Posted on 05/24/2002 9:23:12 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:32 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
If the republican party & the NRA would have stood their ground then, and forced a constitutional showdown, we would not be dying the death of a thousand 'regulative' cuts now.
And, -- as you also mentioned, compromising principle is NOT what FR is about.
Hey, don't knock getting the message out, especially to the neutral masses. In fact, I think that's critical to the future of the Second Amendment. The more voters who no longer are ambivalent about the gun issue, but are at least vaguely pro-firearms rights, the better off we are. They don't have to be Second Amendment activists, just as long as they think and vote against anti-gun candidates.
Have they actually done anything? It's hard to prove a negative on the numbers of voters they have converted. I'm just glad they're out there.
You notice I said that I'm glad they're out there and I wanted to help the SAS. Again, for the upteenth time, we have to work together.
I apologize for coming down so hard on you. I've been banging my head against walls all day, at work and online.
I agree with you that we have to work together, and each organization plays its own role. I also agree that sniping at each other only helps the anti-rights mob.
"The NRA endorsed the original federal handgun control bill of the 1930s; the 1968 Gun Control Act; and the Brady Bill with its waiting periods and now its so-called "instant check" national gun registration (for long guns as well as revolvers.) NRA executives seem happy so long as they continue to collect dues and contributions from the outfit's reported 4 million dull-witted members, who apparently never tire of the siren song, "We got you a better compromise than if we hadn't been here; we only bargained away a few more of your rights this year."
I haven't heard as much lately from them ouside of the shop and shoot, but they still frequent the gunshows. Good educational group.
JPFO is the same way, but I've never seen any leaders of theirs in Michigan outside of their lit. I do know a few members of JPFO though.
Maybe they should come up with a way to track down Arab terrorist instead. Be more helpful wouldn't it?
Or how about spending the money on border security? Looks to me as if this needs looking at.
Anybody for compelling the Federal government to track non-citizen visitor and deport those that overstay there welcome? Might be money better spent since these wackos want to track people.
Dingell is a useful idiot at best.
tarpon
It is annoying to hear that they have us fighting amongst ourselves. IPSC people are fighting IDPA people, and so on. If you want to fight somebody, I can point out some people in Congress who are worthy of your attention, but fighting against ourselves is nothing but destructive. Col. Jeff Cooper
Don't these people sniping at the NRA understand that? Or are they more interested in bad-mouthing the leader because they aren't?
When one's house catches on fire, does one complain and whine about the fire department not being able to save the whole house, but only the first floor? No, one ought to be glad that there is something still there to rebuild upon.
The NRA existed all right, big time, back in the early '60s when the gun attacks started after the assassination. - and I was a long time member. - They caved, & compromised in '68, and we see the result today.
If the NRA hadn't existed, however, then those attacks would have been much more severe. Of course the NRA "endorsed" those legislative acts; that was the price of stopping much worse legislation.
Bull. There was no 'worse'. the Rhinos & the NRA gave away the farm in '68 for sheer political gain. They 'compromised' their soul, their principles, and they've been doing the same ever since.
Don't these people sniping at the NRA understand that? Or are they more interested in bad-mouthing the leader because they aren't? When one's house catches on fire, does one complain and whine about the fire department not being able to save the whole house, but only the first floor? No, one ought to be glad that there is something still there to rebuild upon.
Yep, just "wait till next year". The rebuilt RINO party will think up some neat new regulations to infringe your rights. Thats the same party line we've been hearing since they stabbed Goldwater in the back. Insanity is in believing it.
I first joined the NRA in 1962, and was a member in the political ballyho the led up to GC '68. The NRA did not stand firm then and oppose it, I remember some comment, maybe in the Rifleman saying the the 4473's were a "compromise that we can live with" or something to that effect. When CG '68 passed I quite the NRA (for the first time) in disgust that they seemd not to be interested in fighting against gun control. Unlike some of the more naive people in this forum, I'm old ehough to see where compromise is going. It only goes one way with the final end point being Sara Brady's and upChuck Schumer's wet dream, a society where "only the police and military are armed" in other words a totalitarian police state.
One of the naive ones (to be charitable) says
We dont have the votes. When you don't have the votes you have to compromise
He's part right and part wrong. He's right about not having the votes. But he's wrong about "having to compromise". You don't have to compromise. You put pressure on the politicians to change the votes. All legislative bodies consist of three categories of legislators.
What you do is send out a second leaflet with the Kongressman's remarks vis a vie the first one. Then will come the back pedaling and lies - "It was a mistake. I didn't read the whole bill. I didn't realize the implications" If you compromise at this stage, you lose.
Now is time for a third leaflet or mailing again putting the Kongressman's excuses in the most unfavorable light possible. At this point the Kongressman will usually come around and say what do you want. Then you simply tell him that your organization wants him to vote against any anti-gun bills, and co-sponsor progun legislation. Your allies in the legislative body will usually have a pro-gun bill or two waiting in the wings looking for co-sponsors.
Anyway this is what you can do rather than compromise. Use the resources to change the votes. Don't throw up your hands and say we have to compromise.
If even 25% of the gun owners gave a d@mn, there wouldn't be a gun law in this entire country.
Sadly I find myself agreeing with you on this one; however, the pressure tactic does work. Our local group used it on Bob Barr here in GA who was making anti-gun noises for a while a couple of years ago. After a dose of pressure, specifically leaflet pressure, he stopped that nonsense. It won't work on dedicated communists like the loathsome disgusting repulsive Cynthia McKinney, because their base is the hard core wealth redistributionists, and they've figured out that the more power the government has, the more likely they are to get some of the loot robbed from the productive elements of society. It would probably work on Jack Kingston, another RINO, but our group didn't have the resources in Kingston's district to do it. The NRA does and won't - more the pity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.