Where the NRA has fallen down - Page 2

Where the NRA has fallen down

This is a discussion on Where the NRA has fallen down within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The Left answered ..............by disarming you.......where've you been ?...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Where the NRA has fallen down

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,756
    The Left answered ..............by disarming you.......where've you been ?


  2. #17
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,980
    Quote Originally Posted by SCfromNY View Post
    While a NRA supporter and member I have been very disappointed with the quality and thoughtfullness of their responses. Especially the "logic" of armed personel in schools. While not a terrible idea a much more commanding response was called for.

    The biggest defense is the simple and easy: "What new gun restrictions have you proposed that having been in place would have stopped the most recent tradgedy?"
    Unfortunately, I don't believe that is the best defense. What you think is "simple and easy" as far as answers go, is not an "answer" at all; it's a question. And the NRA understands that you won't win any battles by just asking questions.

    Do I agree with the bottom line of your question? Of course I do. However it's going to take more than simple logic to defeat the anti-gun agenda. They are after firearms. Period. Appealing to the American people with their tales of "assault rifles" and "hundred round magazines that can fire bullets in seconds" the anti's realize that their rhetoric will resonate with a great many listeners. The majority of Americans are rather moderate however, falling somewhere between the left and the right. Those people are going to look at for "answers". We, supporters of the Second Amendment, absolutely must provide something that will resonate with them. Simply saying "new restrictions won't stop this" isn't going to gain us much support if that's our best and final answer. If we don't supply some reasonable measures that actually stand a chance of reducing the likelihood of these sorts of events, moderate America will take whatever is being proposed.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  3. #18
    Member Array Yogi223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by xXxplosive View Post
    "A hard driving, right wing, non-compromising lobbyist will not be popular but will slow the degradation of gun rights".

    Hey Yoggi.....Compromise...........you say ? Our Bill of Rights...?
    IMO......you need to rethink your last statement or stop the drinkin'...........
    Hey triple x it's way to early for a drink in Alabama but maybe not where you are at??? Reread my post a little slower. I attempted to say that there is room in this fight for a non compromising force whether it is the NRA or the right wing fringe. My point is that for people who wear their feelings on their sleeve, these groups won't be popular.

    Let me expand that...I would hope that all of us 2A supporters would quit trying to mainstream everyone to the center and stick together. A centrist outcome IS a degradation of current rights.

    Sorry for any typos this was posted from my phone. And sorry that my original post missed my POA.

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Good explanation thar.............agreed.

  5. #20
    Member Array blanco64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by mg27 View Post
    Isn't it insane that we even need organizations to protect our rights that are God given and written very clearly?
    "Rights" are always under attack by some faction. I put "rights" in quotes because different factions have different interpretations of those rights. As difficult as it may be for one faction to comprehend how another faction could interpret the right so differently than them, it is a reality.

    The NRA and other groups (GOA, SAF) are "necessary" in order to help organize the resources of a faction in order to increase their effectiveness. It will never be perfect, but if we're organized and banded together we'll be much more effective than separate voices.
    TX expat likes this.

  6. #21
    Member Array BelaOkmyx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    107
    The NRA needs a better strategy. Instead of unequivocally opposing every restriction, they ought to go along with the ones we all know don't deny anyone who should be armed the right to be armed (criminal background check, mandatory safety training) in exchange for even more rights.

    For example, the anti-guns want permits for all gun purchases? Sure, we can do that, but we want a national CC permit that supersedes state and local law so we can carry in all 50 states. You want mandatory safety training? OK, that means if we offer a class that teaches how to safely carry and defend yourself on an airplane, then people who take it will be able to carry on airplanes, right? Want mental health test? OK, then if I pass the test, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a school, no?

    See how that works? You offer them exactly what they asked for, but make sure you get something even bigger in return. The NRA should be working like that, and leave the Second Amendment stuff to lawyers in courtrooms because that's the only place the Constitution actually has any power.

  7. #22
    Member Array DFuller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    58

    Where the NRA has fallen down

    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    The NRA needs a better strategy. Instead of unequivocally opposing every restriction, they ought to go along with the ones we all know don't deny anyone who should be armed the right to be armed (criminal background check, mandatory safety training) in exchange for even more rights.

    For example, the anti-guns want permits for all gun purchases? Sure, we can do that, but we want a national CC permit that supersedes state and local law so we can carry in all 50 states. You want mandatory safety training? OK, that means if we offer a class that teaches how to safely carry and defend yourself on an airplane, then people who take it will be able to carry on airplanes, right? Want mental health test? OK, then if I pass the test, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a school, no?

    See how that works? You offer them exactly what they asked for, but make sure you get something even bigger in return. The NRA should be working like that, and leave the Second Amendment stuff to lawyers in courtrooms because that's the only place the Constitution actually has any power.
    Sorry, I disagree

    Once you are willing to give up ANY rights it will be a slippery slope to a total loss of our rights


    .....

    We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the law breaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is responsible for his actions....Ronald Reagan
    blanco64, zacii and 1MoreGoodGuy like this.

  8. #23
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,980
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    The NRA needs a better strategy. Instead of unequivocally opposing every restriction, they ought to go along with the ones we all know don't deny anyone who should be armed the right to be armed (criminal background check, mandatory safety training) in exchange for even more rights.

    For example, the anti-guns want permits for all gun purchases? Sure, we can do that, but we want a national CC permit that supersedes state and local law so we can carry in all 50 states. You want mandatory safety training? OK, that means if we offer a class that teaches how to safely carry and defend yourself on an airplane, then people who take it will be able to carry on airplanes, right? Want mental health test? OK, then if I pass the test, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a school, no?

    See how that works? You offer them exactly what they asked for, but make sure you get something even bigger in return. The NRA should be working like that, and leave the Second Amendment stuff to lawyers in courtrooms because that's the only place the Constitution actually has any power.
    Exactly what we don't need to do.

    You need to remember that everything you are proposing is just another 'guilty until proven innocent' measure. Those won't help us and it only gives power to the government to 'decide' if you should possess firearms.

    As to getting something greater in return, it'd never happen. Some of your suggestions may come about through attrition but no way will the liberal machine ever sign up for those 'benefits' for some smaller piece of the pie. We may indeed see some sort of national reciprocity someday and now that a federal court has ruled that even IL must comply with a manner of concealed carry, that might actually mean something. It's too soon to tell though.
    Last edited by TX expat; January 12th, 2013 at 04:32 PM. Reason: sometimes I'm an idiot
    zacii likes this.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  9. #24
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,463
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    The NRA needs a better strategy. Instead of unequivocally opposing every restriction, they ought to go along with the ones we all know don't deny anyone who should be armed the right to be armed (criminal background check, mandatory safety training) in exchange for even more rights.

    For example, the anti-guns want permits for all gun purchases? Sure, we can do that, but we want a national CC permit that supersedes state and local law so we can carry in all 50 states. You want mandatory safety training? OK, that means if we offer a class that teaches how to safely carry and defend yourself on an airplane, then people who take it will be able to carry on airplanes, right? Want mental health test? OK, then if I pass the test, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a school, no?

    See how that works? You offer them exactly what they asked for, but make sure you get something even bigger in return. The NRA should be working like that, and leave the Second Amendment stuff to lawyers in courtrooms because that's the only place the Constitution actually has any power.
    So you want me to give up my Rights and freedoms so that you can have the government allow you access to certain privileges???

    No thanks! I'll keep my Rights and freedoms.
    TX expat, zacii and Sig 210 like this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Nothing....IMO......supercedes The Bill Of Rights........period.
    zacii and 1MoreGoodGuy like this.

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    The NRA needs a better strategy. Instead of unequivocally opposing every restriction, they ought to go along with the ones we all know don't deny anyone who should be armed the right to be armed (criminal background check, mandatory safety training) in exchange for even more rights.

    For example, the anti-guns want permits for all gun purchases? Sure, we can do that, but we want a national CC permit that supersedes state and local law so we can carry in all 50 states. You want mandatory safety training? OK, that means if we offer a class that teaches how to safely carry and defend yourself on an airplane, then people who take it will be able to carry on airplanes, right? Want mental health test? OK, then if I pass the test, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a school, no?

    See how that works? You offer them exactly what they asked for, but make sure you get something even bigger in return. The NRA should be working like that, and leave the Second Amendment stuff to lawyers in courtrooms because that's the only place the Constitution actually has any power.
    On the first point:

    I don't follow this logic. You're saying that we should go along with restrictions that won't deny the right to be armed, in exchange for more rights? Just what do you propose? As pointed out in an earlier post, the big gov't machine is not going to give up any of its power back to the people.

    And just how exactly does any restriction not restrict me? Criminal background checks & mandatory safety training take us in the opposite direction. They take us to a a larger gov't, more state power, less citizen sovereignty. How would people like it if we put the same restrictions on the rest of our rights? I want to see a background check to validate the citizenship of every voter; yeah that won't fly. I want mandatory safety training to exercise the 1st amendment so that no one speaks evil of the omnipotent state; yeah right. Let's put a burden on the 4th amendment stating that the people must prove their innocence, after the searches and seizures of the state.

    Background checks have failed to prevent any mass shootings. They will continue to fail, despite being forced upon the entire population. The very idea of background checks is a false one. It put the burden of proof of innocence on the citizen, instead of being put on the state to show proof of guilt. All of these tactics attack our freedom to buy and sell our own property, and fail to produce any safety measures.

    The truth of this whole fight is that it's not about safety. It's about control. We cannot afford to give up any more control. They, meaning the state, are not going to compromise anything, so we shouldn't either.

    On the second point:

    Federal law does not trump state law. The Union was a creation of the States. The creation is not greater than the creator.


    On the last point:

    The affection for Constitution should be alive in the heart of every American. The power of the Constitution is in the truth thereof, and the correct principles upon which it was framed. The power of the Constitution had better damn well be alive outside of the court system, or else our freedom is lost entirely.
    Last edited by zacii; January 12th, 2013 at 12:57 PM. Reason: for clarity
    TX expat likes this.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,558

    Re: Where the NRA has fallen down

    Quote Originally Posted by G26Raven View Post
    I am a loyal NRA member and I believe that on the whole they have done a great job helping to defend our rights. I was also extremely disappointed that they and other gun rights groups were not asked to be a part of Biden's anti-violence task force.

    However, I don't think the NRA ha put enough of a face on the whole issue of assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons in general. The most recent Rasmussen poll shows that 74% of registered voters believe we have a right to own guns, but 55% believe that assault rifles are bad.

    Poll: 75 percent of Americans have right to own guns - Conservative News

    My wife and I shoot ARs. We're responsible people, active in charity and volunteer work, and active in our respective religions. My wife works for a state agency and I am a consultant. We train monthly with many other responsible citizens including an assistant district attorney, a fireman, a patent attorney, and several business owners. If the NRA found a way to show that many ordinary citizens own and use these rifles for target shooting, hunting, competition, and home defense that would go a long way towards demonstrating that these firearms aren't just for crazies.
    This is what I have said all along, we need to use the media to "personalize" gun ownership. We need to "come out of the closet" and we have to win the hearts and minds of the public through every media outlet we can buy. And every social media stream as well.

    NRA is now starting to do this... There's a post elsewhere about it.

    I'm just hoping not too little, too late.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,968
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    The NRA needs a better strategy. Instead of unequivocally opposing every restriction, they ought to go along with the ones we all know don't deny anyone who should be armed the right to be armed (criminal background check, mandatory safety training) in exchange for even more rights.

    For example, the anti-guns want permits for all gun purchases? Sure, we can do that, but we want a national CC permit that supersedes state and local law so we can carry in all 50 states. You want mandatory safety training? OK, that means if we offer a class that teaches how to safely carry and defend yourself on an airplane, then people who take it will be able to carry on airplanes, right? Want mental health test? OK, then if I pass the test, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a school, no?

    See how that works? You offer them exactly what they asked for, but make sure you get something even bigger in return. The NRA should be working like that, and leave the Second Amendment stuff to lawyers in courtrooms because that's the only place the Constitution actually has any power.
    Did you forget the "Sarcasm" tags because I assume all of that was sarcasm and to bring humor to an otherwise dull day
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  14. #29
    Member Array BelaOkmyx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    On the first point:

    I don't follow this logic. You're saying that we should go along with restrictions that won't deny the right to be armed, in exchange for more rights? Just what do you propose? As pointed out in an earlier post, the big gov't machine is not going to give up any of its power back to the people.

    And just how exactly does any restriction not restrict me? Criminal background checks & mandatory safety training take us in the opposite direction. They take us to a a larger gov't, more state power, less citizen sovereignty. How would people like it if we put the same restrictions on the rest of our rights? I want to see a background check to validate the citizenship of every voter; yeah that won't fly. I want mandatory safety training to exercise the 1st amendment so that no one speaks evil of the omnipotent state; yeah right. Let's put a burden on the 4th amendment stating that the people must prove their innocence, after the searches and seizures of the state.

    Background checks have failed to prevent any mass shootings. They will continue to fail, despite being forced upon the entire population. The very idea of background checks is a false one. It put the burden of proof of innocence on the citizen, instead of being put on the state to show proof of guilt. All of these tactics attack our freedom to buy and sell our own property, and fail to produce any safety measures.

    The truth of this whole fight is that it's not about safety. It's about control. We cannot afford to give up any more control. They, meaning the state, are not going to compromise anything, so we shouldn't either.

    On the second point:

    Federal law does not trump state law. The Union was a creation of the States. The creation is not greater than the creator.


    On the last point:

    The affection for Constitution should be alive in the heart of every American. The power of the Constitution is in the truth thereof, and the correct principles upon which it was framed. The power of the Constitution had better damn well be alive outside of the court system, or else our freedom is lost entirely.
    Don't assume that. First of all, the rights are already gone. They done flew the coop, and pretending otherwise won't help. Giving the anti-guns something that will make them feel good and look good to their supporters in exchange for something that in practice doesn't actually prevent anyone who isn't a criminal from legally buying and carrying is a step in the right direction. The Second Amendment is a winner in most state legislatures, Congress, and the federal courts, providing they have these feel-good, look-good measures to appease a certain crowd.

    From my perspective in CT, we already have background checks and mandatory NRA training with live fire. Big deal. Anybody who didn't give away their rights by committing a crime and can shoot a gun in front of an NRA instructor without doing something terribly stupid gets a carry permit. The courts have already spoken and said that these aren't unreasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment so why refight that fight when at the end of the day everybody who should have a gun gets a gun anyway? And the result- so many people own and carry in CT that despite it being a left-wing state there will NEVER be laws like they have in IL and NJ here.

    (That's another thing about the NRA, despite being opposed to mandatory training they're happy to cooperate with state authorities and offer it... for a fee. Maybe they're just pretending to be opposed to it so more states will require it? )

    Re: state vs. federal law- the Second Amendment is federal and it can and should be enforced by federal law. When Uncle Sam says you can carry a gun, it doesn't matter what some crackpot mayor says. It's been the Supreme Court that's been overruling these state laws one at a time and a federal carry law will overrule all of them at once.

  15. #30
    Senior Member Array Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    669
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    We may indeed see some sort of national reciprocity someday and now that the SCOTUS has ruled that even IL must comply with a manner of concealed carry, that might actually mean something. It's too soon to tell though.
    Not to be picky, but the federal court decision was NOT by the Supreme Court. It was was by a three judge panel of the 7th Cir Ct of Appeals for the ND of Illinois. This is important because it has no precedent value outside that district, and is subject to appeal either to the entire 7th cir (which I now believe Illinois is doing) and then to the US Supreme Court.
    Best way to win a gun fight? "That's easy, don't show up."
    --Wyatt Earp

    "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything."
    -- Wyatt Earp

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

powered by mybb alabama school system
,
powered by mybb california competition works
,
powered by mybb california court system
,
powered by mybb county board of education
,

powered by mybb federal criminal background check

,
powered by mybb national criminal background check
,
powered by mybb ohio department of education
,
powered by mybb state department of education
Click on a term to search for related topics.