Some hateful speech against NRA members - Page 2

FirstFreedom · July 29, 2007, 01:43 AM

Good point, Antipitas, to an extent. Remember though, that candidates running for office on a certain level almost always come from a lengthy history in politics on a lower level - city, county, or state government, and therefore have a record of some kind 90% of the time. True they could change their tune all of a sudden, but not likely. They get their ratings from *somewhere*, and it's their prior record at the lower level if they have one. If they don't actually have a discernable voting recordon gun rights then IINM, NRA simply puts a question mark on the rating rather than trying to guess.

But I see what you and NRA are "saying" on the subject. I still don't like it. If ol' boy was say, on a city council or in a state legislature, and clearly has an "above & beyond the call of duty", A+ record on gun rights - outspoken advocate, openly talks of repealing oppressive gun laws, and he's running at the next level up (state for the councilman, and federal for the state legislator).....he should be given a chance, and definitely given the endorsement over a B, B+, or A- incumbent candidate at the higher level. Nothin's gonna change if somethin' don't change, to put axiomatically.

**Bud Helms** · July 29, 2007, 03:57 AM

This should be in L&P ... off we go.

Al Norris · July 29, 2007, 08:03 AM

I should have been more clear in my post, FF.

What I wrote was to me, just a logical way of doing things. It may or may not be how the NRA does things... There are times I wonder if logic even plays a part in what they do!

Pat H · July 29, 2007, 09:17 AM

Quote:

A little information on the Freedom States Alliance
http://www.freedomstatesalliance.com/mission.php

Not surprising the rhetoric is hateful.

I looked at that site and the linked sites which they sponsor; all sociofascist propaganda to inflame the weak minded. Fortunately, they're so shrill, most will not be taken in. Still, they must be countered so that their big lie technique won't work.

Pat H · July 29, 2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

I should have been more clear in my post, FF.

What I wrote was to me, just a logical way of doing things. It may or may not be how the NRA does things... There are times I wonder if logic even plays a part in what they do!

Organizations take on a culture of their own and I think the NRA has never fully shaken off the culture of their founding and what they were up through the 1970's which was primarily a shooting sports fraternity that wanted to remain a part of the status quo. Most of us know that the NRA basically wrote the National Firearms Act of 1934 which at first made automatic weapons difficult to purchase, then was modified to illegal to make (new ones for individual purchase) after 1986. They also helped to write the Gun Control Act of 1968, pacifying the membership by promising that any law abiding citizen would always be able to get a FFL, which we now know to have been false and something the NRA didn't have to give.

That has changed over time, mostly by force from the membership and guys like the late Neal Knox, to more broadly defending the right to keep and bear arms from just about any (unfortunately not all) of the Gun Confiscation Lobby's proposals.

Sometimes, though, I see a sensitivity on the NRA's part to the rabid rhetoric coming from the Gun Confiscation Lobby which seems to make them go wobbly on certain issues; NRA support for the enhancement to the NIC System recently comes to mind.

The ideas expressed on the hate site mentioned in the initial post should point out to the NRA and everyone else that we're not going to ever win these kinds of people over, they're not going to eventually love us, and compromising even slightly won't passify them one whit.

NRA Life Member

July 29, 2007, 01:43 AM	#26
FirstFreedom Junior member Join Date: May 31, 2004 Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A. Posts: 12,451	Good point, Antipitas, to an extent. Remember though, that candidates running for office on a certain level almost always come from a lengthy history in politics on a lower level - city, county, or state government, and therefore have a record of some kind 90% of the time. True they could change their tune all of a sudden, but not likely. They get their ratings from somewhere, and it's their prior record at the lower level if they have one. If they don't actually have a discernable voting recordon gun rights then IINM, NRA simply puts a question mark on the rating rather than trying to guess. But I see what you and NRA are "saying" on the subject. I still don't like it. If ol' boy was say, on a city council or in a state legislature, and clearly has an "above & beyond the call of duty", A+ record on gun rights - outspoken advocate, openly talks of repealing oppressive gun laws, and he's running at the next level up (state for the councilman, and federal for the state legislator).....he should be given a chance, and definitely given the endorsement over a B, B+, or A- incumbent candidate at the higher level. Nothin's gonna change if somethin' don't change, to put axiomatically.

July 29, 2007, 03:57 AM	#27
Bud Helms Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 1999 Location: Middle Georgia, USA Posts: 13,198	This should be in L&P ... off we go.

July 29, 2007, 08:03 AM	#28
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,659	I should have been more clear in my post, FF. What I wrote was to me, just a logical way of doing things. It may or may not be how the NRA does things... There are times I wonder if logic even plays a part in what they do!