The NRA.....lets talk!

[nitrogen]

Chaotic?? Just on the first page it went from nothing to armed insurrection!!

They discuss whether to demonstrate armed or not and ends with someone saying, "if we go armed, we better be ready to use them".

You actually think something like this could be good or positive??!!

I wouldn't want to be involved. Why should I read the rest of the pages?

This is exactly the kind of thing that the Bradys feed on, showing people how dangerous not only guns are, but gun owners. This kind of talk, however right it may or may not be, only fuels others desire for not only bans, but confiscations.

[Mike1951]

I decided to read on a little further. I'm on page four and feeling a little better. Not because the discussion is any better but because I don't think that group could coordinate a church social. There were some sound ideas proffered and quickly stomped on.

But if they could gather, I would fear them very much as a worse threat to the 2nd Amendment than possibly Obama's administration.

[stevie_d_64]

You're right about one thing, but I think its for the wrong reason. From personal experience, when I was an "anti" I really don't think it was due to intellectual laziness. I had never dealt with a gun, and to the ignorant, the Brady's arguments make sense. If you've never held or shot a gun, their arguments ring true; because of the way they are made. (Full of appeals to emotion, and other logical fallacies.)

Absolutely...Emotion trumps a lot of things some people need to be challenged with...By intellectually lazy, I meant that as a common thread to a liberal mode of thinking, they do not wish to be engaged to think beyond the next happy meal doled out by the government (their saviors)...So when the government wishes to "ban" something which will level the field of some people being "empowered" or enlightened in this case, you might see where I tend to lean when I am pushed...I think there are a few out there like "us" anyway...

Sure, we're never going to get everyone, but you get far more people by at least trying than not trying at all. I feel pretty strongly about this, because I myself saw the light. I cannot be the ONLY PERSON EVER who saw the light.

"I'd like to teach the world to sing...In perfect harmony...I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company..."

I don't even have to tell you welcome aboard...You were already there, you said that you just needed that little push years ago...I would never insult anyone's conversion...

Personally I was never an "anti"...I never told, or even thought that someone shouldn't have a gun for any reason...So I cannot say I ever saw the light, so I do not know how that feels...

I'm still catching up on these pages...I haven't seen the call for armed revolution yet (again)...

[stevie_d_64]

On reducing the junk mail, this is from the NRA Member FAQ:

Q: How can I reduce the amount of mail I receive from the NRA?
A: Simply email us at membership@nrahq.org or dial 800-NRA-3888 and request to be placed on the "Do Not Promote" list. This will significantly reduce the amount of mail you receive without affecting important mailings, magazine service, or your membership renewal.

If you e-mail be sure to include your member #. I did & it works!

Best post of the thread...This solves a lot of the problem, if it really is a problem...

Just my opinion...

[stevie_d_64]

You are never going to convert the committed anti-gunner. They are zealots for their cause. They will either prevail, or jump off a cliff to avoid surrender.

Good statement!

I wonder if there are folks out there NRA members or not, who are just as committed to the cause as they are opposing us???

Not that I condone a fatalistic attitude or commitment...This battle certainly pushes the envelope, in my opinion, because so many people before us have sacrificed to secure all of our rights and freedoms we enjoy today...Does that mean we should not step up and be that committed to all of that, and not just our right to keep and bear arms in the defense of those sacrifices???

Being an American is not just about bearing arms...It is the ideal that encompasses a committment to promote freedom and liberty around the world, because that brings about stability and peace...

Liberal minded people do not trust enough to let that happen, and must be in control to "force" it in some ways...Forgetting that it is the individual that promotes freedom and liberty by our existance in a country that lives the idea...At the same time liberalism stiffles freedom and liberty because of their mistrust...

Sorry for the political rant, but I felt inspired...

[stevie_d_64]

I confess up front: I have not read even most of this thread.

Nobody would say that is a requirement, there is so much good reading here that even though you may dissagree with someones opinion, that is in my opinion not a negative, it is what we should do to keep ourselves as sharp as we can be.

However I disagree with Charles. I think the current crop of 2A supporters such as those we find on this forum are indeed a fringe group.

I disagree with your disagrement...I would say that we should not be classified or labeled (legitimately) by what we do with guns, and how we defend or promote our niche...But by how we are in lock-step in defending the political efforts to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms...

I also think the lack of unity in purpose of 2A supporters is hurting our cause and takes away from the potential effectiveness of the NRA.

I disagree...Our individualism is what is unique...We all have a root issue, but support it within these niches we are a part of within the community of gun owners...I would no more dismiss a duck hunter or deer hunter (or hunter in general) because they do not champion as much our right to keep and bear arms just because some of us do not hunt...That is where Jim Zumbo got into trouble a year or so ago...The NRA is going to keep plodding along and try to keep the overall issue alive and well regardless of our niches we occupy in the community of gun ownership...

[stevie_d_64]

This kind of group is fractious. Some are more idealistic and dogmatic. Some are more practical and willing to compromise. Some are more willing to talk than act. Some are more able to get things done. Politics is always like that. I disagree with some of the views expressed in this forum, more than most of you know.

I thought you agreed with me all the time??? I'm devastated!!!

Something like 15 million people in the U.S. either have a concealed-carry license or don't need one in their state. This is not a fringe group. It is comparable in size to any recognized racial or ethnic minority (other than people of European ancestry like the Italians or Germans). It is far more than the number of Jewish people or other minorities that are frequently mentioned as such.

At least 100 million people live in a household with a firearm, probably more like 150 million. That is half the population.

Good stuff...

The media (TV, actually) is very much to blame for the public's fear of firearms. I don't want to debate the numbers to the third decimal place, but their share is far more than 1%.

The blame is well placed...I agree that they are a part of the challenge we face...

I have my disagreements with the NRA on both philosophy and tactics. I have already said that I am willing to sit on them until the coming critical battles are won.

But in a way you not really sitting and waiting for them to win those battles...You are participating in a discussion, and are a part of a group that is extremely well versed and well connected to the battle in a tactical way, not just a strategic (armchair general) position...

But withholding our support is not going to achieve it.

Bingo...

"As individuals, we are in this together!"

I had to put this in there because it sounds so Yogi Berra-ish...Geesh, I crack myself up sometimes...

This is just another one of those threads that facinate me to no end...Everyone is so engaged, and making very good points...I just wish I knew what the heck I was talking about...

[jimlongley]

Sorry if my post read that way. The body of the Constitution takes the collective view and that is why the 2nd Amendment was needed. It does not make any changes to the body of the document, but it does add the part about bearing arms being an individual right.

Thank you.

I still don't see a collective view in the Constitution, but you have made your statement more clear to me.

[seamusTX]

Have you looked at this site/thread yet... chaotic in several of the early pages, but it starts getting lined out some towards the end. Organizing State marches to lead up to finally in DC. http://www.righttokeepandbeararms.com/p ... &sk=t&sd=a

I was not aware of it, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I think slowly, so I am going to have to think about this for a while.

As for the inflammatory language there, you get this in every movement. In the civil rights movement, you had careful tacticians like Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King Jr, and then you had firebrands like Malcolm X and Huey Newton. Which accomplished more? Don't answer too quickly. Each served as a counterpoint to the other.

I disagree with some of the views expressed in this forum, more than most of you know.

I thought you agreed with me all the time??? I'm devastated!!!

Sharp eyes, there, Steve.

I agree on the need to protect our rights. We can have academic arguments later.

- Jim

[anygunanywhere]

Sorry if my post read that way. The body of the Constitution takes the collective view and that is why the 2nd Amendment was needed. It does not make any changes to the body of the document, but it does add the part about bearing arms being an individual right.

Thank you.

I still don't see a collective view in the Constitution, but you have made your statement more clear to me.

I think that those who view the collectivist thought in the body of the constitution derive that view from the fact that the constitution defines and details the militia. We know and understand that it is the duty of armed free men to squash tyranny and that the second amendment is there to enumerate this need for an armed free citizenry. People seem to forget that in order to have a citizen militia you must have armed citizens - hence the individual right.

Nowhere in the constitution does it mention WHEN we need to sqash tyranny as armed citizens thus requiring the individual RKBA be utilized as intended.

To borrow from the SCOTUS ruling on obscenity, "It is difficult to define tyranny, but we know it when we see it".

Anygunanywhere


Anygunanywhere

[seamusTX]

Nowhere in the constitution does it mention WHEN we need to sqash tyranny as armed citizens thus requiring the individual RKBA be utilized as intended.

Almost by definition, the Constitution can't make that prescription. If the government adhered to the Constitution, there would be no need to correct the government by means not defined in the Constitution.

However, it is clear in the writings of the founders that they expected it to happen frequently.

Mr. Jefferson here is writing about Shays Rebellion:

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Unusual arithmetic, but he was a genius.

- Jim

[boomerang]

What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to violate these Rights, Gun Control is instituted by Evil Men...

[The Annoyed Man]

You are never going to convert the committed anti-gunner. They are zealots for their cause. They will either prevail, or jump off a cliff to avoid surrender.

Good statement!

I wonder if there are folks out there NRA members or not, who are just as committed to the cause as they are opposing us???

Not that I condone a fatalistic attitude or commitment...This battle certainly pushes the envelope, in my opinion, because so many people before us have sacrificed to secure all of our rights and freedoms we enjoy today...Does that mean we should not step up and be that committed to all of that, and not just our right to keep and bear arms in the defense of those sacrifices???

Being an American is not just about bearing arms...It is the ideal that encompasses a committment to promote freedom and liberty around the world, because that brings about stability and peace...

Liberal minded people do not trust enough to let that happen, and must be in control to "force" it in some ways...Forgetting that it is the individual that promotes freedom and liberty by our existance in a country that lives the idea...At the same time liberalism stiffles freedom and liberty because of their mistrust...

Sorry for the political rant, but I felt inspired...

Stevie, my comment was not intended to say that you don't debate with the opposition. I believe you should, because even if you can't budge your opponent, your words may resonate with a third party. My point was that there are a very large number of people near the political center for whom guns aren't a huge issue. They either tend not to have an opinion because they don't own any guns so the issue doesn't touch them personally; or they are mildly anti and believe that, while guns shouldn't be banned, "reasonable" restrictions make some sense to them. Those folks can be turned if you communicate with them in a calm and unthreatening manner, and you point out the logical inconsistencies in their understanding of the matter.

[mr.72]

But by how we are in lock-step in defending the political efforts to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms...

I don't think NRA members on the whole are in such lock step. Maybe they are in lock step in defending political efforts to protect their right to own a gun for some purpose, but I don't think even the majority of those who own more than two guns likely really support our right to own guns for purposes such as armed self-defense, defense of property, or defense of our liberty from an oppressive government.

Quite frankly I think the 2nd Amendment is very clearly intended to guarantee our right, even our obligation, to keep and bear arms against an oppressive government, period. The right to use arms in self defense or for hunting should be considered natural law, basic human rights, not which has to be enumerated by the Constitution.

So in reality, I truly and fundamentally believe that the vast majority of Americans do not support the 2nd Amendment in its clear purpose: to guarantee our right to be equipped for defense of our liberty against a tyrannical government. In fact, only a true fringe of Americans do support such a right, and by the way, most regular Americans think those of us who support such a right are kooks or wackos. This is the fringe that mainstream America thinks includes those like Timothy McVeigh.

It is a lack of education about US History and the Constitution as a whole that leads to this fundamental misunderstanding of our rights.

I also think the lack of unity in purpose of 2A supporters is hurting our cause and takes away from the potential effectiveness of the NRA.

I disagree...Our individualism is what is unique...We all have a root issue, but support it within these niches we are a part of within the community of gun owners...I would no more dismiss a duck hunter or deer hunter (or hunter in general) because they do not champion as much our right to keep and bear arms just because some of us do not hunt...That is where Jim Zumbo got into trouble a year or so ago...The NRA is going to keep plodding along and try to keep the overall issue alive and well regardless of our niches we occupy in the community of gun ownership...

On the contrary, I stand by my statement. I don't have any statistical or numerical data to support my supposition, but it is my firm belief that the majority if NRA members are simply hunters and really do not want the government to infringe on their right to their hobby. It might as well be the National Fantasy Football Association or the National Fishing Association. I think if you peeled off all of the "hunters only" single-issue NRA members then we would reveal only a small number of kooks like us who actually support the right to bear arms against oppression.

The problem with an organization with blurry or (in my humble opinion) flatly misdirected purpose like this is that it's very easy for politicians who truly and absolutely do not support the RKBA as it is enumerated in the Constitution to claim to be in concert with the majority of the members of the NRA in their support of ownership of arms suitable only for sport and "commonsense regulations" which relieves us of our ability to actually bear arms against oppression or tyranny.

IMHO, we would be better off with a different organization without such a history or baggage. We need to be educating our children of the necessity of an armed society in order to counterbalance against tyranny of government. I hate to say it, but hunting is irrelevant as an important, fundamental use of firearms in comparison to defense of freedom, in today's society. It would be far different if we didn't have government handing out trillions of dollars to buy votes and so much store-bought food on tables in America that one of our biggest problems as a culture is figuring out how to not eat too much. We can talk about the value of the NRA to support hunting when the infrastructure has imploded and every one of us has to go out in our back yard and bag squirrels in order to keep our family from starving. But that will happen only long after the need for armed defense of our freedom and our way of life by an armed society.

[seamusTX]

IMHO, we would be better off with a different organization without such a history or baggage. We need to be educating our children of the necessity of an armed society in order to counterbalance against tyranny of government.

That's fine, but where are you going to come up with an organization that has membership numbers and budget comparable to the NRA?

The other pro-RKBA groups are more doctrinaire than the NRA, and the rhetoric of a few of them sounds kooky even to me.

How do you change the minds of literally millions of teachers, school administrators, reporters, TV producers, and those celebrities who are anti-RKBA and have young fans?

I think it's an admirable goal, but I don't know how to achieve it.

Changing public opinion on a large scale takes decades and costs billions. Look how much money companies spend just to persuade us to buy one brand of cola or aspirin instead of another.

The government as a whole will never admit that we have a right to overthrow it. No organization will. It's human nature.

The idea was controversial even in the Revolutionary War period. There is a reason why the Constitution makes treason a crime (the only crime defined in the Constitution) and gives Congress special powers in times of war or insurrection.

I think the only way to win is to persuade enough legislators either to agree with us or to behave themselves so that we don't vote them out of office. I realize that this is mostly what the NRA has been doing, and it doesn't always work. No political tactic always works.

- Jim