The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 5, 2000, 04:35 PM   #1
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
WARNING: THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SOME PROFANITY!! If you are offended by such then do not read it and then come fussing.
http://www.dillonprecision.com/vote....token=84569993

I don't like many NRA policies but this is why I am a member in spite of that and why I vote.

------------------
Byron Quick



[This message has been edited by Spartacus (edited October 05, 2000).]
Byron Quick is offline  
Old October 6, 2000, 10:51 AM   #2
FPrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2000
Location: People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Posts: 1,456
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spartacus:
WARNING: THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SOME PROFANITY!! If you are offended by such then do not read it and then come fussing.
http://www.dillonprecision.com/vote....token=84569993

I don't like many NRA policies but this is why I am a member in spite of that and why I vote.
[/quote]

Spartacus,

Thanks for posting this. I saw it in the Blue Press but I think it bears re-printing every chance we can. The sentiments are correct. The NRA may not be perfect, but it's the best we have and it is out there fighting for all of us. And all of us need to do more, cause the anti's sure are trying to do more.

Frosty
FPrice is offline  
Old October 6, 2000, 11:14 AM   #3
straightShot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2000
Location: MI, USA
Posts: 668
Frosty,

Ditto.

straightShot

------------------
NRA Life Member/Volunteer Recruiter
Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners(MCRGO)
straightShot is offline  
Old October 6, 2000, 01:38 PM   #4
Eric Blair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 1999
Posts: 101
I hate the current NRA.
So, I vote in EVERY election I can to get back to the fundamentals.
I signed the petitions to change the elections and the reps.

We CAN change the NRA, for the better.

Eric
(Just in case, I also belong to GOA)
Eric Blair is offline  
Old October 6, 2000, 02:13 PM   #5
stuckatwork
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2000
Posts: 217
Pass this article around. There is a worn out tired old saying that goes: "All it takes for evil in this world to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

Ya' know what, if this article offened anyone, TOUGH!

Here are some truths to consider:

A)If you don't vote, shut your pie hole, your part of the problem, also.

b) When the NRA was at the all time low of 1 million members, the Klinton-Bore Administration slandered them every chance they could. Now that the NRA is over 4 million, they shut right up. NUMBER DO COUNT!

C) Acting as individuals we are lost, acting as a cohesive voting block we will win.

d)Politicians are numbers driven, the organizations that can deliver the most votes will get what they want.

e) It is NOT about gun control, it is about SOCIAL CONTROL!

f)If you sit out this next election, you will get EXACTLY what you deserve.

g) Vote now at the polls, or later from the roof tops.

------------------
You can find the price of freedom, buried in the ground.
stuckatwork is offline  
Old October 6, 2000, 02:15 PM   #6
416Rigby
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 1999
Location: Virginia
Posts: 450
If you don't vote like a gun owner, YOU SUCK!

Editor's Note: While we're certain that the sentiments expressed in this editorial don't apply to regular Blue Press readers, we're pretty confident that most of you know gun owners to whom these sentiments DO apply -- if so, please pass this article on. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, although ours are similar.

By Peter Caroline

According to most estimates, there are between 75 and 80 million adult gun owners in the United States. That's more people than voted in the last presidential election. So why is it, when there are so many gun owners, that we are not the DOMINANT voting bloc in this country? Because most of that 75-80 million are stupid, lazy, hypocritical barfbags. Well, I'd like to say something to that group.


Sure, you drive around in a pickup truck with a gunrack and some hairy-chested bumper stickers, and you talk big at the gun shop or the Legion Hall. But will you shell out 35 bucks and join the NRA? Oh, you don't agree with the NRA's stance on this or that, or the NRA is too soft on something or too unyielding on something else? Or maybe long ago the NRA didn't send you your free cap or bullet key ring on time. Well, you know what? That's a dumb cop-out and you're an *******. Whether you like it or not, the NRA is the only...I repeat ONLY, effective representation you have in the cesspool of Washington politics. Even the NRA's worst enemies -- YOUR worst enemies if you have the capacity to think about it -- agree that it's one of the most powerful lobbying forces on Capitol Hill. That means no one else fights your battles for you better, and if you don't understand that simple fact, you're too dumb to exist!

OK, you don't give a damn about the NRA but you still want to keep your guns. So why, in the name of all that is holy, do you vote for "gun-ban" candidates? Oh, you don't? So who does? Maybe it's all those other people who were voting while you were sucking a brewski and watching the game on TV. Or maybe you're a good union guy, and the union votes Democrat.

Some years ago, Mario Cuomo, a dedicated anti-gunner who happened to be governor of New York, described gun owners in a most uncomplimentary fashion. But the most damning thing he said about gun owners is that they don't vote, and therefore should not be considered as a factor in any election. How about that? Mario Cuomo is a liberal Democrat and, as such, is wrong about most everything, but he's absolutely right about you. And I can prove it. If you non-voting gun owners in New York State did get off your ***** and vote like gun owners, obscenities like Mario Cuomo couldn't even be elected as dog catcher. The same goes for Charles Schumer; he wasn't bad enough as a congressman from Brooklyn; you dumb schmucks had to let him become a senator! What's next...Hillary?

Then there's my old home state of Massachusetts. Over one million Massachusetts gun owners must be really proud to claim Teddy Kennedy as their senator. And John Kerry, the Kennedy clone, is no better. The entire Massachusetts congressional delegation, both gay and straight, is anti-gun. And you Bay State gun owners are the ******* that put them in office! Because you sat on your fat *****, you've got Chapter 180 -- aptly named because it turns your gun rights around 180 degrees -- and you've got an attorney general who wants to be governor and thinks every handgun is a faulty consumer product. Once again, Massachusetts gun owners, where were you on Election Day?

Look at every state with asinine, repressive gun laws and a preponderance of anti-gun politicians -- California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland...to cite several horrible examples -- and you will find enough gun owners to form an unbeatable voting bloc, IF they would get their thumbs out of their butts and vote, for a change. Jeez, what a concept!

We all know the excuses: I'm too busy, my vote doesn't count, they're all crooks and it doesn't make any difference, I gave $5 to Quail Unlimited so I don't need to vote, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, here's the bottom line...your vote does not count if you don't use it. If you don't vote, then effectively you are on the same side as Rosie (I'm-not-a-hypocrite) O'Donnell, Sarah Brady, Bill and Hillary, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, Charles Schumer and every other low-life bottom feeder who knows what's best for you. If you don't vote like a gun owner, you are a ******* for the anti-gunners, and you bend over forward to please them.

Think about it. 75-80 million gun owners in this country; only 3.6 million NRA members, and who knows how many active pro-gun-voting gun owners. You can argue all you want about your inalienable rights. Rights are like body parts; they only work if you exercise them. And yours are looking pretty flaccid right now. If you don't vote in the next election, your enemies will elect a president who will be able to name three or four new Supreme Court justices. Which means that by the 2004 election, you will have no guns. And shortly after that, you will have no vote and no rights. And you know what? If you let that happen, it will be exactly what you deserve!

-------------------------

Just thought it would be good for all to see even more plainly.....


------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org

Get some real news at www.worldnetdaily.com

Edited out various profanities - TBM

[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited October 06, 2000).]
416Rigby is offline  
Old October 6, 2000, 02:32 PM   #7
ruger45
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Posts: 500
The NRA's the best we have....
Oh god please have mercy on our souls
were in deep deep xxxxx!

Im a part of every lobby except the NRA I send Knox money to support remaking the NRA into a fighter again not a compromiser.
But Ill never send them money as long as their leaders dare utter phrases like
'sensible gun legislation' or ' we support common sense gun laws,
The liberals will continue in ameica to push for more and more 'common sense gun legislation' until we no longer own guns
or do you dought it.
I agree with the article on being involved and getting of your lazy whinning booty but not who to be involved with.
You beleive in clout.
Great so do I thats why I support and spread the word about lobbies that OPPOSE gun control on all levels and dont dare think about putting my freedoms on the menu no matter what crook went on a shooting spree.

4 million members and Lapierre can still get away with saying 'we support common sense gun laws' I can see all the NRA members are being real vigiland about who their leaders are....
compromise,compromise,compromise and who's done all of it?!?
Time for that to stop.
Joining a lobby that refuses to show backbone or fight isnt doing as much as you say you are but its nice that you can now 'tell yourself' your 'doing' something.
www.ccrkba.org www.gunowners.org www.jpfo.org www.ccops.org www.citizensofamerica.org www.keepandbeararms.org www.trteam.com


------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
ruger45 is offline  
Old October 6, 2000, 04:29 PM   #8
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
Sir, I am a life member of GOA and a member of JPFO. I think every gun owner should be. I also think that every gun owner should be a member of the NRA. The compromisers are in control of the NRA for one reason: people that don't like compromise don't join so we never get the chance to vote the compromisers out.

------------------
Byron Quick

Byron Quick is offline  
Old October 7, 2000, 04:03 PM   #9
gitarmac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2000
Posts: 358
As for wondering why if there are so many gun owners why they are not a dominant voting block - I'll tell you why, unfortunatly most people, even gun owners, believe in gun control laws. They think the laws are just for "the bad guy" and they are not affected. At least thats how many people I come in contact with think.
gitarmac is offline  
Old October 7, 2000, 11:31 PM   #10
ruger45
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Posts: 500
Your right SPARTACUS Im going to vote DEMOCRAT this year so I can help make them a
better party and send them money so theyll take me seriously after all they just need the right people to tell them they need to change a little.

And here I was gonna tell you how hard Lapierre's gonna be laughing when Neal Knox
(whom I do send money) goes before the NRA
BOD members and tells them they need to change and stop compromising and get new leadership after good ol boy Wayne the sell out has just listed the latest membership number and contributions and salaries the BOD members are able to have because they have said members.
But I then decided that would be confusing numbers with the issues....so I wont say any of that.
Just this

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
ruger45 is offline  
Old October 9, 2000, 08:15 AM   #11
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
apples and oranges, my friend, you are comparing apples and oranges. Oh, by the way, precisely which essential liberty am I sacrificing to obtain temporary security?

------------------
Byron Quick

Byron Quick is offline  
Old October 9, 2000, 06:01 PM   #12
STRIDER
Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2000
Location: Prescott, Arizona
Posts: 58
I am a member of the NRA and very dissatisfied with their "softness".

If one is unhappy with the NRA, DO NOT quit your membership or fail to join. Join as a lifetime member so you will have a vote in NRA elections. You do not get to vote if you are only an annual member.

The only way to reform NRA, is to vote in the NRA elections.

Repeat:
Changing the Board of Directors is the only way to affect real change in the NRA. You cannot do this as an annual member, you must be 5 year or life.

------------------
Armatissimi y Liberissimi!
STRIDER is offline  
Old October 9, 2000, 06:33 PM   #13
jwk
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2000
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 11
Very good article with a good message. Some of the replys to this thread seem to be an attempt to take the wind out of its sails, so if in doubt go back and read it again - then pass it on!
jwk is offline  
Old October 9, 2000, 07:14 PM   #14
CBlackjr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2000
Location: San Deigo, CA, USA (Jamul area)
Posts: 132
Thanx for the article. I passed along to my jeep forum.
CBlackjr is offline  
Old October 9, 2000, 07:29 PM   #15
FPrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2000
Location: People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Posts: 1,456
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ruger45:
The NRA's the best we have....
Oh god please have mercy on our souls
were in deep deep xxxxx!

[/quote]

ruger45

If you spent HALF as much time proposing concrete RESPONSIBLE gun ownership policies as you do trying to trash the NRA, this forum and the country might be a bit better off! &lt;G&gt;

But we wouldn't have half as much fun, now would we.

Implicit in the freedom to own firearms is the responsibility to safe firearms owners. The NRA has the strongest history in this country of protecting our firearms rights both by fighting restrictive legislation and by teaching people safe firearms ownership. Actually, no other organization has any real national record of promoting and teaching safe firearms ownership.

You will notice that NRA members have no need, real or otherwise, of trashing GOA to promote their own agendas. Perhaps when GOA can show some real success in the fight against the liberal gun-grabbers, then they can lobby for members on their own strengths, and not on attacks against other organizations.

Frosty
FPrice is offline  
Old October 9, 2000, 11:59 PM   #16
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
Ask yourself why it is necessary to compromise at times in the political process-that is if you want to be truly effective. Legislators come to you (who have supported your agenda greatly in the past and fought the good fight) and say,"If we vote for (or against) this bill in this form we are going to lose re-election. If we support you on this then we will not be around to support you on anything in the future. Polls of their home turf back their fears. What to do? All available data points to a no compromise stance leading to the election of legislators who wouldn't help at all.

Friends, there is only one way to build a NRA that doesn't have to compromise and that is to build a NRA that has so many members and so much voting clout at the polls that any legislator that votes against what we want will get defeated at the polls. If we can do that then Schumer will be voting the way we want-if he wants to get re-elected.

Yes, we can all find something to be dissatisfied about with the NRA. Every time I look at machine gun prices, I curse that NRA supported bill. There are some who say that the NRA thought they could get that provision of the bill repealed later. I don't believe that anyone ever honestly thought that would happen or could happen. The point I am trying to make is that my unhappiness with certain actions of the NRA doesn't matter. What matters is that the NRA is the best bet we have. What matters is dramatically increasing the numbers of NRA members, especially NRA voting members. Do you want to make HCI and their ilk run and hide or do you want to be ideologically pure?

------------------
Byron Quick

Byron Quick is offline  
Old October 10, 2000, 01:46 AM   #17
ruger45
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Posts: 500
http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00249.html

March 4 Neal Knox Update - President Clinton has called a meeting for Tuesday with Congressional leaders to demand passage of his package of gun laws.

On Wednesday, he was on the NBC Today show and CBS Dan Rather declaring that NRA has a stranglehold on Congress and is opposed to all gun laws.

On Thursday, NRA E.V.P. Wayne LaPierre was on NBC Today detailing what all new gun proposals NRA supported. He listed last June's House-approved gun package which included a requirement that dealers sell trigger locks with each handgun, requiring NICS checks on pawn shop redemption's, banning importation of over-10-round magazines not included in the 1994 ban, prohibiting "unsupervised" access by juveniles to "assault weapons" and high-cap magazines, a lifetime ban on gun ownership for juveniles convicted of violent offenses, and mandatory background checks on buyers from gun shows table operators.

While show host Katie Couric wasn't impressed by the list of gun laws NRA supports, NRA members lit up NRA's phones and the Internet, insisting that many of those provisions violated the Second Amendment.

LaPierre informed Couric that it was the House Democrats, with White House backing, who killed the entire gun package because it didn't have Sen. Lautenberg's draconian gun show background check bill -- which could kill gun shows due to its almost impossible-to-meet requirements on show sponsors.

Sen. Lautenberg, during a press conferences with Sens. Richard Durbin and Charles Schumer this week, stated that his intent was to eliminate gun shows entirely. His amendment would go a long ways toward that goal.

With Clinton declaring that his trigger lock package would have saved the First Grader killed in Michigan -- which is patently ludicrous since the murder gun was stolen and found in a crack house -- most of the focus of Tuesday's meeting is likely to be directed toward trigger locks.

Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, chairman of the Republican House reelection effort, sponsored the amendment requiring handguns to be sold with trigger locks or other security devices last June. With NRA's blessing, it passed 311-115.

Gov. George Bush said Wednesday that if such a bill came to his desk he would sign it, but he felt use of such devices should be up to the homeowner. He asked if advocates of requiring trigger locks to be kept installed wanted Federal "trigger lock police" to assure compliance.

The sticking point in Clinton's package is, as it was last June, the NRA-backed gun show amendment by Rep. John Dingell, which would impose workable requirements on gun show promoters and allow an "Instant Check" to take no more than 24 hours instead of Lautenberg's five business days.

Clinton is again unlikely to allow the NRA-backed package to pass unless it has the NRA-opposed Lautenberg's gun show amendment, for he wants to keep the gun issue alive, particularly "trigger locks."

However, if the press begins to report the political game- playing over trigger locks, Clinton and the Republican leadership, at least Speaker Dennis Hastert and Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde -- might yet agree to pass the trigger lock bill and the other NRA-backed provisions.

The reaction of other House Republicans, led by Majority Leader Dick Armey and Whip Tom Delay, and the 40 or so pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Dingell, is a bigger question.

Clinton may well figure that he has more than enough other pending gun law demands to take nine-tenths of a loaf now, but I don't expect that to happen until he's had a few more months to wring the maximum crocodile political tears out of trigger locks.

Isn't it amazing that a reportedly recent Houston sharpened screwdriver murder of one grade school kid by another has had no national publicity? And that this week's killing of two women by three American kids who heaved large rocks off a highway overpass in Germany, has gone almost unnoticed? -------
FPRICE---Many apparently dont view these as essential liberties so maybe I dont have an answer for that question and maybe I am truly confused about these in anyway being infringements on our rights but instead these are just more apples and organges.
(Ive been wondering why Ive been avoiding fruit lately.)
STRIDER-- thats like saying your going to vote for a different liberal to make change.
Name more than one NRA BOD member who even thinks they need to change???Go ahead take your time in the mean time maybe you should send some of these people some money.


SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY?

NO MORE "A" GRADES FOR GUN GRABBERS

By Russ Howard, (former) NRA Board Member


(Reprinted from Pennsylvania Sportsmen's News, special edition for
1997 NRA annual meeting. Permission to reprint granted if the
following is included: Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Assn, PO Box 1225,
Hermitage PA 16148. Membership: $15; subscription-only: $10.)

In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's
penchant for giving undeserved grades to politicians who trample
on the 2nd Amendment. My first experiences with this were in
California in 1992:

CASE 1. JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL

Flores is an anti-gun Republican who, as an LA City Councilwoman,
voted for the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti-
gun Democrat. When I heard that Flores was getting an "A" rating,
I called NRA staffer Terry O'Grady (now Terry Smith) to express
my concern. O'Grady said she'd met with Flores and that Flores
"gave us assurances" that "she's on our side". O'Grady said the
only problem was that "nobody had educated her."

I told O'Grady that giving Flores an "A" was a breech of trust
with the membership, a deliberate misrepresentation to manipulate
NRA members, that Flores had no right to an "A" until she earned
it. That got me a hefty ration of beltway contempt.

O'Grady snapped "then why don't you just vote for Jane Harman."
Shocked, I said that wasn't the issue: If we wanted members to
vote against Harman, we could give Harman an F, but give Flores a
"D" and an explicit "lesser-of-two-evils" endorsement. O'Grady
said members are too unsophisticated to vote for a lesser-of-two
evils candidate. In other words, ILA was deliberately lying to and manipulating NRA members. She said she'd taken it up with
the PAC board, they agreed with her, and I could speak with them
about it. I didn't. I'd heard enough.

Our reward? After getting the "A" rating, Flores sneaked out of
a city council vote where we lost a measure forcing all new gun
stores to go through a conditional use permit system, making it
possible to effectively ban new gun stores. Soon after that,
Flores was back in the press loudly announcing that she still
supports the assault weapon ban.


CASE 2: CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)

Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican HCI member who had been
mayor of Santa Monica (a city notorious for its control by the
Tom Hayden / Jane Fonda crowd). Freidman was an F-rated
incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills too radical
to be enacted. In that sense, he was less dangerous than Reed,
whose predictable "moderate" gun bills were more likely to
go somewhere.

Californians Against Corruption almost made the mistake of
attacking Friedman in his assembly race against Reed with a
50,000-piece re-mail through the activist network. It would've
used up all of our money and manpower for the season. Volunteers
would've spent up to $15,000 in stamps alone. We'd been led to
believe by ILA that Reed was "not that great on guns", but
"wasn't that bad either." After all, she had a "C" rating. In
my book, "C" is a passing grade. I was told that Reed was just
"ignorant on our issue" and could be "brought over".

Then we heard Reed was a member of Handgun Control Inc. I
called around to confirm this and got a copy of her
questionnaire. From her answers, she was a clear "F". In
addition, she'd openly admitted her HCI membership! So we
switched to the McClintock/Beilenson congressional race, barely
in time to get out a 62,000-piece mailer out to swing-voter
households.

When HCI heard Reed had "courted" NRA, they threatened to expose her. Reed panicked, told them she was lying to us, and groveled
to get back in bed with them. I made a stink about the Reed case
and later brought it to Tanya Metaksa's attention. Her response
was to prohibit access to candidate questionnaires by NRA members
so it'd be harder for members to figure out what's being done to
them.

CASE 3. TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to
retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer
assault rifles". She was rated "A-".


When NRA gives a misleading rating, it...

1. Confuses the membership...Does Flores deserve the same grade as
those legislators who never betray us and go out of their way to
carry our water?

2. Demoralizes members...Would Flores have gotten an "A" had she
banned "sporting" guns instead of "assault rifles"?

3. Demoralizes pro-gun legislators...Imagine you're a legislator
who often takes abuse for standing firm with the NRA, and the
sellout next door gets an "A".

4. Sends signals to politicians...Tells them we're fools and it's
safe to sell us out.

5. Corrodes member trust...Can we trust information from people
who tell us that HCI members are "C"s and people who support gun
bans are "A"s?

6. Corrupts the integrity and informational utility of the rating
process.

7. Wastes resources (e.g., our near-mailing against Freidman).

I understand that ratings may be used to bring people around,
and that in some cases candidates given an A may try to earn
it later. But we can have a ratings system that "brings people
around" without misleading members. For example, we could have
conditional ratings. Each candidate would have an honest rating
based on PAST history. In addition, they could have a Conditional
A rating if we think we turned them around based on an A
questionnaire. The conditional A would become unqualified
after a certain number of years of supporting us on every issue.
If they ever betrayed us again, they'd be prohibited from the
"A" category for life.

When I brought this up to Tanya Metaksa, I was told it wouldn't
work because members couldn't be motivated to support a
Conditional A candidate. I disagree. But even if I'm wrong,
it doesn't justify lying to NRA members for candidates who
betrayed us in the past. That will demoralize NRA's most
active members.

I've often supported the lesser of two evils when the need to do
so was properly explained and there was no "A" that needed my
help more. ILA should give us the facts and let us make up our
own minds. We may volunteer for a conditional A for many reasons:
Loathing of the opponent, the tightness of the race, or the
balance of power in a legislature, for example. Or we may
instead donate our time to a real A who deserves support.

In any case, the longer NRA pretends activists are too
"unsophisticated" for to handle the truth, the less they will
trust NRA and the less effective they'll be. We can't develop
grassroots without giving them the bottom line. And they'll
appreciate being credited with some sophistication and
intelligence.

At the '94 NRA Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, I asked Tanya
Metaksa about incidents where candidates were given ratings
they clearly did not deserve. She said that there's a new
sheriff in town and such things won't be tolerated anymore.
Fact is, she never stopped giving undeserved grades to gun
grabbers; if anything, the practice has increased and worsened
under her watch. Examples:

· Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted for the Brady bill and the
assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement!

Steve Coombs, Founding President of the Santa Barbara/Ventura NRA
Members' Council, put it to me this way:

"I met with Gallegly after he'd turned on us, and he said, 'You
should support me. I've always voted with you in the past.'
"Since then, I've called Terry O'Grady, leaving message after
message over a two-month period, trying to find out what we're
going to do about Gallegly. He should be a D at best. I think
this month's Guns & Ammo even has him taking money from HCI.
O'Grady (now Terry Smith and still working for ILA) finally
called back yesterday (10/12/94) and left this message on my
phone mail:

'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's
always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him
an A- and endorse him.'

The members here are outraged"...

· In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they
voted for both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban.
41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings.
7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
· In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the
'94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and
Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun
registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers
were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who
fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded
both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C),
endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert
cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost
anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke
ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.

· In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment
by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come
over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed
it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory
training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move
unpermitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with
any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial
institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for
each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption
was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed
us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park".
Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training
section to allow NRA instructors to do the training.

In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an
orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members,

"Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to
self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain
Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights.
Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to
family, friends, and fellow gun owners...

Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa."

Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW
liability law.


· In Virginia in 1996, extreme F rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced A rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American
Rifleman carried the following message:

"THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT:
VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS. NO ENDORSEMENT"

No endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F-
rated gun grabber! Like a District Attorney who plea bargains
every case, that's how Tanya Metaksa maintains an "82% success
rate": Abandoning pro-gun candidates, staying out of potentially
uphill races, supporting anti-gun incumbents. Legislatively, the
game's similar: To show more and more "victories" to NRA members,
amendments are tolerated which betray fundamental rights and
leave gun owners worse off than they were before the "victory".
Many CCW "victories" fit that description.

· In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun
rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings
(part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). 1994,
Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the&gt; assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support
for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.

· In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan
INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.
The same A+ sellout rammed through ILA's infamous Act 17 betrayal
of PA gun owners. Activists have had to waste years of hard work
trying to fix Act 17, but the damage may never be fully repaired.

· In NC, some A rated incumbents hadn't cast a single vote in
favor of gun rights.

· Tanya Metaksa presented turncoat John Dingle with a surprise
award in front of the NRA Board of Directors after he betrayed
us.

The list goes on. Many of us had had enough. NRA Directors Rick
Carone, Prof. Joe Olson, Judge Paul Heath Till, and I authored a
resolution for the Sept. '96 NRA Board meeting to stop ILA from
giving A grades and awards to politicians who trample on gun
rights:

RESOLUTION

Whereas, giving our highest ratings to political candidates who
have turned their backs on the people's right to keep and bear
arms is an insult to those candidates who steadfastly support
the 2nd Amendment; and

Whereas, giving our highest ratings to those who oppose the 2nd
Amendment, not only damages the credibility of the NRA's
leadership and betrays its members, but diminishes the influence
and effectiveness of the NRA; and

Whereas, the integrity and influence of NRA ratings are critical
to political candidates and to the NRA; and

Whereas, many groups both inside and outside the NRA use or depend
on NRA's ratings; and

Whereas, NRA Bylaw, Article X, Section 5 requires the Board of
Directors to set NRA-ILA policy and give NRA-ILA specific
directions as it deems advisable; and

Whereas, for fairness to all one must be able to know how ratings
are made; be it

Resolved, that effective January 1, 1997, for votes taken on or
after that date:

1. Any candidate for office who has voted contrary to an official
NRA position on any bill, regulation, rule, procedure, or motion
shall be ineligible to hold a rating of A+, A, or A-, or receive
awards given by NRA or ILA for a period of two election cycles.
Specific cases or terms of ineligibility may be waived or adjusted
by a committee of the President and Vice President(s). Any
adjustments or waivers sought shall be reported at the next
regular Board of Directors meeting, at which time any granted
shall be subject to Board approval. Should our rating system
change, ineligibility shall apply to the new top grade, inclusive
of augmentation or diminution (e.g., Strong 2nd Amendment + or -),
but no such change shall be made without prior advice and consent
by the Board of Directors.

2. Ineligibility shall not be waived by retroactive change or
withdrawal of NRA-ILA's position on a vote, or any later change in
NRA's position, without specific approval by a committee of the
President and Vice President(s). Such waivers sought shall be
reported at the next regular Board meeting, at which time ILA
shall report official positions on all votes since the prior
meeting and waivers granted shall be subject to Board approval.

3. Before rating congressional, state, or local candidates, NRA-
ILA shall in a timely fashion use best efforts to (a) consult
with appropriate local organizations, NRA Directors, and
activists after obtaining completed questionnaires, voting&gt; records, prior ratings and other relevant information and
sharing that information with them, and
(b) keep a readily-accessible record of information gathered.

Be it further

Resolved, that no bestowal of any honor or award in the name of
the NRA shall be made by anyone without prior consent of the
Board of Directors, and be it further

Resolved, that by the January 1997 Board meeting, NRA-ILA shall
present to the Board for consideration options for improving the
objectivity, credibility, and understandability of the ratings
system, including adoption of the standards used by Unified
Sportsmen of Florida.

End Resolution

Without sacrificing significant flexibility, the resolution
injects credibility into the A grade, guaranteeing an extra
reward and a real honor for those who stand by us when it counts.
The waiver provides for special cases where, for example, a
pro-gun legislator opposes a compromise (or "mistake") proposed
by our side, or parts ways on an issue that is not directly 2nd-
Amendment-related; generally, it provides for any reasonable but
unforeseen exception. The resolution also provides for prior
consultation on ratings with local activists and others (local
consultation on legislation already became policy at the January,
'92 Board meeting, though that resolution has been largely
ignored. Our resolution extended that basic policy to cover
ratings.)

Wayne LaPierre, Tanya Metaksa, and Marion Hammer fought the
resolution every step of the way, keeping it from a floor vote
by deferring it to the Spring meeting, to be preceded by a
February 10th ratings conference. Each of them predicted
"dire consequences" should ILA lose any of its flexibility to
give A ratings to gun grabbers.


If you're concerned about the future of the NRA, go to the members
meeting in Seattle and demand that the Board of Directors take
immediate action to stop ILA from giving its top grades to anti-
gun politicians, from threatening and abandoning pro-gun
politicians, from publishing phony success percentages, and
from selling out your rights to show phony "successes".

- - End Article -

[Post-print note: The resolution above was written in 1996, a time
when it appeared that NRA was "directed" by a board whose majority
supported the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and might at
least conceivably stand up to staff, enforce its own policies,
obey its own bylaws, and fulfill its moral and fiduciary duties
to the membership. Unfortunately, none of that is any longer the
case, if it ever was. The board is now controlled by a group that
has publicly abandoned its commitment to the original intent of
the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America. Under the current board composition, for the resolution
to potentially serve any purpose at all - and it's now doubtful
that it could - it would have to be toughened up and re-written
as a member bylaw change. Among other things, it should,

· Require timely and full disclosure of waivers, waiver policy,
and ILA's positions on gun related bills and votes, such
disclosure to be published in the magazines.

· Provide for immediate and full member access to candidate
questionnaires.

· Require NRA policy to support the original intent of the 2nd
Amendment. - Russ Howard]&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

FPRICE--Heres that united idealogical front you were looking for right??
Concrete gunownership policies you say.
Well GOA does that regulary but our feeble congress is not bold enough to pick up anthing the liberal media will bash them for.
But the NRA has presented them with some wonderful idea's that theyve used time and time again.Compromise,compromise compromise
and actually ENFORCE all these gunlaws weve told our members we were fighting all this time.
GOA does not regulary attack the NRA I do unless you mean the condemnation of project exile if so you need to rephrase that it was lead by KABA www.keepandbeararms.org that so many TFL members seem to enjoy being a member of and supported by JPFO,COA yes GOA
and a host of state lobbies.
You say NRA never takes time to attack GOA to promote themselves your right number one they have nothing to attack GOA over my favorite lobby doesnt PLAY politics they fight guncontrol and the NRA doesnt need to do that to promote themselves they have the LIBERAL media doing that and lying the whole time as they do it 'the NRA refuses to compromise, the NRA opposes all these bills'
all a bunch of baloney to make the NRA appear 10 times better than they are to any real patriots.
SPARTACUS---Weve also seen polls that state that most americans want more guncontrol laws and at other times registration of all handguns too.You also beleive those polls?
Show me two things Spartacus and Ill beleive your point,1 where Ron Paul and REP Helen Chennoeth-hage have had trouble in their districts getting re-elected or bashed by their local electorate and 2.where theyve ever compromised on our gunrights after GOA helped get them elected.
YES I am having more fun this way and I will continue to ,you know why because Im not supporting an organization that would have given Comrade Clinton 90% percent of what he wanted and claimed would make us safer.
WE may argue as to whether their infringements or even liberties but I dought youll argue that Clinton wanted all of those measures.


ruger45 is offline  
Old October 10, 2000, 01:54 AM   #18
ruger45
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Posts: 500
Solve the Problem

by Bryan S. Sampsel
7/26/2000

The biggest problem facing the gun rights movement today is the political landscape. Regardless of party affiliation, we see NRA backed politicians betraying us as soon as they feel a little heat. The NRA is a venerable organization that has been around a long time. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the full backing of its membership, nor does its management play hardball anymore.

The solution to the "NRA problem" is simple. Get involved on your own. Get involved with other organizations with a little more vigor: JPFO, GOA, SAF. Don't drop the NRA like last year's prom date. But expect a more cautious course from them. The NRA is the press's whipping boy.

Don't rely on the NRA to speak for you. Call the politicians when asked. Get irate. Get mad. Be polite. It doesn't matter, just let your representatives know that you are watching and WILL vote based on their actions.

Above all, vote. If you don't vote, don't bitch. You haven't done your duty as an American citizen. Excuses? Hogwash. None of them are worth a tinker's you-know-what. There is NO EXCUSE for not VOTING.

Voting. To expand on this topic, let me say, "Stop voting on party lines." Vote for the candidate, their actions, and what they stand for. Don't vote Republican or Democrat just because your grandaddy said so, or the Union said so, or whatever prompts you to elect based on party. For those who don't consider 3rd parties to be viable national options, vote for them at the local level. The Libertarians would be one honorable political party to elect to your city council, county commissioner, or School Board seats. There are many others, but make sure that the candidate stands for what you believe in.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms will become something we will have to become violent over unless we act peacefully NOW, by VOTING. I don't want the violence. I just want to keep my rights. I'll vote. I'll vote what my heart tells me to.

Many of us don't have the cash to donate to the RKBA organizations, such as NRA, JPFO, etc. For those short on cash, find out how to donate time instead. Teach. Get others hooked on guns. Many people are indifferent till they shoot a gun the first time. Get involved in some fashion.

The point of this rambling mess is simple. Get involved. Vote. And quit sticking your head in the sand.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Hmm sounds a lot like the original post but with less bias about who is ACTUALLY defending our rights and how effectively.
What advice would you guys give this fellow hes a gunsnet member....
Conf: Politics
From: Bill Tucker
Date: Friday, October 06, 2000 09:12 PM

Got a letter from the NRA yesterday endorsing the Democrat candidate, Max Sandlin, as the NRA candidate for US House.

The only conservative thing Sandlin has done in his four year career is vote for gun rights, and it takes a lot of bulldozing. Other than that, he's a left winger all the way. I supported his opponent, a true conservative, all the way in the last election, and the damned NRA picked Sandlin to recommend. Was hot then, but hell on wheels now.

Sandlin's new opponent is 2nd Amendment all the way and a real conservative, but still ignored by NRA in favor of the incumbent.

Thing that really gets my goat is that not only did NRA ignore the challenger's views,but they sent me a g****nd MAX SANDLIN FOR CONGRESS BUMPER STICKER in that letter, PAID FOR WITH MY DUES! And I gave 'em 25 bucks for politcal use as well (choke).

Ready to cancel my membership, as soon as I calm down enough. In the meantime, anybody got Charleton Heston's phone number?

Bill&gt;&gt;&gt;

Let me guess sit down shut up dont rock the boat or bash our great leaders? www.gunsnet.net



ruger45 is offline  
Old October 10, 2000, 02:02 AM   #19
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
Ok, so you know how to cut and paste. I am NOT saying that the NRA has not done these things. I am NOT saying that these things are the right things to do. I AM saying that boycotting the NRA is not the way to try to change the NRA. I do not think that your position and my position are really so far apart. Our main difference is that I think that all gun owners who believe as we do should obtain voting memberships in the NRA and change it into a true 800 lb gorilla.

------------------
Byron Quick

Byron Quick is offline  
Old October 10, 2000, 03:20 AM   #20
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
HMMM! Well, I'm in that guy's shoes every time I vote for a liberal Democrat or for a conservative Republican. I just don't see that much difference between today's liberals and conservatives. They both believe that the government should control my life. They just disagree about the degree of government control in various areas. They look like the difference between the head and the tail on a quarter. Heads or tails it is still a quarter. In the meantime, I will vote for the staunchest supporter for the Second Amendment, whatever his other policies for whether they be Democratic liberal policies or Republican conservative policies they are in disagreement with my beliefs. The NRA should abandon liberal Democrats who have supported them?? The NRA should have positions on issues other than upholding the Second Amendment? I don't think so. Upholding the Second Amendment is the only thing that has convinced me to vote for non-Libertarian candidates at all.

------------------
Byron Quick

Byron Quick is offline  
Old October 10, 2000, 08:28 AM   #21
FPrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2000
Location: People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Posts: 1,456
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ruger45:
Solve the Problem
The solution to the "NRA problem" is simple. Get involved on your own. Get involved with other organizations with a little more vigor: JPFO, GOA, SAF. Don't drop the NRA like last year's prom date. But expect a more cautious course from them. The NRA is the press's whipping boy.

Don't rely on the NRA to speak for you. Call the politicians when asked. Get irate. Get mad. Be polite. It doesn't matter, just let your representatives know that you are watching and WILL vote based on their actions.

Above all, vote. If you don't vote, don't bitch. You haven't done your duty as an American citizen. Excuses? Hogwash. None of them are worth a tinker's you-know-what. There is NO EXCUSE for not VOTING.

[/quote]

ruger45,

I knew that if you wrote enough we'd find something to agree on. And that is that every firearms owner must get involved. Whatever legitimate organization you use is fine. If you don't want to join an organization but want to work on your own, well that's fine also. But I think one would be shorting themselves by trying to go this alone.

Voting is another important issue. If we don't vote, we might as well leave our firearms out on the curb, with the rest of the trash, for the government to collect in the morning.

However I for one am not yet ready to write off the NRA, no matter how much "dirt" you may claim to have found.

Frosty
FPrice is offline  
Old October 10, 2000, 11:22 AM   #22
ruger45
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Posts: 500
SPARTACUS-Yes their are several points we can agree on thats always nice.I couldnt agree more on how the issues blurr when it comes to the stands (orlack their of) of liberals and so-called conservative reps.
It seems today that being a conservative rep simply means not pushing for outright bans on the more popular firearms.
Then with stauch real conservatives like
Ron Paul the lib's try to make him out to be an extremist and the other repub's usuallly abandon him.
Ofcourse I agree on voting I continually bash Gore and have posted many interesting article's on him.This week I sent money to join KABA,70 bucks for the GOA-PVF and more for their new t-shirt.I will be voting for my actual conservative senator Fred Thompson
and for Bush.We love the fact that here in TN
Gore has basically lost and love our
'Dont get gored in 2000' stickers.
FPRICE---I get Knox's alerts in the mail now
after a small contribution and I will continue to support his hardcore stand for
a change to a more pure NRA with no fear of the liberal media but..... as far as becoming a voting member I dont see anyone else on the NRA BOD that I could vote for the rest of them after 90% of the establishments do not vote for list has been eliminated are happy with the NRA policies.
Maybe some of you can give me more idea's on that one.
I beleive if the NRA BOD saw some of these more agressive lobbies rapidly gaining membership that might cause them to reexamine the policies ..maybe not but in the meantime.
www.gunowners.org www.ccops.org www.jpfo.org www.citizensofamerica.org


------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
ruger45 is offline  
Old October 10, 2000, 02:21 PM   #23
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
Hate to tell you this but Ron Paul aint't a conservative. He is a capital L Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. Love the man.

------------------
Byron Quick

Byron Quick is offline  
Old October 10, 2000, 03:39 PM   #24
Futo Inu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 1999
Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Posts: 3,624
I like that Blue Press article - it says what needs to be said to the non-voting or straight-Democrat-ticket-voting gun owners.
Futo Inu is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.15682 seconds with 10 queries