TexasCHLforum.com

'congresscritters' ....I think you've just coined a new word Tom, and I like it!

I plagiarized it.


Programming is the only professing where plagiarism is consider good form.



Thanks for the kind words.

Pelosi may have pulled it, but, like a bad penny, it's back.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/23 ... e-20100624" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LarryH wrote:Pelosi may have pulled it, but, like a bad penny, it's back.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/23 ... e-20100624" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, she just pulled it for a rewrite that some Congressman could swallow. I see it as an infringement on the 1st Amendment. The only way I see to avoid having the need for it is to eliminate Corporations.

Oops, I said that again.

LarryH wrote:This email came from TRSA yesterday:

We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.

There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle - unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

The part of the NRA's argument that I've underlined above is the crux of my problem with this stance. I left in the final two paragraphs to show that I did read them and fully understand the rationale. However, I disagree with it for these very important reasons: It is NOT POSSIBLE to protect the Second Amendment without the First Amendment and, while the NRA does a good job speaking for its millions of members, it DOES NOT speak for EVERY GUN owner - so some pro-2A voices would be silenced (or forced to join the NRA, which would become the only game in town - a conspiracy theorist would say this was NRA's true goal). Furthermore, by carving out a loophole only for itself and risking allowing this infringement on the First Amendment to pass, the NRA risks allowing FUTURE gun-rights groups to be silenced. No group lasts forever, no matter how strong. Just ask the Federalist Party or the Whigs. If this bill were to pass and be upheld by the courts, then some day if the NRA withered on the vine, THEN who would "protect the Second Amendment"? I'm not thinking of me, or even my children. I'm thinking of my children's children's children. How will they protect 2A?

Above is my rational, long-term practical reasoning for disagreeing with the NRA's stance. But here is my principled, idealistic reason to disagree ...

Though I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to my death your right to say it.

This quote, rightly or wrongly attributed to the philosopher Voltaire (http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/abo ... nt_say.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) is, IMHO, the core of freedom and democracy. It is perhaps the most eloquent expression ever written of the vital importance of free speech. It states simply that the freedom to speak is more important than what is said, and more important than life itself. For without that freedom to speak, to express our ideas, what is the point of life?

THIS is why the NRA - as a defender of RKBA and thus - by extension - a defender of freedom, should protect not only the 2nd Amendment, but also the First Amendment - and not just for itself, but for all lawful citizens and organizations in this great nation. Because the absolute right of a gun-grabbing, anti-2A libtard organization to speak is just as important to the preservation of freedom as the right of the NRA to speak.

For the NRA not to see this, not to understand this, is thoroughly disappointing. This country, its laws, and its future are not a game. Oneupsmanship and conquering your rival are best left to the battlefield or the football field. Statesmanship and adherence to the defining principals of freedom and democracy are more important to the preservation of liberty.

Give me liberty. Or give me death.

I disagree with the NRA stance. I am still a member and have no plans to terminate membership.

This bill was written and sponsored by Democrats for Democrats, the party that continues to legislate against the will of the American people and the constitution. While it does exempt the NRA, it tramples the the 1st Amendment. In the long run, trampling the 1st amendment can't be good for the 2nd amendment.

This piece by Mark Levin provides an overview from the conservative perspective, its worth the listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7WH_pUWwNs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bayouhazard wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Bowing to political realities maintains the status quo. Principled stands inspire the masses to join your cause.

Go ahead. Nothing the NRA did here prevents you from spending as much of your time and money as you want to defeat the bill.

You bet I will

"The exemption for large, established national groups neutralized a potential NRA attack, which would have had most moderate and "blue dog" Democrats running for cover. "The NRA's opposition would have killed the bill," one House leadership aide said."


Of course, hindsight is 20/20,but I am all most sick.I understand and agree with the NRA's position. Not that I would fail to do what I could on my own to defeat the bill, but we now have a much harder fight than we might have had.

On to the senate, and if we do not kill it there, then civil diobediance and the supreme court.