# Obama, "I support the 2nd Amendment."



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Ya right.

"Obama's choice for attorney general, a third critical post as the president-elect rounds out his top Cabinet echelon, is Eric Holder."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081122/ap_ ... PZUhJh24cA

Anybody remember him?

"Holder, as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration, said that the *Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but instead protects the right to have a firearm when serving with a militia.* After leaving office, Holder stuck to that assertion when he signed Janet Reno's brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case, which stated, "The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=4243

Bold added by me.

uke: uke: uke:

huntin1


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Have you noticed nobody wants to play anymore?

So many here couldn't wait to jump in and bash those of us who were trying to warn of his deep hatred of firearms by saying "he *SAID* he supports the 2nd amendment".

Where are those guys now?

And come to think of it...where's Ryan !!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

I don't understand why you guys go off all the time? Why don't you wait and see what happens, it seems like so many people are already whining about Obama, and what might happen. How about we support our next president, hope for the best, and pray things in our country can get worked out. My glass is half full, yours?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Maybe it's because this is not something that might happen, it's something that IS happening RIGHT NOW.

He is appointing one of the most radical anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment people in the US to the position of US Attorney General.

It should scare the hell out of anyone who would like to keep their firearms.

huntin1


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Bretts, I've seen your posts, and it looks to me like you've got your hands full elsewhere.

Your post explains your opinion. You confuse "support" for blind following. Are you married? Trust me, you CAN support someone you don't agree with, but sticking your head in the sand isn't good for anyone.

And I obviously can't, and won't speak for everyone, but I don't recall ever "going off" or whining. Please copy a post of mine you believe to show otherwise. I'm just amused by the lack of input from the Obama supporters post election...relative to their input before.

You certainly haven't adopted the "mission accomplished" mentality...have you?

You probably don't worry about guns though...being a bowhunter, and all. :wink:

Oh, and since you asked....half full or half empty doesn't describe my personality accurately enough. My answer would be..."why the hell didn't you fill it...there's room for more!"


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

Csquared said:


> Bretts, I've seen your posts, and it looks to me like you've got your hands full elsewhere.
> 
> Your post explains your opinion. You confuse "support" for blind following. Are you married? Trust me, you CAN support someone you don't agree with, but sticking your head in the sand isn't good for anyone.
> 
> ...


Honestly, I just wanna see what happens, yeah Im not that big into guns, but I own a few but I guess I don't feel like they will ever be taken away. All Im saying is you really never know what might happen, and IMO there are a lot of other issues I would like to see taken care of and worry about a lot more than guns. Not to say I don't believe it's important.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Keep in mind that Holder was appointed to a judge position by Reagan. Reagan must have liked something about him to give him his start in politics.

Joining in on the glass is half full attitude.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Okay, I will take the bait....

Where is everyone now? Well I think many people are sick of hearing how the sky is falling and how we should all be scared. As I stated early, the politics of fear is getting really old, (plus I think it is rather counter productive) especially after a 20 month election cycle that featured this principle over and over again.

Our country has functioned for almost 220 years on the principle of majority rule with minority rights. While I respect that everyone in the minority has the right to question the majority, I think the attempt to constantly draw on the message of totally biased fear turns people off. Meaning by doing so, it forces people to not even respond b.c they dismiss it as bias, far right, dribble.

The majority of voters have spoken, however the minority truly does not accept this. As for me instead of listening to the fear ridden messages of the minority, I will side with history here and trust that a transfer of power doesn't mean that we burn the constitution and start over......even though many of you think this path is inevitable.

And by the way, I voted for McCain.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I guess I really didn't think of it as speading fear, but going back and reading my posts they do come across that way.

I can accept that the majority have chosen. But does that mean we have to keep our head in the sand and accept whatever he wants to give us? I personally don't think so.

I think it's important to follow his decisions, important to see the direction he is going. Some of you guys don't, so be it.

My 2nd Amendment rights are important to me. A lot of people have died protecting the rights granted to us. Obama does not respect our Constitution or the rights granted by it, he wants to change it.

You can stick your head in the sand and hope for the best. I choose not to.

edited to add: I'm sorry if I scared some of you. I'll try not to spread so much fear in the future.

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

My attitude, even with Obama's record, is hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. Don't forget the old Boy Scout motto "be prepared". To be otherwise is to be foolish.

If we wait to see what happens we are already to late. Those of you complaining about those who complain have fallen into a catch 22, your complaining. Ironically if our firearms freedoms are preserved it will be by the people your complaining about. I would suggest lead, follow, or at least get out of the way. As it stands now if Obama is truly after our firearms your part of the problem. Think about it.

In the end though a million of you hoping will have less affect than one man doing something. So go ahead and hope while someone else actively defends your freedom. All I would ask is don't be a ball and chain to those defending. Those who are watching are like Paul Revere. Those of you who complain about them ( I seriously can't think of an example).


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I'll put it quite simply.

Before the election, we said Obama was no friend of firearm owners.

The election is over, and the evidence continues to grow that we were right.

None of us is suggesting we dont respect Mr Obama. But none of us is willing to completely drop our guard either.

You can call it spreading fear if you like, but if the messages are 100% fact, like that of Mr. Holders contempt of the 2nd amendment, I prefer to call ithem informational updates.

Fact of the matter is our rights are not guarantied to be safe under any administration.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Fact of the matter is our rights are not guarantied to be safe under any administration.


Truer words were never spoken, and that explains this a little better. It's not about us not liking Obama. It's about us being perceptive enough to know some of his intentions. He's not the first to aggressively try to customize the 2nd amendment to his personal liking, if that is what he tries to do, but indications are he might well be the worst. And why is it that when people here have explained that to those who prefer to put more emphasis on campaign rhetoric than public record, those people are accused of crying "the sky is falling"? Some on this site have posted info that would justify those types of remarks, but I have seen nothing of the sort from anyone involved in this thread.

I suspect that reaction is due to the lack of ability to counter those claims with any substantive facts....because there aren't any! If you can find any public record where Obama has defended the 2nd amendment, or he does so as President, I will be the first to post here I was wrong about his intentions. But I fully expect any discussons he's involved in on the subject will be explaining why he feels the "changes" in question concerning proposed gun laws are "reasonable".

And excuse me for being blunt, but this notion that just because the majority has spoken those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment must sit quietly and just "let things take it's course" is *WORSE* than burying your head in the sand.

How much money do you think we would still be sending to Great Britain if we allowed the "majority" to decide what was worth fighting for?

On that note, I'm curious what is worth fighting for to guys like Gooseguy and Bretts. It's probably ok with you to ban black rifles, and maybe it's ok to tax 9mm ammo, etc...but where do you draw the line? Can Obama tax certain ammo? What if he taxes components...is that OK? What if he taxes components at the manufacturer level so that ALL powder costs more, and all of a sudden a box of your favorite shotgun shells jumps drastically in price?

He will call all his proposed changes "reasonable". That's what he said immediately after he went on record in support of the Heller decision when he said the ruling did NOT say the government couldn't impose _reasonable_ restrictions on the 2nd amendment. So what do you guys consider reasonable?

And since I don't expect anyone to do anything I won't do, I'll put my stance firmly on the record here (although I doubt it's necessary at this point). I am for NO MORE gun laws until they effectively and agressively enforce the ones already on the books. Until they stop letting criminals go that guys like huntin 1 risked their life to catch.

It's a novel idea. It's called punishing the *bad guy*. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Very good post Csquared. Many are calling this crying the sky is falling, but I have a different perspective. Danger has never been spotted first by those who sleep, nor those who are awake, but laugh at those who stand watch. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem the decision is yours. Keep in mind the freedoms you have now you only have because of the type of people who stand watch. I would guess many thought Paul Revere and his friends were idiots too.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Being called_ idiots_ was the least of their concerns. If the "majority" had their way they would have been called* traitors* !!!!

Oh well, you and I and many others here will keep standing watch, and keep supporting the NRA, etc., and the others will continue to reap the benefits for free..........until big brother finally gets to a subject that *they* think is worth fighting about...

.....only time will tell who's left to care about* their* fight.

Oh, and we can also help by reminding them where thay can find quality swim goggles to keep the sand out of their eyes ! :lol:


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

I may be alittle out in left field here but, with a liberal president and a mostly liberal congress, how hard would it be to slip a gun law into various bills here and there? Not to be enacted or enforced until the people catch on to what they're doing or there are enough of them to significantly affect gunowners rights. I admitedly don't pay as much attention as I should that's why I appreciate these posts and the people that post them(the gun nuts, you know who you are  ).

Thank you fellas for keeping us informed.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

There is no doubt going to be some changes to gun laws. Hopefully they are not too extreme and hopefully the balance of power works in the favor of legitimate gun owners.

We do have a lot of moderate democrats in DC from the midwest and guys like Dorgan and Conrad wield a lot of power right now. It takes only a few minutes to drop an email to them and let them know how you feel about gun legislation.

If the NRA had actually been working for gun owners this would be a non issue. After the 9/11 attacks the NRA should have been pushing for laws to bury the gun control lobby once and for all. We had repub control all over DC and the supreme court and a population that was very leary of being attacked again. This would have been the perfect time to get this done but the NRA was asleep at the wheel, they are no better than these wall street and detroit goons we are dealing with now. There would have been no Heller suit, no executive order on gun bans, no lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and there would not be skyrocketing gun costs. The NRA is the Fannie mae of the gun and hunting industry. The NRA has done a lot of good things in the past but they are completley incompetent right now. LaPierre and his management team at the NRA need to go and people who will get things done need to take over.

Now we are left to speculate and pray that cooler heads and common sense prevails in Washington DC of all places.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I forgot to mention that another mall shooting and another church shooting this weekend is really going to help things.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If the NRA had actually been working for gun owners this would be a non issue. After the 9/11 attacks the NRA should have been pushing for laws to bury the gun control lobby once and for all. We had repub control all over DC and the supreme court and a population that was very leary of being attacked again. This would have been the perfect time to get this done but the NRA was asleep at the wheel


I was thinking the same thing ever since the attack. I couldn't agree with you more. I don't think the NRA was asleep I think the rotten suckers didn't want to be to successful. If they had been then they couldn't scare us into giving more money. They always keep us on the edge. However, that being said they are the only organization large enough to wield power in DC.



> hopefully the balance of power works in the favor of legitimate gun owners.


That's a good thought TK33, but what balance of power. The democrats have the presidency and the congress. If they manage to steal two more seats they will be filibuster proof. Look at what's happening in Minnesota. Even if they don't steal those seats they are still the majority. There are some moderate democrats, but there are some leftist republicans too. Also, don't count on Conrad or Dorgan. I called Dorgan's office one only to have the receptionist argue with me.

I'll also agree with you that we couldn't get much worse than LaPierre running the NRA.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman and TK, your discussion of TK's point about lobbyists post 9-11 is an interesting one. I'm sure we would all love to see the anti-gun lobby go away, but how do you do that legislatively without also curtailing the NRA's ability to do the same?

You both are forgetting one important piece of the puzzle. Bush is not conservative on *MANY* issues, and the 2nd amendment is one of those. I don't want to get into pros and cons of NRA leadership, but I highly doubt they missed the boat on any pro-gun legislation just hanging out there for Bush to sign if it got to his desk. He's like many on here in that his idea of untouchable gun rights is measured by whether or not it limits his ability to shoot Texas quail. Do you really think he would have signed anything? I have discussed that issue many times. Not the specific issue of anti-lobbying legislation, but the fact that while we had Republican control *NO ONE *made anything that is important to me and most conservatives a priority. With the brief exception of partial birth abortions Bush's hands were tied with the war. I don't blame the NRA for that...I blame* BUSH *for that. I fully expect Obama to do a *MUCH* better job of rallying the troops (and I don't mean the ones in uniform :wink: ) and keeping them going in the direction _HE_ thinks is important.

But I agree in that we absolutely did miss an opportunity to further our cause......assuming we had a conservative in power :wink:



> There is no doubt going to be some changes to gun laws. Hopefully they are not too extreme and hopefully the balance of power works in the favor of legitimate gun owners.


Let's discuss this a little bit, too. I can't think of *ANY* gun legislation that's come from a democratic administration that's come even close to benefitting legitimate gun owners. It's always another concession the legitimate gun owners have to make for the sake of _"public safety" _. I can think of a handful at the state level, but please fill me in on what I'm missing at the federal level. 

And I respect the right of both of you to hate LaPierre's guts, but please don't tell me you allow that to be your excuse to let your membership lapse, because as stated, they're the only show in town willing to channel all their resources to one common cause. I don't agree with them on all the issues, but until there is another _viable _option I firmly believe *ALL* gun owners should annie up.

But as much as you're convinced we (conservatives) missed a golden opportunity post 9-11, we're at the other end of the political ebb and flow now, so the NRA will need all the help they can get. Many people with *VERY* deep pockets have been very vocal of their support for Obama (just look what one is doing for Al Franken), and we know from the past the feeling those same people share concerning the 2nd amendment.

I don't know what it means to prepare for the worst in this case, but as far as hoping for the best I just hope the gun laws by the middle of the next decade resemble those of the mid 90's.

...but I have friends who are hoping the Cubs win the World Series, too :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Csquared don't worry about me. As ticked as I get with the NRA they are the only show in town big enough to help protect our gun rights, and we are really going to need them soon.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Csquared don't worry about me. As ticked as I get with the NRA they are the only show in town big enough to help protect our gun rights, and we are really going to need them soon.


I knew that, but my main intent was to remind those who might be reading and looking for reasons to justify non-membership that upper management faults in no way warrants avoidance of the organization.

You have always been a vocal supporter, but far too many are far too willing to let the rest of us pay for their insurance.

In a way, the NRA is a shining example of...let's call it _"conservative socialism". _Meaning that there are many, many proud gun owners out there willing to use someone else's money to provide their protection.

I know talking like this will alienate me from some, but some people remember things that piss them off longer than happy talk, and my goal would be to eat at the conscience of *ALL* gun owners who neglect to write a check to the NRA every year.

Anyway, I piss people off for a living......

I'm used to it ! :wink:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I think that Plainsman is right on the money with the NRA not wanting to win because it would more than likely hurt their cash flow, I am glad that someone who is on the right said it, I have been thinking that for a few years now but everytime I say it I get called a liberal or something.

The NRA is the only game in town, but like the Cubs they still suck. I am surprised that none of Bush's big money supporters from Texas didn't make him do something with guns. I guess I am just disgusted that we have made no progress on gun rights for a long time now and just venting. I wouldn't tell anyone not to join the NRA, but at the same time there are other hunting groups like PF, DU, and Rocky Mountian Elk that actuallly get results and you can see the rewards of their membership.

It is too bad to hear about your troubles with Dorgan's office, I have had good luck with them and that is the way it should be.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK33 those organizations you mentioned are great, but they are more habitat oriented than protecting gun owner rights. I belong to many of those types of organizations, but the NRA too. I wish there was another choice for an organization that fights for our firearms rights, but there is none that can compare. 
I look at the NRA this way TK: If your starving and someone offers you a cabbage it isn't ribeye, but it's food. If you own firearms for any reason now is the time to join the NRA. They tick me off like they do you, but if you want your children to relish the same freedoms we have today you better join. I am 60 years old and let me tell you I am not as free today as I was in 1960. Unfortunately when your my age I think you will tell the younger people the same thing. Incrementally we loose freedom ---- incrementally ----- slow enough that no one notices.


----------



## landyn2003 (May 14, 2005)

Plainsman: Information you requested:

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation's strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Your post details why Gunowner said this:



> Fact of the matter is our rights are not guarantied to be safe under any administration.


Your post also reminds us of things we already knew. That no one named Bush cares much about guns unless you can shoot quail with it....

And that nothing pro-gun will ever come from either coast. Plainsman said it best when he wondered aloud about sea water affecting brain function. :wink:

The info about Nixon doesn't surprise me any, but remember that Reagan was the guy who held a press conference before his bullet wounds were healed, and in that conference one of the first things he said was that no gun laws could have prevented what happened to him that day.

But thanks for reminding us that an "R" after their name does not excuse them from scrutiny.

I dream sometimes that our liberal acquaintances will one day feel the same about the letter "D". :wink:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Plainsman:
TK33 those organizations you mentioned are great, but they are more habitat oriented than protecting gun owner rights

I agree with you, but the work that they are doing is going more towards the rights of sportsman and will fetch a lot more support than the NRA in the general population. More americans support hunting and shooting sports than a percieved radical NRA.

Csquared:
I knew that, but my main intent was to remind those who might be reading and looking for reasons to justify non-membership that upper management faults in no way warrants avoidance of the organization

Not giving your money to an organization run by money hungry do nothing fools is a great reason not to give them your money. They prey on fears because they have no desire or motivation to get things done, enough people ditch them, maybe they will have a shake up.

Csquared:
but far too many are far too willing to let the rest of us pay for their insurance.

What insurance are you talking about? They have done nothing. I was an NRA member, since they are not listening to their members the only way you can get your point across is to stop supporting them. The too many you are talking about do not want to give their hard earned money to see nothing done with it besides a sticker and a mesh back cap.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> enough people ditch them, maybe they will have a
> shake up.


That kind of thinking might just get you invited to Chuck and Diane's New Year's party !!!!!!



> What insurance are you talking about? They have done nothing.


Come on, TK, you're obviously a smart guy, and as such you know better! Gun laws as we know them would have been antiquated *YEARS* ago without them with the Supreme Courts' unwillingness to get involved.



> The too many you are talking about do not want to give their hard earned money to see nothing done with it besides a sticker and a mesh back cap


.

You can believe that if you want...I imagine it helps you sleep at night. But I don't. I believe it's the same mentality that allows one to keep the money when they are accidentally given back too much change when they "justify it" by convincing themselves it wasn't their fault.

If the above doesn't apply to you, please enlighten us all on where you send your money instead. Every other organization I can think of looks at the issue from another angle...mainly hunting. And because of that have conflicting ideas of how the money should be best used. That's one of the beauties of the NRA. No conflicts. They are* STRICTLY* about the 2nd amendment, and that's exactly what we need.

My main question to you, TK, is what exactly are these things that you believe the NRA should have done but didn't?

Please take the time to answer. I gotta go to my treestand now so I'm in a hurry, but I would love to continue this conversation!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

landyn2003, thanks for the reminder that there are 2nd amendment backstabbers in both parties. I hope you kept in mind that until 1994 the democrats had control of congress for 40 years. Any bills passed was passed by a democrat congress. Some of them perhaps could have been vetoed, and maybe some could not be. I don't excuse any of the republicans that turned their back on our rights under the constitution.

I think there were other bills worse than those you listed. We lost the freedom of purchasing firearms by mail in 1968. I remember some of the fools in sports shops being happy about it. Now they had us over a barrel and the price of firearms went up overnight.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Clinton put the Assault Weapons ban in place? At one time they wanted to give the BATF the authority to add firearms to the list as they saw fit. That's way to much power for a government agency. This is a great danger, because it can be revived so easily. That's why gun sales are up 48% since the election.

Review this thread: http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=61756

This is exactly the problem. Do you know who will loose our firearms for us? We know our enemies and if we stick together we have a chance. The real problem however is our friends. The people on this site that say it can't happen. The people on this site that make light of those who try to awaken them to the real danger that is before us now. The scoff, just like the people in Britain and Australia and say we have a second amendment. With Congress and the president of same mind the entire second amendment can be gone in a blink of the eye.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

In case some are inclined to twist history to their liking, perhaps this will help keep things in perspective.

It's easy to see from this time line what types of administrations have been gun friendly, and which have not.

I'm sure we could dive into this more deeply if needed. :wink:



> History
> 
> In order to better understand the societal and legislative history of privacy in gun acquisition, it is useful to recount the chronology of gun legislation and the development of gun-related organizations in the U.S. Regulation of firearms began to increase in the 1930s, but restrictions were eased in the 1980s. While the early 1990s saw an increase in gun purchase regulation, more recent legislation has focused on the protection of the privacy of gun owners. The following is a timeline of important federal legislation and national organizations tied to the issue of gun control.
> 
> ...


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I already answered what I think the NRA should have done above, trying not to be redundent. The NRA missed the boat during the early years of the Bush II regime. Now we will be left to beg for whatever definition of the 2nd Amendment the current powers that be feel like interpreting.

I support DU and PF.

I do not sleep well at night when I think about where our "rights" as gun owners are going. I am very afraid that gun ownership will be reserved for the elite. That is why I think the NRA needs to align themselves with conservation groups and try to make some progress on gun rights and get legislation that is clearly defined and will benefit both gun owners and the general public that seems to want something done with guns. If we fail to do this the anti's will grow in number and clout and then we will be in trouble. The NRA's failure to act during a time when they (us) had the advantage will now lead to concessions on our part. Good bye black guns, hello more permits and bureaurocracy to buy a single shot .410.

How do you think we go about getting the NRA and DC to hear our side?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There is no doubt the NRA needs to be more responsive to it's members. I have spent a complete day trying to find a representative to speak to without success. I have never had a call returned. They tick me off for sure, but they can not dilute the funds they have to fight for or improve habitat. There are a dozen organizations for that, and only one big enough to influence your freedom to own a firearm.

Get on board or your part of the problem. You don't have to like them, but if enough of us start complaining to them instead of to each other perhaps they will become more responsive. Perhaps I will try to email them this thread.

Edit 8:20am: I did email the thread address to NRA along with a message expressing my concern that they were not responsive to members during important state and federal legislation.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

TK33 wrote:


> I already answered what I think the NRA should have done above, trying not to be redundent. The NRA missed the boat during the early years of the Bush II regime. Now we will be left to beg for whatever definition of the 2nd Amendment the current powers that be feel like interpreting.
> 
> I support DU and PF.


Thanks very much for the respnse, TK. I can disagree with anyone while never losing respect for them as long as they stay in the discussion and are willing to explain their stance.

I am also a DU member, but no part of me ever believes the dollars I send them should be used for any purpose other than to benefit the ducks......not the duck hunters. Not directly, anyway. :wink:

The same goes for the NRA and the 2nd amendment.

You already know you're not actively doing anything to protect *OUR* gun rights so you don't need to hear it from me. In my state we have an organization called the Illinois State Rifle Association. They are excellent at keeping tabs on our state lawmakers, and I believe may be a big reason why the pending bills that would ban all semi-autos of .50 or larger, with no exceptions for shotguns, have not come up for a vote yet. They have reps basically camped out watching for a midnight surprise vote. Perhaps if you really can't force yourself to give to the NRA you could support a group similar to the ISRA.

You obviously know the NRA would be my first choice by far, but I'd rather you give to some gun group than convince yourself you're doing your part by supporting the bird groups.

Plainsman wrote:


> Get on board or your part of the problem. You don't have to like them, but if enough of us start complaining to them instead of to each other perhaps they will become more responsive. Perhaps I will try to email them this thread.
> 
> Edit 8:20am: I did email the thread address to NRA along with a message expressing my concern that they were not responsive to members during important state and federal legislation.


Plainsman, you're a genius! As much as I ***** I never thought of involving them that way. Will be interesting to hear their response. But even if they tell us to piss off, I* STILL *hope we all send them money :wink:

Afterall, we're not picking between Wal Mart and K Mart here. We *ALL* need to be smart about the battles we pick...and who we enlist to help us with the most important battles of all. :beer:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I don't think the NRA needs to be spending money on conservation projects like habitat and game development like DU or PF. I think the NRA needs to get themselves aligned with them to portray themselves as more of a sportsmen's group that bird dogs the second amendment, I am positive that this will help the NRA shed its radical image and catch the support of more mainstream americans that support gun owners and just want to see them regulated a little more.

Plainsman stated he can't get a hold of the NRA, I had the same problem right before I quit the NRA. This is why I don't think the NRA cares about their members, only about lining their pockets, like all these other corporate stooges. Obama skated into the white house without ever being forced to put his gun control plan on the record. Blame the liberal media all you want but where was McCain, Palin, republican leadership, and the NRA for not going after this. I would feel a lot better about where this is headed if Obama had been forced to go on record before he was elected.

Once the NRA gets their ducks in a row and shows that they will represent their members I will be back on board immediately, until then I will not waste my cash. I don't feel that I am part of the problem rather part of the solution, if the NRA sees angry members and/or declining membership they will be forced to change their ways, I don't foresee the incoming administration bailing them out.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Obama skated into the white house without ever being forced to put his gun control plan on the record. Blame the liberal media all you want but where was McCain, Palin, republican leadership, and the NRA for not going after this. I would feel a lot better about where this is headed if Obama had been forced to go on record before he was elected.


His record has been explained here many times, and practically every time it was met with disbelief by otherwise proud gun owners. They were perfectly content that he *SAID* he supported the 2nd amendment.

And they have been very quiet of late. :wink:

But hey, I'll make you a deal. You don't like the NRA so I'll pay your share of your 2nd amendment protection. I don't like insurance companies, and my truck insurance is due.....

..care to help a guy out.... :wink:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I don't even want to know what your insurance is in IL. So no I will not take your bet. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck and roll into town, I am not betting on anything that is in the hands of the DC roundheads.

I know what Obama's record was, right now all I can find about Obama's plans are the assualt weapons ban, the conceal and carry ban except for retired cops, and the Tahirt (I think) backround check. I hope that is it, and I also hope Obama doesn't need to rely on Moveon.org for support. When I said Obama should have been forced to go on record I meant like in a debate, national interview, etc. I love NoDak Outdoors but it is not the NY Times or CNN or Fox News.

You think you are paying for my insurance on guns, when I call my agent he answers the phone and at least pretends to listen to me while he laughs his way to the bank, that is more than I can say for the NRA. What effect do you think the NRA had on this last election? I can't believe that there is not one NRA rep who at least checks in on this and other outdoor sites.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I forgot, if you and/or plainsmen can give me 3 examples of what the NRA is doing for us right now, I mean real action not just propaganda and finger pointing I will rejoin.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I can't believe that there is not one NRA rep who at least checks in on this and other outdoor sites.


That would be nice wouldn't it. I would settle for an area on their website that says contact us, and when you brought it up gave you more of a choice, not their predetermined choices.

I'm not sure how many lobbyists the NRA has in Washington, perhaps hundreds. I would perhaps have doubted those numbers if a fellow conservative had told me, but I heard it from a liberal complaining about it. Every time a bill comes up that could damage our second amendment rights Washington is hit with an army of NRA lobbyists. That is where I want my money going, but I would like the NRA and members to have a two way conversation.

The political arm of the NRA is the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action). With membership you do get a magazine, and I'm not sure if you still get firearms theft insurance up to $1000 as we did in the past or not. There was also liability insurance with that membership. I have not kept up to speed with those benefits because I have been to concerned with everyone keeping their guns.

Oh, yes then there is the National Youth Shooting Sports. The legislative alerts if you leave your email address. We don't notice it in North Dakota, but where laws come up in states that may endanger the rights of gun owners in those states they spend money on radio and TV ads.

I just went to their site. I see they have a business alliance club, support firearms training, have a special site for law enforcement, youth programs, women's programs, hunter programs, range services, and the list goes on.

I don't think the NRA is that radical. The media simply has been very successful at demonizing them and convincing people that the NRA is radical. I started another thread today after reading an article titled "watching the news makes you dumber". It deals with not only the misinformation our media feeds us, but the disinformation they intentionally feed us. Lets not let them get away with it.

I think the media has been so successful at demonizing the NRA that many gun owners are afraid they will be labeled extreme if they stick up for the NRA. Well, I never have responded to that very well.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Alrighty...now we're gettin somewhere !!!!!

I mean this with all due respect, but I don't think there's anything Plainsman or I can explain to you that will make you want to join, but I'll try.

I'll do some in depth reading for you tomorrow so I can post accurate details, but one thing that's happening all across the country right now is the NRA is filing suit to force all cities with DC style bans on personal ownership of handguns to comply with the Heller decision. If DU is helping to defray those costs, I must have missed it in my last magazine. :wink:

Another very important issue that the NRA was instrumental in was bringing to light the grossly un-Constitutional events of post-Katrina gun confiscations in New Orleans. Because of their efforts many guns have been returned and I believe several laws have been written to help prevent that from happening after another disaster....at a time when citizens need the ability to protect themselves the most.

Didn't hear about that on CNN or in the NY Times, I bet. :wink:

I would also imagine that NRA brass has spoken with all Republican players with the same exact concerns as you have touched on. McCain sucks when it comes to the 2nd amendment. I saw him dodge the question in an almost Obama-like fashion when Chris Dorsey asked him to explain his stance on the issue. uke:

But we knew that. What sucks worse is that when compared to Obama, McCain looks good !

Palin didn't create such a stir because she's pretty. Finally conservatives had something to get excited about. That is something that I believe the NRA is reminding the Republicans of. Only time will tell if the Republicans listen. They probably can't talk right now, what with all the licking of wounds that must surely still be going on !

I gotta get to bed. Do I get credit for 2 of the necessary 3...or do you feel like the examples mentioned don't count...or matter?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I gotta correct you Csquared-rejoin, I was a member for about 7 years.

Like you and plainsman have said it is the media who demonizes the NRA but they do themselves no favors. When Heston said "out of my cold dead hands" other NRA members thought it was great. I was one of the few who realized that was a PR disaster. I know our conservation groups do nothing for gun ownership. Plainsman was also right when he commented about ND being insulated from the gun control issues. It is law in the ND Century Code that municipalities, counties, etc cannot trumph state laws on gun control. The only exception I am positive on is in the city of fargo your gun has to be cased unless you have a cc permit.

I was looking for more legislative issues in recent sessions, also is it the NRA who actually brings these lawsuits against these cities? They have at least two new ones-Seattle and Pittsburgh.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK33, I don't know what else I can say, but you have been kind and reasonable and I appreciate that very much. Enough that I am not going to push this any further, but simply let you think about the points we have made. Have a great day. :thumb:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The bottom line for me is I do want the NRA to succeed. The same way I want wall street and big three in detroit to succeed. I just hate their tactics and leadership, leadership sets the tone for the rest of the company and more importantly sets the direction. Right now we are seeing a change in leadership at all levels. Generational change, racial change, and huge philosophical changes and it is time for the NRA to catch up. You guys made a lot of great points and I learned a few things.

I got a very interesting and encouraging letter from Sen. Byron Dorgan today. I wish I could scan it onto the site, it might calm some fears and put a halt to the Obama Sales at the gun shops. I emailed his office about a month ago about semi automatic guns. In a nutshell Dorgan stated that he and several of his collegues in the senate (I am assuming mainly dems) are against banning any semiautos used for hunting, sporting, and self defense. Dorgan also stated the he will vote against any special licensing for gun ownership. He also stated that he works with the NRA on keeping laws safe for ND hunters and sporting shooters, who knew?

On the lighter side, right before I logged on I opened my mailbox (postal) and I got a letter from the NRA for a reduced membership cost and a free duffel bag. The first thing that ran throught my head was plainsman and Csquared, like Karma or divine intervention or something. I figured when I logged on tonight that Csquared will have a laundry list of things for me and the good Lord was cutting me some slack by giving me ten bucks off a one year membership, along with a bag for all the words I may have to eat!
I will probably re-join, we have beat this one nearly to death.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

TK, I *JUST* got home...long day!

...and saw you had just posted this. I like your use of the word Karma. :wink:

I didn't have any time tonight to complile that laundry list you mentioned, but I will if you _really_ want me to.

But I don't think you do, and after reading your last post I don't think it's necessary. I learned a long time ago anyone who's worth his salt won't be easily swayed by either side, so it actually speaks well of you, in a way, that you've resisted our ideals.

But another thing I learned a long time ago is that if you give an intelligent and reasonable person access to the facts, more often than not he will make the right decision. I don't think there's any doubt you fit both descriptions, so you'll come around ! :wink:

I will admit I was thinking you had your mind made up and even if we had proof that the NRA had warned Christ about Pontious Pilot you still wouldn't join...but I'm very glad to say I may have been wrong k:

My goal is not to sign you up, but to remind everyone that gun ownership comes with *MANY* responsibilities. Certainly not the least of which is to be ever watchful of *ANYONE *or *ANYTHING* who would trample on our rights. And although we may not approve of their tactics, there still isn't anyone who does that better, or more effectively, than the NRA.

If you got nothing else from this discussion, I hope you'll carry that with you for awhile.

On a side note, I had to laugh about your mention of "out of my cold, dead hands". I also was not thrilled by that logic. But I was involved in another discussion here recently with a poster who refused to re-join because they *DON'T* say that anymore !! So you don't have to look any further than right here to see the dilemna the NRA faces.  

Last time I checked I believe something like 1 out of 5 avid gun owners were NRA members, and when considering ALL households with a gun it's far less than half that. That absolutely SUCKS, and it must be *vastly improved*. These are tough times we're facing, and any chance we have to maintain our rights as we now know them will take a lot of work....and money. So I don't care if the NRA starts sponsoring purse snatchings from elderly women, until there's a better organized entity to defend our rights...I'm supporting them.

One other thing to consider. Can you think of anything Chuck Schumer hates more than handguns? My guess would be the NRA. I have quotes by him clearly stating his disdain for them. And Clinton credited them for the crushing defeats in his first mid-term election. To me, nothing else could illustrate the merits of the NRA better than the hatred of those who also hate our 2nd amendment rights.

I'm exhausted, but didn't want to keep you waiting for a reply. :wink:

Let me know if you still want that laundry list. :lol:

Thanks for the discussion!


----------

