NRA or another grass roots organization to carry the banner?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by ironhat, Nov 28, 2010.

  1. ironhat

    ironhat New Member

    16
    0
    0
    I'm a Life Member of the NRA. That said, on the one hand I fear that the organization has compromised their ethics by wading into the deep end of the political arena. They chose this route long ago as the best way to influence the politicians at their own game. The CRKBA, Second Amendment Task Force and such organizations have chosen the grass roots education route to put pressure on the individual reps in government. What are your thoughts?
     
  2. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    the nra here in wisconsin was all in with the democrats to limit free speech for groups like the tea party folks as soon as the dems gave them a free pass limiting the right to speak about politicians on broadcast and print media. the move to restrict free speech ultimately failed but its just more proof the nra isnt into supporting anything but what they think they have to to keep donations rolling.
     

  3. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    123
    0
    0
    Can you clarify what you mean by "comprimised their ethics"? Specifically, what have they done to make you believe they have done so? As far as I've ever had contact with them, they've always been there actively fighting against any and all measures to restrict gun ownership, but I also don't follow them to terribly closely, either.
     
  4. billdeserthills

    billdeserthills New Member

    774
    0
    0
    So you didn't hear that Reagan's post-86 NFA machine gun ban was done with the NRA's OK? I'm two steps above Life in the NRA but they won't be seeing any more of my money and that is based on much newer things I don't approve of them having done. NRA sides with the police first, citizens second. Unfortunately no other organization has has anywhere near the numbers the NRA does. Therefore as Neal Knox believed it would be better to change the NRA from within. This is done through every life member voting for a better guide. The only place I know to find out about that is through the survivors of Neal Knox, his sons...
    can be found on google tho...
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010
  5. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    123
    0
    0
    Actually, I wasn't aware that the 1986 ban on machine guns was done with the NRA's approval. Which is understandable, as I was two years old at the time, and even when I came of age, I found no need to have a fully automatic machine gun.

    I don't think that the law accomplished anything (criminals don't buy their machine guns legally in the first place), but nobody has ever been able to give me a reason why I need to have the right to buy an machine gun.

    And correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the NRA under different leadership than what it was in 1986? Or are you citing an old grievance that just dug into your skin back in the day?
     
  6. dewey

    dewey New Member

    73
    0
    0
    " nobody has ever been able to give me a reason why I need to have the right to buy a machine gun."

    If thats the case, then do you have the right to buy any other type of gun?
    Shall not be infringed means exactly what it sounds like.
     
  7. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    123
    0
    0
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    By your rationale, there should be no legal reason why I shouldn't be able to go out and buy a nuclear weapon.

    It is an armament. By your "literal" interpretation, I should be able to store a nuke in my basement. Any law that limits me in that right is unconstitutional.

    Also, by your own "literal" interpretation, it should be illegal for the USA to ban those convicted of felonies from owning a firearm. Are you making the case that pedophiles, rapists, murderers, etc. should be allowed to have guns when they get out of prison? By your rationale, it is unconstitutional.

    Think about your argument. I don't think you realize what you were saying when you said it.

    The Supreme Court has upheld, many times, that the Federal and State governments have the power and authority to take rational measures to limit access to weaponry in the interests of preventing crime and promoting safety. And most rational people understand that; there is no reason, for example, that I need a freaking tank in my driveway, or a missile battery in my back yard (assuming I can afford them).

    And, unfortunately, the state has a point about banning automatic arms to civilians. More violent crimes that end in death have an automatic weapon involved than any other type of firearm; this was true both before, during, and after all regulations/laws banning machine guns from civilian use.

    And tell me, what traditional use of a firearm am I going to use a machine gun for? My 25 round clip in my 10/22 is more than enough to take care of any home defense situation, (and if it isn't, it only takes about 2 seconds to get a second clip in it) and I don't need that many rounds to go hunting. To answer your question, Dewey, it's because a semi-automatic weapon is more than sufficient for protection purposes.

    Please, try again. Why do I need the right to own a machine gun? And please don't give me an answer that allows me to have a nuclear weapon, or that allows convicted rapists to own a gun.

    Unless, of course, that is actually what you believe in. I hope it isn't.

    I will admit I am biased on this: I don't believe that there is any reason for anyone to have a handgun. Handguns are, by and large, designed and used solely for aiming at, shooting, and killing people. Outside a few people who only own handguns for target practice for for pistol hunting, a large majority of people own a handgun so that they can shoot and kill someone. Most hope they don't have to use it, but, hey, it happens.

    But then, I'm also a guy whose ideal world is where everyone over the age of 18 should have the right to open carry semi-automatic weapons, and where every police officer has an M-16 or an AK-47. But that's another thread.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010
  8. billdeserthills

    billdeserthills New Member

    774
    0
    0
    Well ordinarilly corrinavaton,
    I'd be inside the first page of people crapping all over that post. However I have seen too often (this week) the error of my ways. So instead please forward your newsletter before I crap all over this:D
     
  9. billdeserthills

    billdeserthills New Member

    774
    0
    0

    Do you have any Machine guns??:)
     
  10. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,543
    143
    63
    Actually you can buy a machine gun provided your state allows it. I personally know a number of people that legally own fully automatic weapons. I can rent one at the local indoor range. Suppressors are prevelent too. It all depends on how much money you are willing to spend. It would cost me close to $2k to buy a suppressed 10/22.
     
  11. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    123
    0
    0
    Sorry. I just have a low tolerance of people who demand literal translations of things, but only when it suits them.

    The "shall not be infringed" argument strikes me as very juvenile. It's not an argument. It's parroting without thought.
     
  12. dewey

    dewey New Member

    73
    0
    0
    Corrina,

    I do take the constitution literally, Dont you? How else could it be taken? Metaphorically?
    The Constitution DOES NOT grant us the right to bear arms. It only promises that it will not infringe upon our inheirent right to protect ourselves.
    We all have the right to use arms to defend ourselves from unlawful asault.

    Concerning your nuclear weapons arguement: A nuclear weapon is hardly a defensive one. A nuclear weapon cannot be used in a discretionary or discriminatory manner. It is a weapon of mass destruction. You DO have the right to use a rifle or hand gun to protect yourself. You DO NOT have the right to harm an innocent person. You DO NOT have the right to lay waste to the planet. Your right to self defense does not trample my right to remain radiation free.

    Please do not try to make me defend pedophiles and rapists in order to explain my constitutional views. But since you brought it up: I believe ALL MEN have the right to protect themselves provided they are conducting themselves in a lawful manner.
    Do you think former criminals should be precluded from wearing seat belts because they have forfeited their right to protect themselves? This is how ridiculous I think your arguement is.
    By the way, How are all the laws working out that are designed to keep guns out of the bad guy's hands?

    You said: your "10/22 and 25 rounds is enough to handle ANY home defense situation???"
    I wish I had your stones man.

    You said: You hunt with the 10/22. What do you hunt? Deer? Elk? Moose?

    You said: " I dont believe there is ANY reason for ANYONE to have a handgun."

    Tell that to the little old lady who wakes to find a 250# home invader making his way up stairs to her bedroom at 2:00 am.

    Tell that to the guy who only has one arm and cant handle a long gun.

    You dont think things through very well. And you call me juvenile?
     
  13. dewey

    dewey New Member

    73
    0
    0
    Bill, No, I dont have any machine guns. I have never shot one or even seen one up close. They look pretty fun. I bet I could make some tall piles of brass. A friend of mine who is a deputy sherrif has several. He hasnt volunteered to loan me one for the weekend.
     
  14. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    123
    0
    0
    Wow, never thought I'd see that sentence on a gun forum.

    Actually, since the 2nd Amendment says that the "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it spells out that those are rights. Unless you're making the argument that "the 2nd Amendment isn't really the Constitution, it's an Amendment to the Constitution/part of the Bill of Rights,' you're wrong. Stating "you cannot infringe upon this right" spells out two things: that it is a right, and it not to be infringed upon.

    I would disagree and say that the intent is that the 2nd Amendment is a provision to make sure that citizens have the ability to defend themselves from an unjust government or foreign invasion, but that's really just a the other side of your coin.

    But where do you draw the line? I'm not allowed to have a nuke. How about a missile battery? How about a Howitzer? How about a M1 Abrams tank? How about an anti-aircraft gun?

    I was using the nuke example to point out a flaw in your argument, which I still see as flawed. It is completely unreasonable to expect that the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a tank, or a missile battery, or an anti-aircraft gun, or to lay a minefield in my yard, just as it is unreasonable to say that I am allowed to say anything that I want to say no matter what, even if I am lying about other people, thanks 1st Amendment.

    No. We have slander laws. I commit a crime if I knowingly lie about someone with the intent to do them harm. Likewise, prohibiting people from buying grenade launchers is not, in my mind, a violation of the 2nd amendment.

    A line has to be drawn somewhere. I think automatic weapons is a reasonable line.

    I'm not sure how my view of "rapists, murderers, pedophiles and the like shouldn't be allowed to ever have guns again under threat of increased jail time" is equivalent to "we should cut the seatbelts of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles".

    However, by reading your response, I believe you agree with me. "All men have the right to protect themselves provided they are conducting themselves in a legal manner." That's what you said.

    But what you fail to address is what you feel should happen if they are NOT conducting themselves in a lawful manner.

    Horribly, but that's because the laws weren't going after the real sources of the problem. But that isn't my point.

    I feel confident in that statement. However, I am assuming reasonably likely home defense situations; i.e. they don't have tanks and grenade launchers.

    How is this relevant?

    Assuming little old lady has the same shaking hands as my grandparents, I would suggest a shotgun. Better chance that she's going to actually hit something, and your average home intruder is going to run like hell when he sees grandma pointing two barrels at him.

    A shorter shotgun (even a sawed-off) is just as viable for a one-handed man, and would probably be easier to load than an automatic (or even semi-auto or revolving) pistol. Depending on the load and the weight of the gun, though, I will admit that it is a valid point. I don't know many people who could handle most weapons one-handed; however, I have seen rifles and shotguns that are custom-made for disabled vets in that situation.

    My point is that machine guns and hand guns aren't made for anything else besides killing human beings, and typically are used in that manner actively, due to the fact that they are easy to conceal and have incredible firepower for their size. Personally, I think handguns are distasteful, given their predominant use, and will never own one. I do respect the few people who target shoot/hunt with pistols, but by and large your average handgun owner only has it for the sole purpose of killing something with it, and will never do anything productive with their weapon.

    I just don't get the argument. On one hand, you say that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed," and that we must take the constitution literally and not interpret it whatsoever in any way, shape or form.

    And then, you turn around and tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, a viable armament. I'm willing to bet that you're gonna say that I shouldn't be allowed to legally own a grenade launcher, mortar launcher, or lay a minefield in my front lawn, as well.

    You notice the hypocrisy there, right? "We should take the constitution literally, but no, not in the instance you're giving, that doesn't count."
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  15. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,543
    143
    63
    The best argument I know for owning a handgun!

    I was the victim of an attempted car jacking by a knife wielding perpertrator. This was not just an attempt to steal the car but an abduction as well. I had a CCW and was armed. The criminal decided to run rather than get shot. He came very close to getting a 380 in the head. There is no way I could have wielded a long gun.
    On another occasion I had to draw my concealed weapon on 2 perpertrators that were endangering my family and I. They quickly fled the scene at the sight of the weapon. Again, you dont walk around with a shotgun slung over your shoulder.
    I am old now and a target for the criminal cowards that think seniors are easy targets. I stay armed and ready. Someday when you have a life threatening experience and cry where are the police you will understand. Until then you will keep your head buried in the sand like one of the Ostrich people otherwise known as liberals.
     
  16. camiller

    camiller New Member

    136
    0
    0
    I think that dewey's point is that our rights in general do not come from the constitution but rather that the constitution outlines what rights "we the people" allow the government to have. Many people fall into the trap of thinking that the constitution is the source of our rights. The writers of the constitution added on the Bill of Rights to highlight those important rights that the government can not be allowed to infringe on. They did not do it to list the rights we would be allowed to have.

    And there you make the argument FOR the right to own machine guns (and missile batterys). If the government could become unjust and and government is the only ones that can have machine guns and missiles then we really don't have a chance of defending ourselves from the unjust government.
     
  17. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    123
    0
    0
    A valid point. I tend to use the phrase "The constitution gives us the right to X" when in actuality I should say " The constitution makes it clear that his is a right that cannot be infringed."

    I guess I'm of a mindset that I'm given that right by the constitution because of the fact that it is not a right given to the state or federal government.

    In essence, my view is that I am given all the rights not expressly forbidden to me by the constitution, or given to other bodies.

    I do believe that if every person in the USA had a rifle/shotgun/handgun (despite my personal views on handguns, I believe that it is unreasonable to ban them), the threat of a militarily oriented takeover of the US population would become unfeasible, (honestly, I believe that it is in the first place, considering that there are quite a few people who have literal arsenals and could (and would) arm their entire neighborhood in the case of a Red Dawn scenario).

    As long as civilians have the right to have standard firearms, (and as many of them as they want with as much ammo as they can afford), I don't think that there is any threat of that happening. Any invasion of the USA would involve a long, drawn out freedom fighter movement, and I'd be hard-pressed to find a situation where a military general would be able to turn US troops against civilians in a military coup.

    I think that the proper thing to do is to be vigilant for the non-military erosion of our civil liberties.

    I just don't believe that "not being able to purchase a fully automatic AK 47 with an under-mounted grenade launcher" is a violation of my rights.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  18. pioneer461

    pioneer461 New Member

    938
    0
    0
    So, where did Ironhat go? He made his 10th posting, started a fight, then walked away without clarification on just what the heck he was talking about. I see machine guns frequently, legally possessed. If I had the money, I'd probably own one, just "because."

    The NRA-ILA is the political arm of the NRA, and it is their job to wade into the deep end of the political cesspool. When we look deep into some of the past actions the NRA has been criticized for, we find it was a matter of political compromise. Some groups believe it it noble to beat their chest and make an all or nothing, my way or the highway stand, but the NRA knows the way to get things done in Washington DC and various state capitols, is to make political compromises. The all or nothing crowd, could very well cause us to wind up with nothing. In the ugly, dirty, bare knuckle, behind the scenes reality of politics, I'm more than happy to have the NRA-ILA in there fighting for the best deal we can get. Rights are taken away incrementally, and that is how they must be won back.

    If gun owners would spend less time bashing the NRA and pointing fingers of blame, and spend more time working together, we could accomplish great things. There are an estimated 80 million gun owners in the USA. Among those 80 million, on 4-5 million are members of gun rights groups. Does anyone see a problem with that. Only .04% of gun owners are willing to pony up a few bucks to protect the rights of the rest of us.
     
  19. dewey

    dewey New Member

    73
    0
    0
    Pioneer,

    You are right.
    This thread kind of got off track from the O.P.'s subject. Sorry
     
  20. ironhat

    ironhat New Member

    16
    0
    0

    Well, I'm 'back'... from surgery. I haven't felt much like posting (a catheter goes directly to your brain. Did you know that?) The original post boiled down to its bare essence is, "Do you think that the NRA has lost site of its mission by playing politics and do you think that others have a negative effect with their, 'take no prisoners', approach". Perhaps it wasn't well phrased but I am surprised that it started so much discussion. I guess we can add 'guns' to religion and politics.:D