one of us
| Quote:
I was a member of the NRA for awhile, but what I don't like is this "for us or against us" attitude. They always have the issue where they tell you who to vote for to protect your rights. Obviously 99% of those you're supposed to vote for are Republican. Now I don't consider myself republican or democrat, and I'm certainly not going to vote for some tool solely because he protects my rights to own a firearm.
But what if you vote for a politician who supports your interests, but it's not someone the NRA has tagged as a gun-rights supporter? I'm betting they'll say you're against the cause, and that's a shame.
--I also wonder how many people would be members of the NRA if a membership only consisted of a contribution and not a magazine subscription in return...I can see a lot of you here would be fine with that, but I'm sure there are plenty of members out there that would cancel their membership the second this happened.
My point being that if they are out to protect our rights, then stop wasting money printing gun rags and use it where it's needed. I'd love to see them do this, it would be a bold move. It would also show who is really passionate about protecting their rights. Do you think the NRA would ever consider this? I don't believe so...the reason being that it risks losing current members.
I never cease to be amazed at the idea that an advocacy organization should compromise it's ideals. People who think that the Catholic Church or the NRA should support abortion or gun control (respectively) in some degree in order to get along just don't get it. Not everything has room for negotiation, particularly if you believe you are right. I personally think that the NRA is too WEAK in opposition to gun control which is very much in evidence here in VA where another group has had to step up.
Not all anti-gunners are Democrats and not all pro-gunners are Republicans nor are all Democrats anti-gun or all Republicans pro-gun (see Sen. John Warner!  ). I think the NRA is right to rate the various candidates then those who are more than single issue voters can make an informed decision. There have been several instances here in VA where both Dems and Republicans were rated A or better.
The magazines are an important way of communicating with the membership, encouraging expansion of sport shooting and is self-supported (or perhaps making a bit of money). That's a wonderful situation for any organization. To be able to rally the troops with a communication device that is instantly recognizable and paid for by somebody else, come on, that's a no-brainer!
Long ago, I realized that many, perhaps most, pro-gun people were also pro-"the whole bill of rights" and other issues important to me. It sure seems to me that every anti-gun politician has a very arrogant attitude about me (and those like me) who have served this country (to heck with the VA, etc.), pay taxes (let's get all we can squeeze out of them), morality (let's commit adultery while conducting official business!), and so forth.
I realize that very nearly all professional politicians have a different attitude than the rest of us. They would not do what they do if they didn't have this attitude of superiority. It is our vote and adherence to principle that is the ONLY thing that keeps them in line (and barely). EVERY advocacy group is dependent on the numbers to impress their targeted politicians with the effect that their organization can have on any given election. Those who are not members of the NRA do weaken the pro-gun effort. You don't have to agree with them to realize that the NRA is THE pro-gun group that politicians look to. If there were more voting members who participated in the elections, there would be greater pressure on the NRA to provide the support pro-gun people in this country need. |
| | | Posts: 2324 | Location: Staunton, VA | Registered: 05 September 2002 | 
IP
|
|
one of us
| Hello? We had better vote for the candidates that support the 2nd Amendment, and against those that don't--party, per se, making no difference. If the 2nd Amendment is lost, so will all the rest of the Amendments, as well as the Constitution, be lost. In reality, if pro- or anti- gun is an issue between 2 candidates, it is easy, vote for the pro-gun guy. How could any gun owner consider doing otherwise? The other issues are immaterial if we loose the 2nd Amendment. The NRA is far from perfect, but it's size gives it the only significant voice fighting for firearms ownership rights. If more people were members, it would be more powerful in our behalf. And lets be realistic--they have to negotiate. If it's all or none, without negotiation, we're going to end up with none often times. That is generally a hell of a lot worse than a negotiated agreement that isn't perfect. The NRA is your voice on gun ownership freedom and rights. Make it heard, or those freedoms will be gone, as in most of the rest of the world. It is an uphill battle, and every gun owner that doesn't join in is a pebble going down the hill against us. |
| | | Posts: 747 | Location: Nevada, USA | Registered: 22 May 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| H&H, those things of which you speak are indeed important, but if we loose the 2nd Amendment, we will loose those and much more for sure. The Second Amendment is all we have to protect us. The fact that the populace is armed prevents political forces from totally controlling you. They cannot dominate you if you (the populace) are armed and able to resist. Loose our right to poccess and bear arms and then there is no way to prevent total control over you and I, and they can then take any "right" away at any time, because we wouldn't be able to do a thing about it. Preservation of public land is of course important, but miniscule in importance compared with the need to protect our freedoms, and if the poccession of arms is lost, all our freedoms will soon be lost. This national security crap is a way to take our freedoms, and I'll guarandamntee that the right to bear arms is high on the "national security" hit list. It is an excuse to bamboozle the populace into giving up their arms, hence their freedom in short order. One can see example after example of such all over the world, past and present. Don't keep your head buried in the sand, please. I've said it before--the NRA is definitely not perfect, but they are the only force actively and, more importantly, effectively defending all of our rights, not individually, but by defending our right to poccess arms, they are fighting to protect all of our freedoms. The absolute first thing that any dictatorial government must do is to disarm the people. They cannot take power if they do not. Once the people are disarmed, they then have total control of them--total control. They can do anything they want. They can instantly take all of your public (and private) land. They can freeze every bank account and take all the funds in them. They can put anyone they want in prison, or execute them. They can dictate exactly what is allowed to be publically said. They can control everything you do. All because the people have lost the ability to resist. Look at history. It is rife with examples. |
| | | Posts: 747 | Location: Nevada, USA | Registered: 22 May 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Samuel Adams:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. |
| | |
one of us
| I would also add to this, that anyone who doesn't think the danger is as threatening as the NRA suggests is living in a fish bowl. Move out here to the People's Republik of Kalifornia and you will have a whole new experience of open disregard for the 2nd ammendment. Do a little research about Canadian gun laws (I lived there for 7 years), and Australia, and England! Look at the rise in Crime in these places - almost half of the residential burglaries in Canada take place when the resident is home ("hot burglery") because gun restrictions have made it impossible for a home owner to have a defensive gun easily available. In the U.S. only 13% are hot burglery! It is truly a situation of "hang together"  or hang seperately."  |
| | | Posts: 341 | Location: Janesville,CA, USA | Registered: 11 January 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| "They" will not subvert the entire nation at one time. "Their" plan is well documented and well rehersed. Divide and conquer. They will nibble. A bit here, a bite there. They will flood the fence straddlers and ignorant with mis-information and outright lies. I heard a congress woman speaking for the continuation of the "assault" rifle ban -surprisingly, she was a democrat from california  - the other day. She said that sort of gun wasn't needed for hunting. Surely if the woman is smart enough to get elected to congress, she is smart enough to know the 2nd doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with hunting. So, if not the NRA, who is going to give a balanced view to the uninformed? Who is going to balance the image of some jerk-off politician whooping and hollering and jumping around waving an AK47? |
| | | Posts: 2037 | Location: frametown west virginia usa | Registered: 14 October 2001 |
IP
|
|
One of Us
| Quote:
I would also add to this, that anyone who doesn't think the danger is as threatening as the NRA suggests is living in a fish bowl. Move out here to the People's Republik of Kalifornia and you will have a whole new experience of open disregard for the 2nd ammendment.
Nothing personal, but I wouldnt reccomend driving a truck for a living in that POS state either. Ill never try it again. In fact, if California were to dislodge itself from the rest of the continental US and drift across the sea, say somewhere inbetween Russia and China, it would then be right where it belongs.
Maybe you could tell us when you expect California to officialy become an extension of Mexico? It is there now, just hasnt been made official yet. |
| | | Posts: 10141 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Good point, sir, and well stated. |
| | | Posts: 747 | Location: Nevada, USA | Registered: 22 May 2003 |
IP
|
|
