Is the NRA turning into a militant reactionary group?

don_socalFebruary 1, 2013

This list makes them look like they are isolating themselves from society and getting ready for the great up rising. ANARCHY!! you cant trust the PTA, report your mother if she goes to those meetings. OH My!!

"WASHINGTON -- Boy bands from the '90s, Oscar-winning actresses and the PTA are just some of the hundreds of individuals and organizations on the National Rifle Association's recently updated "National Organizations With Anti-Gun Policies" list. As the nation's largest gun lobby assumes a leading role in the national debate over gun control, the list of individuals and groups, which was published by the NRA in September, underscores a persistent message the NRA sends to members: It's us against them."

Here is a link that might be useful: NRA 'Anti-Gun' List Includes Boy Bands, Clergy, Celebrities, Ice Cream Company

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

Americans are joining the NRA in record numbers today, not hard to figure out why
They have published anti 2nd amendment groups for decades , nothing new here.

This may be the biggest battle to preserve the constitution in many years as this administration pulls out all the stops. It pretty much is turning into us against them.

    Bookmark   February 1, 2013 at 9:26PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

Americans are joining the NRA in record numbers today, not hard to figure out why
They have published anti 2nd amendment groups for decades , nothing new here.

This may be the biggest battle to preserve the constitution in many years as this administration pulls out all the stops. It pretty much is turning into us against them.

    Bookmark   February 1, 2013 at 9:27PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

the biggest battle to preserve the constitution in many years as this administration pulls out all the stops.

Ha. Preserve the constitution.
Pulls out all the stops.
And ha.

    Bookmark   February 1, 2013 at 9:35PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dockside_gw

This is a rhetorical question, right?

    Bookmark   February 1, 2013 at 9:41PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

That's an impressive and comprehensive list.

Seems as if it's safe to read the Washington Times; the other major dailies are some of the bad guys.

    Bookmark   February 1, 2013 at 9:47PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

pandering and paranoia and peevish

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 9:58AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Hmmm--practicing our alliterative adjectives today, marshall?

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 11:29AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

That's an impressive and comprehensive list.

They actually left a couple off, like Bank of America and TD Bank.

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 11:41AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fouquieria(10b)

"...is the modern NRA, like other time-honored institutions, has become hijacked and radicalized."

Montana Secretary of State, NRA Member, Bob Brown

-Ron-

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 11:43AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Bothell

"WASHINGTON -- Boy bands from the '90s, Oscar-winning actresses and the PTA are just some of the hundreds of individuals and organizations on the National Rifle Association's recently updated "National Organizations With Anti-Gun Policies" list. As the nation's largest gun lobby assumes a leading role in the national debate over gun control, the list of individuals and groups, which was published by the NRA in September, underscores a persistent message the NRA sends to members: It's us against them."

Yes. The us against them mentality says it all. There is no room for compromise or rational thought in that message.

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 12:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
RpR_(3-4)

Posted by fouquieria

"'...is the modern NRA, like other time-honored institutions, has become hijacked and radicalized."

Montana Secretary of State, NRA Member, Bob Brown'"
-Ron-
---------------------------
He is quitting the NRA.

So long, nice to know you.

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 1:28PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

I would hazard a guess that over 1/2 of the 8,ooo per week joining the NRA are previous members who had a beef at one time. In fact, I know that would be the statistic of those weve been signing up. Its become very clear, the intention of the banners.

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 4:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chisue

Exactly who is the 'them'? People who didn't vote for Romney? People who aren't white? "Furriners"? (Watch out, Geico gecko!) Military brass? The One Percent?

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 4:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

This keeps up, the NRA will represent 1.5, 2% of the population.

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 7:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

I would hazard a guess that over 1/2 of the 8,ooo per week joining the NRA are previous members who had a beef at one time.

yep-- I be part of that number.

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 9:14PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

the NRA will represent 1.5, 2% of the population.

Is there any independent verification of the number of NRA members? Or is it only the NRA giving out the figures?

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 9:22PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

Where else would anyone get the figures? Unless there's some kind of watchdog org watching them?

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 9:25PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

So when NRA says X amount of new members are joining weekly, we have to trust the word of a lobbying organization with a particular political agenda.

I don't buy the propaganda about the masses of new members.

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 9:31PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

You aren't required to believe it. Reading the annual financial report pretty much explains it .All members get a copy. Divide the income from memberships by 35 bucks gives number of members. By the way, gun manufacturers gave a bit over 2 million last year, 1% of the total NRA income. The rest is from dues, change up efforts by sporting goods stores, NRA store and gifts/estates/etc.
I have to imagine there will be a giant spike in donations as we gear up to compete with the super rich anti gun types like Bloomberg.

    Bookmark   February 2, 2013 at 9:34PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

I don't buy the propaganda about the masses of new members.

I do. The day I rejoined was the week before Christmas, down at a Cabelas in Scarborough, Maine. A good friend of mine who teaches classes on gun safety was the one signing people up, and when I got there at about 2:30 in the afternoon, they'd already gone through 150 applications they brought with them, and he had to go home to get more. And that was one day, in one place. Another friend of mine who is an NRA "recruiter" has a facebook page, where I SEE dozens of people, every single day, asking where to go to join. So, you believe what you want to. In fact, it's more of a benefit to me if you DON'T believe me.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 7:37AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

I have to imagine there will be a giant spike in donations as we gear up to compete with the super rich anti gun types like Bloomberg.

Most of that money will be funneled to Congressmen and women to ensure that favorable laws get passed or retained. I know the Congress folk are happy to see that flow of money coming in.

What I'd like to see is a competing organization form. An organization with a more reasonable view on the situation. Then watch them compete for the bucks. That will bring out some interesting information and truthiness.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 7:59AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

I don't know about more reasonable views, but there IS an organization just as extreme in their views, but to the other extreme. (the Brady Campaign)

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 8:03AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Even if you take the NRA at their word, thats still 4 million members out of a population of 313 million. So to get to 2%, they need some more recruits.

The local firing range is a "NRA Only" range. If you want to use the range, you have to be a member. So a lot of the people here won't use the range.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 10:48AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

There are always those who are willing to let others do their work.

I am confident many are joining. I rejoined the week after obama was elected after 10 years of not being a member. I have been working to sign up new members and its going nicely
So what does the percentage of the total population have to do with anything?? Approaching a 5 million membership must make it an important cause, wouldnt ya say. How do other national organisations stack up?

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 11:21AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Well, thats a good question. Ducks Unlimited has about 600,000 members. I like that outfit, they put their money into habitat. Can't find anything for Elk Unlimited or White Tails unlimited or other hunting groups I admire.

But what bothers me is that the NRA doesn't always seem to be representing their members' believes. Example they now quit supporting back ground checks.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 11:37AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

I was a member of Ducks Unlimited when I lived in the midwest. Habitat restoration and working with farmers was worth the extra time and money.

The NRA has not represented the declining number of hunters for some years. The organization represents the arms and ammo industries and the Republican Party.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 12:35PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jodik_gw

NOT a NRA member... no desire to be a member, or to read their paranoid foolishness.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 2:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

I poked around trying to see if I could find the membership numbers for Sierra Club or Audubon. Can't seem to find anything specific that points to anything even over one million.

Hard to believe that NRA would have 5 million people willing to pony up $35 a year. I would have to say that people more willing to do that for GUNS vs. BIRDS (or nature) would suggest a pretty sick citizenship (from the perspective of an environmentalist).

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 2:23PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

Does this even matter? What is effective in deep pockets to influence individual and collective Congressional action or inaction. What is effective is grass-roots response to specific issues, expressed through deluging the policy makers with media and communications.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 2:37PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fouquieria(10b)

Is the NRA turning into a militant reactionary group?

It did that about 30-some odd years ago.

-Ron-

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 3:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

The NRA is a grass roots organization, most monies derive from membership, round ups and bequethments. Gun mfgrs contribute roughly 1 % of the total incoome, $2,000,000 and change..
They(NRA) still contribute major dollars to several conservation efforts as well as grants for college scholarships, local gun clubs, gun safety education, hunter/trapper education as well as many other sporting venues.

Hunter numbers are expanding in the past few years, number of female participants is part of the growth as are female members of organized shooting sports. In fact, the number of womens groups involved in tactical shooting sports which require the modern sporting rifle(AR15 platforms) is a fast growing sport. A large proportion of the shooting sport involving the AR15 platform rifles is made up of law enforcement officers. Lt. Eugene Jankoski, the head of an 18 member SWAT team of Batavia , N.Y. is one of the top competitors. He is a firearms instructor trained with the Buffalo FBI and NY State dept of Homeland security and a master shooter.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 3:43PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jillinnj

What I'd like to see is a competing organization form

Why isn't this happening? Or is it happening and I don't know about it? I an not a gun owner and would never under any circumstances own a gun, so I would not join any gun group. But, I don't understand why the rational gun owners aren't embarrased by the NRA and want another group that speaks for them. One that advances the 2nd ammendment right to own gun(s), but is not against any all all restrictions to make society safer. One that is not paranoid and understands that to retain their right to own a gun, they need to be rational and reasonable and understand that there can be restrictions to that right.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 4:10PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

Jillinnj, read fancifowl's description of the NRA's programs (ignoring, for the moment, the idiots appearing on the national media.)

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 4:35PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chisue

Recently I saw a TV news story that said the NRA spent a lot of money on Congressional candidates in six states in the last election. Their candidate won in only one state...Arizona. (Big surprise, huh? "Black Helicopter" people and all. It may have been a waste of NRA funds.)

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 4:48PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Well, you're seeing right here where Bill and Fancyfowl, both NRA members, would accept universal background checks and restrictions on magazine size, balk at the idea of banning 'assault weapons' because its meaningless and impractical, yet - as far as I know, none of this will come to pass because of the implacable position the NRA holds on contesting any restrictions what-so-ever.

You'd think the NRA would take the lead on making sure crooks and nuts don't get ahold of guns, not creating conditions for their easy access. The NRA talks about enforcing existing laws, having made very successful efforts to gut the laws that are there. Its a sham organization, IMHO, but they've figured out that they can make a lot of money doing what they do.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 4:56PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jillinnj

Has fancifowl said he agrees with background checks? I thought he said (after "consideration") that he didn't agree with any of Obama's proposals.

The problem is that while the polls say a large percentage of NRA members agree with some (a lot?) of the proposals put forth, the NRA mouthpieces disagree with any and all regulations.

Why don't these people that disagree with the mouthpieces of the NRA either speak up and get new management, or defect and form a new group (or join another already existing group that is less radical)?

I don't get it.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 5:32PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

I'm not going to answer for them, but from everyone else I know, its because the NRA has convinced them that Obama is going to take their guns.

The NRA has an entire website about Obama taking guns - see link

Here is a link that might be useful: link to special anti-Obama NRA website

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 5:50PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
RpR_(3-4)

NRA officials are elected.

There have been major dispute with the NRA, the good guys won.
At that the NRA "ratings" on elected officials are to a degree as much as a scam as any thing that deals in Wash.

Leaders were heavily criticized for not backing some Republican candidates over other preferred Republican candidates and used the excuse that they had an A rating as far as fire-arm rights and that was all they used to judge them.
Some members contacted the NRA and told them to pull their head out of their buttocks.

For what it is worth, Harry Reid has an A rating in the NRA and was targeted by the NRA for that reason.

Next NRA election will tell how the new boys are doing.

This post was edited by RpR_ on Sun, Feb 3, 13 at 18:06

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 6:03PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

What a strange little website ("now imagine our future if he's re-elected"); it appears to be pre-election based, talking about preventing him from being re-elected:

"You must GO ALL IN, vote, join NRA, donate and share this with other patriots."

But then they have some January 2013 stuff ....

Oh well.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 6:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

RpR wrote,

they had an A rating as far as fire-arm rights...

And here is absolute proof that some conservatives believe they can simply create their own reality if they don't like the one that actually exists, and that facts that support their positions will be promoted, but it if turns out the facts actually say the opposite of what was thought, they will be completely ignored and the position clung to anyway. Certainly one of the key tests for intellectual dishonesty.

The syndrome is really quite fascinating.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 7:05PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
RpR_(3-4)

Posted by Facto-tem

"And here is absolute proof that some conservatives believe they can simply create their own reality if they don't like the one that actually exists, and that facts that support their positions will be promoted, but it if turns out the facts actually say the opposite of what was thought, they will be completely ignored and the position clung to anyway. Certainly one of the key tests for intellectual dishonesty."----------Where?

This post was edited by RpR_ on Sun, Feb 3, 13 at 22:14

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 10:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

"That will bring out some interesting information and truthiness." "Truthiness." Great word; I like it--it's not used nearly often enough, IMO. ;D

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 10:34PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

I did say I could accept some proposals as to mag sizes, I would have a 20-25 round limit. I am for background checks at gun shows where ANY gun is sold by anyone. I cannot agree to private sales such as me to my friend or family member. I wont ever abide by that.
There are other gun rights orgs, Jews for the preservation of firearms rights, 2nd amendment foundation and a couple other nationl orgs and then all of the states gun rights orgs,. NRA is by far the largest and does the most good.
Its an anti gunner ploy which is stating the way off numbers of NRA members who want bans and this other stuff. I talk to NRA people daily, I sign them up, I am in gun shops 3-4 times a week, if ya can find the room to squeeze in. I think the pulse I feel is more corret than some anti gun talking head.

It appears to be all out now. Local gun shops are about sold out of anything worthwhile. You have to wait sometimes hours for instant check they are overloaded. Takes forever to get a carry permit, same reason. The numbers are way up. Hopefully ammo will begin hitting stores again, regularly, by June or July. 1 billion per week production is not keeping up with demand.

    Bookmark   February 3, 2013 at 11:52PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

fancifowl wrote,

I am for background checks at gun shows where ANY gun is sold by anyone. I cannot agree to private sales such as me to my friend or family member. I wont ever abide by that.

I don't understand this position. If you think that people should pass a background check before acquiring a firearm, why should people's friends and family be exempt from that requirement? If you think about it, just about *everybody* is someone's friend or family...I mean, do you think that everyone who transfers a firearm to a friend or family member should assume the responsibility for the consequences if that person does something bad with the weapon and it turns out they would have failed a background check? If not, where does the responsibility lie for allowing that person to acquire a firearm when they should not qualify?

Its an anti gunner ploy which is stating the way off numbers of NRA members who want bans and this other stuff. I talk to NRA people daily, I sign them up, I am in gun shops 3-4 times a week, if ya can find the room to squeeze in. I think the pulse I feel is more corret than some anti gun talking head.

But you are interacting with a skewed selection of NRA members. New sign-ups will reasonably be skewed toward the message of the leadership, not people who support additional restrictions, as will people who are scrambling to acquire weapons in fear of imminent bans. So you are not talking to a representative cross-section of NRA members.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 12:16AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

But you are interacting with a skewed selection of NRA members.

And you're at the opposite end of that spectrum. So now what?

I don't understand this position. If you think that people should pass a background check before acquiring a firearm, why should people's friends and family be exempt from that requirement?

It's actually pretty easy to understand. The whole reason for not selling without a back ground check is to make sure you're not selling to someoe who's not supposed to have a weapon. Even without a law, I've never sold to anyone without a valid permit, an FFL, or a badge. But I would've sold to a family member I knew to be in good standing with the law. I NEVER would sell to a stranger, though. So yes, his statement makes plenty of sense. Try listening to it, instead of trying to twist it into something else.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 8:02AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Background checks for all. Make it the law.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 8:08AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

bill_vincent wrote,

"But you are interacting with a skewed selection of NRA members."

And you're at the opposite end of that spectrum. So now what?

You're confused. I expressed no opinion about NRA member's positions on various gun control issues. Fancifowl is disputing *polls* based on his perceptions; he is not disputing my perceptions based on his perceptions. Therefore, your point is moot.

You and I seem to agree that fancifowl is interacting with a skewed selection of NRA members. Therefore, we agree that he cannot dispute poll findings with his perceptions, because they are skewed based on who he interacts with. That's precisely the point I made and that you have now reinforced.

"I don't understand this position. If you think that people should pass a background check before acquiring a firearm, why should people's friends and family be exempt from that requirement? "

It's actually pretty easy to understand. The whole reason for not selling without a back ground check is to make sure you're not selling to someoe who's not supposed to have a weapon. Even without a law, I've never sold to anyone without a valid permit, an FFL, or a badge. But I would've sold to a family member I knew to be in good standing with the law. I NEVER would sell to a stranger, though. So yes, his statement makes plenty of sense. Try listening to it, instead of trying to twist it into something else.

So it is your position that no private sales should require a background check because you have determined that no one would ever sell a gun to someone who would fail such a check -- and you know that because you personally would never sell a gun to someone who would fail a background check.

Does that really make sense to you?

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 8:25AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jillinnj

The sad part, facto, is it does make sense to him.

And he has the nerve to talk about only hearing what someone wants to hear. Bill is the biggest offender of that.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 8:51AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

Such a law should apply to all gun sales and resales, not limited to sales between strangers.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 9:30AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

So, in the interest of closing these enormous loopholes of how criminals get their guns via straw purchases and the 'gun show loophole', the idea that a law-abiding, responsible gun owner who wants to privately sell to someone he knows - someone who would have no problem passing any background check - that *hassle* means that the NRA will fight this tooth and nail and the country will continue to allow these loopholes to exist.

Me, I'd have no problem with it. I'd go down to the local gun shop and have them run the perfunctory check, sell him the gun, and be done with it. Even if it cost $10.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 10:56AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg(Z-7)

Gun Shows seems more like bootleggers selling their moonshine at flea markets while Gun Shops are more like state regulated ABC stores.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 11:09AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

jillinnj wrote,

The sad part, facto, is it does make sense to him.

And he has the nerve to talk about only hearing what someone wants to hear. Bill is the biggest offender of that.

Well, I am giving Bill the benefit of the doubt so I will continue to try to further this dialog. I'm not ready to throw my hands up and quit just yet.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 1:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

It cost betweeen 20 & 30 bucks for a transfer in many places. And sales tax would also have to be added, all on top of the cost of the weapon. I will never do it on a private sale where I know who is buying, especially not a family member. Just more harasment of lawful owners. Dont you think that it would just end up driving more and more underground sales? That would be the result.
I dont think my numbers are too skewed. just about every body around here is an NRA member including our elected officials, LE guys, drs, judges, lawyers. I never said there arent those few who would like more strict rules but even they dont trust that more infringements wouldnt be coming.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 1:45PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

fancifowl wrote,

I dont think my numbers are too skewed. just about every body around here is an NRA member

You've just described a glaring way in which your experience is skewed. Your observations are limited to "around here", which you admit is an area where almost everyone is an NRA member, whereas fewer than 2% of people across the nation are NRA members.

Don't you agree that your personal experience is skewed, and therefore you can't extrapolate your personal experience to a national level?

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 1:52PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Why do you think a sales tax would be implemented? Its a private sale. They don't collect sales taxes at gun shows.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 2:01PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

david52 wrote,

Why do you think a sales tax would be implemented? Its a private sale. They don't collect sales taxes at gun shows.

The collection of salex tax at gun shows or between private parties and/or occasional sellers is governed by state laws, so this will vary from state to state (sales tax should be collected by at least some sellers in some states at gun shows). But the existence of a federal background check requirement on private sales has nothing to do with the charging or collection of state sales tax.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 2:14PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

I am supposed to charge a sales tax on a horse, a gun or about anything I sell xcept food. I have to pay it when I buy or charge it when I sell. Its not like they hastle you, but if you go thru any retail even, its the law. Pa is 6%

Okay, I have to agree then my findings could be skewed toward this area. I do talk to gun people all across the country tho, we dont just discuss the guns we areinterested in. I'd say I am pretty much right. I would admit, some circles, say those who only skeet shoot with dbl bbl guns dont much care about others concerns, Ive seen that many times. If its not what I like, to heck with the rest attitude.

The bottom line seems to be this. Most gun owners would like the craziness to end, they would be willing to give some ground, you cannot trust this administration, give em an inch, they will want a foot, give em a foot, it'll be a yard. You get it, I know ya do. It truly is the slippery slope

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 3:14PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

fancifowl wrote,

The bottom line seems to be this. Most gun owners would like the craziness to end, they would be willing to give some ground, you cannot trust this administration, give em an inch, they will want a foot, give em a foot, it'll be a yard. You get it, I know ya do. It truly is the slippery slope

This is a key fallacy being promulgated by many opposed to increased regulation. If you agree with the "inch", but disagree with the "foot", help advance the inch, but object to the foot.

As someone who is pro-choice, I would never support a law allowing a parent to terminate a child's life during the first week after birth, for example, just because I'm afraid it's a slippery slope that might ultimately lead to the elimnination of abortion rights.

If you believe a certain measure is itself a good move that would reduce death and misery, to oppose it and sacrifice the innocents who would be the victims just out of some vague fear that further measures will be proposed seems very selfish and cold.

After the '94 assault weapons ban was imposed (and on which I am not passing judgment), did that "inch" lead to a "foot" and then to a "yard"? Was the slope truly slippery -- or was it exceedingly sticky?

This post was edited by Factotem on Mon, Feb 4, 13 at 15:33

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 3:31PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

you cannot trust this administration

This is your problem--politics! If you could step outside that rightwing bubble for a few minutes, you might be surprised what a different world exists out there.

Kate

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 3:39PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Agree kate. What specifically has this administration done in regards to gun laws or use? That actually was implemented. Yet, people have been afraid of Obama since he was elected in 2008.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 9:52PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

And with good reason. He was caught about a year or two ago telling Jim Brady that he's working on it, but has to stay under the radar. He's STILL staying under the radar with his ultimate goal. As is Brady's wife.

    Bookmark   February 4, 2013 at 10:07PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

Ive read what obama has said, Ive heard what obama has said , ive heard what all the lefty gun grabbers have said, and Ive not forgotten, not for a moment. There was a time when I would give, that time is past. I have learned well what is afoot. bI have learned my lesson well and I will stand pat from now on.
I may mis type, I may not put all the words together, my education is military science, and if I must, I will use it. I feel the line may soon be drawn?

This post was edited by fancifowl on Tue, Feb 5, 13 at 0:15

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 12:12AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marquest(z5 PA)

my education is military science, and if I must, I will use it. I feel the line may soon be drawn?

This is an example of what is considered fringe. Also, a good example of why you have anti-gun people. Do you really think you are a match for the US Military killing machine?

I would think if you have been in the military you would know what this well armed country can do to you, They will not hesitate to make you a pitiful memory and any one standing near you.

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 12:43AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

What I truly think is, I know more than you know about it. Take that to the bank.

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 12:58AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lily316(z5PA)

These fringe nuts are so scary. That's why the rest of the world hates us. Crazy gun nuts.

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 2:49AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marquest(z5 PA)

What I truly think is, I know more than you know about it. Take that to the bank.

So we are not confused at HT as to what you truly meant by......." I may mis type, I may not put all the words together, my education is military science, and if I must, I will use it. I feel the line may soon be drawn?"

Are you saying that you are equipped to take out the United States of America if they come for our guns? Since you said you plan to use military science you feel you are prepared to use national defense against your government? That is the Red Line you think you can successfully draw?

If this is your intention I will be more than happy to take your money to the bank. Before you draw the red line I will send you my address.

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 8:08AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
grapeleaves

I've posted this before but it seems to be a perfect response to Fancifowl's 0:12 post

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 8:42AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Oh MY goodness.

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 10:02AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marquest(z5 PA)

chloe45, I guess that is what they need to feel like a man. Some one would beat them to submission without their man card.

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 2:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

That particular rifle holds little interest for me. But part of the attraction with these modern rifles is its easy to exchange all the parts and come up with something more suitable to its application. They can be a varmint rifle one day, a deer rifle the next or even a half decent target rifle without needing 5-6 different rifles.

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 4:17PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lily316(z5PA)

You know what many of them are compensating for.

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 4:23PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Posted by lily316 z5PA (My Page) on Tue, Feb 5, 13 at 16:23

"You know what many of them are compensating for."

What are they compensating for?

    Bookmark   February 5, 2013 at 6:43PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
html coding
It seems to work for me if I use small case letters...
duluthinbloomz4
Oklahoma crude
"Judges or court clerks who issue marriage licenses...
labrea_gw
The clock is ticking.
Was reading a story that mentioned the famous clock...
don_socal
What goes around ...
.....comes around "It wasn't supposed to be like...
ohiomom
Roll Call--did you make it back?
Thought it might be nice to figure out who is still...
dublinbay z6 (KS)
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™