee - is paid, of course) I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO? ***** Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the "compromise" in this? ***** What HARM can they do / have they done? Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act of 1932" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934. The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934" was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby "starting" an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements. Not so, the NRA was first. "The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition. The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963. In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns. Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by: 1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce; 2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales; 3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgment of notification to local police; 4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees; 5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and; 6. Increasing penalties for violation. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
School me on Friends of NRA banquets
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
