SOLD OUT!!!! by the NRA [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : SOLD OUT!!!! by the NRA


IronHorseman
06-10-2007, 12:45
I wonder what the price will be on gun registration? If the feds are going to pay the state to maintain the NICS database they will no doubt bribe the state to start a gun registration program ( we just got that 4473 problem fixed here in Indiana ) and force trigger lock usage. Remember the Gun Maker protection act had language inserted by the DemonRats to require locks be sold with all new handguns. Will we get stuck with required usage of these locks now?
The NRA is great when it comes to youth programs and competitive shooting but they are a sorry excuse for a gun rights group. I need to maintain my NRA membership because of my club affiliation but I`m depending on the GOA and my fellow 2nd Amendment Patriots to defend my rights.



WP: Dems, NRA reach deal on gun bill - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
Address:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19146984/

Prometheus77
06-10-2007, 16:05
The NRA has been selling gun owner down the river for years.

I think more people are waking up. The NRA that my grandfather belonged to is NOT the same NRA of today.

I dumped my support of the NRA back in 2001, I've been with the GOA since 2000.

I also make sure they know why I won't ever join as a life member... because I don't want to see them go the way of the NRA and they have to earn my membership every year.

rhino465
06-10-2007, 17:07
The late Neil Knox was the last vestige of what NRA should have been, but as we all know, he was ousted by the compromisers and other wussies in the mid 1990s.

I'll keep my NRA membership for a variety of reasons, but their pathetic job as fighting the RKBA battle is not one of them. I too am a GOA member. I need to renew my 2nd Amendment Foundation and JPFO memberships too.

KSFreeman
06-10-2007, 17:23
The bill contains nothing that you cite in your parade of horribles.

What specifically are you upset about?

KSFreeman
06-10-2007, 17:24
How has the NRA "sold you down the river"?

IronHorseman
06-10-2007, 17:47
Originally posted by KSFreeman
How has the NRA "sold you down the river"?

That`s easy,they compromised on a gun control measure.They should have flatly opposed it.

slewfoot
06-10-2007, 18:11
I know of a couple of former NRA members that quit BECAUSE the NRA would not compromise.

Maybe they are getting feedback from members to try to stick to the middle of the road.

I am not one of those. Give the anti gunners an inch and they will take the whole nine yards.

The worst thing we could do is let the likes of Schumer and Lautenberg smell blood in the water.

IronHorseman
06-10-2007, 18:55
Originally posted by slewfoot


Give the anti gunners an inch and they will take the whole nine yards.




AMEN!!!

thetoastmaster
06-10-2007, 20:17
No compromise! Not now, not ever!

gunowners.org

JPFO.org

KSFreeman
06-11-2007, 08:47
What "compromise"?

What was illegal is still illegal. The antis have gained nothing and more money is pledged to states so that mental health records which already disqualify certain individuals can be updated.

PMY
06-11-2007, 15:10
At the risk of having my bone fides questioned, I note that there's more than a little irony in the GOA rushing to the defense of the certified insane.

KSFreeman
06-12-2007, 05:49
I'll ask again today and see if I get an answer: what is everyone so upset about? The antis gained absolutely nothing. "Compromise" implies that we lost something, put your finger on what we lost. It was illegal for the insane to possess firearms, it is still illegal for the insane to possess firearms.

Is there something specifically that you object to? Or, do you just object to the NRA talking to the antis? Again the antis got nothing and just yesterday the antis were stating that they will not attach anything to the bill and the NRA said that if they did it would die.

The antis got jack squat. Why is everyone so upset?

Skyhook
06-12-2007, 06:27
Here we go again.

"I hate Wal-Mart" thread must be next.:upeyes:

MakeMineaP99
06-12-2007, 18:54
Originally posted by KSFreeman
I'll ask again today and see if I get an answer: what is everyone so upset about? The antis gained absolutely nothing. "Compromise" implies that we lost something, put your finger on what we lost. It was illegal for the insane to possess firearms, it is still illegal for the insane to possess firearms.

Is there something specifically that you object to? Or, do you just object to the NRA talking to the antis? Again the antis got nothing and just yesterday the antis were stating that they will not attach anything to the bill and the NRA said that if they did it would die.

The antis got jack squat. Why is everyone so upset?

+1. What has changed? Prohibited persons were introduced in the GCA of '68.

Jerseycitysteve
06-12-2007, 19:10
Originally posted by MakeMineaP99
+1. What has changed? Prohibited persons were introduced in the GCA of '68.

Of course nothing has changed! Two kinds of folks hate the NRA. The first are the RKBA purists who want guns sold like hammers. The second just want to justify not paying dues.

Loucks
06-13-2007, 03:47
Originally posted by Jerseycitysteve
Of course nothing has changed! Two kinds of folks hate the NRA. The first are the RKBA purists who want guns sold like hammers. The second just want to justify not paying dues.
First type reporting in!

:patriot:

Blitzer
06-13-2007, 04:42
Originally posted by KSFreeman
What "compromise"?

What was illegal is still illegal. The antis have gained nothing and more money is pledged to states so that mental health records which already disqualify certain individuals can be updated.

At the onset I was in favor of tracking the mental patients' information but now I have made a totally 180 degree turn!

We and the NRA both are being duped! The measure is a feel good action at best and has the stench and severe undertones of Socialism/Communism in the way it is set up!

A recent report indicates the medical community has no central clearing house to readily allow anyone or agency to glean such information in the first place? Where is the funding for such data collection and reporting and who will manage the data if it is collected?

Check these links:

http://www.jmir.org/2005/1/e3

http://www.redmedic.com/jsp/site/Portal.jsp?page_id=34

http://www.fortherecordmag.com/archives/ftr_01082007p16.shtml

http://www.medicaldevice-network.com/features/feature371/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-11-19-online-records_x.htm

...However, there are still a couple of issues that keep medical professionals from stampeding into cyberspace.

First, old habits die hard. Manual record-keeping is as much a part of many doctors' habits as a cold stethoscope and a lollipop for the kid with the sore throat. Many physicians are comfortable with their record-keeping and see no real reason to change.

Second, there's the larger issue of security on the Web, coupled with an already-suspicious public when it comes to releasing their medical records to anyone without their consent.

The federal government's attempts to ensure medical record privacy protection resulted in a 2002 law that didn't completely satisfy anyone. While the law gave patients the right to inspect their medical records and correct mistakes and see who else has looked at them (including the ability to penalize anyone who uses the information improperly or illegally), it stopped short of requiring the patient's written permission to release the information.

So, a natural suspicion exists among both patients and doctors about keeping medical records online. And not helping at all are the sporadic reports of computer hackers infiltrating the Web sites of everything from credit card companies to the Defense Department.

Those in the medical profession who advocate electronic and Internet medical records say they realize it's going to be a long selling cycle. Yet, this revolution in health information technology, the advocates say, will save money through less paperwork, result in greater productivity, and substantially reduce the number of costly and tragic medical errors, which claim the lives of an estimated 195,000 patients annually.

And by allowing information to be released it opens all kinds of privacy violation possibilities,

wwws.acponline.org/hpp/pospaper/conf.pdf



The biggest and best program ran out of funding recently and is being dismantled?

More morons in politics with short sighted goals and no real answers or leadership!

:rant:

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9499/nocommunists1wj3.jpg

KSFreeman
06-13-2007, 05:48
Blitz, O.K., that's reasoned. So, you are against this bill because of potential privacy concerns?

If so, a valid point, but wouldn't increased criminal and civil penalties for violating privacy correct this?

Prometheus77
06-15-2007, 12:59
Originally posted by KSFreeman
Blitz, O.K., that's reasoned. So, you are against this bill because of potential privacy concerns?

If so, a valid point, but wouldn't increased criminal and civil penalties for violating privacy correct this?

Privacy concerns are the tip of the ice berg on this thing.

How about the 83,000 returning Iraqi and afgan veterans who will be prohibited from buy a firearm from a FFL because of their 'PTSD' flag?

Sure the Dingle, Mccarthy and the NRA will let them 'petition' to have ther name cleared... After months of court dates and find a shrink who will sign off that they 'aren't a danger and sign off on gun ownership'. I'm sure every returning serviceman (and woman) has a few thousand dolalrs laying around they don't mind giving to a laywer to straiten that little 'misunderstanding' up.

How about the "flag drugs" burried in the bill? Ever take welbutrin to quit smoking? Guess what, it's a drug for depression as well and falls well within the purvue of the bill...

Oh yeah, nothing wrong all with this bill :upeyes:

thetoastmaster
06-15-2007, 14:08
Originally posted by Jerseycitysteve
Of course nothing has changed! Two kinds of folks hate the NRA. The first are the RKBA purists who want guns sold like hammers. The second just want to justify not paying dues.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Is there a particular clause or word above that you do not understand?

Who decides who's ill? Who decides when they're no longer ill? Isn't putting psychologists and psychiatrists (that are traditionally anti-gun) in charge of deciding who may take arms putting the fox in charge of the henhouse?

I thought that these rights were natural, that they came from a Higher Power, and were not boons granted by the State, or its agents.

Jerseycitysteve
06-15-2007, 22:09
Wow, I never realized the Constitution had divine authorship.

Have you ever visited a psychatric hospital? We are not talking about a guy with the blues who takes Prozac for a month.

You really don't want paranoid schizophrenics to buy guns in the hardware store do you?

thetoastmaster
06-15-2007, 22:44
I want gun ownership rolled back to 1933. I want to buy a Thompson from the Sears catalog and have it shipped COD to my front door. I do not believe that it is the government's business what I own or don't own.

If a man is not fit to own a gun, then he is not fit to be walking the streets. He should be incarcerated if he is a threat to others.

I do believe that our rights come from the hand of Providence. Where do you think rights come from, the State?

Remember, what the State giveth, the State can taketh away.

Prometheus77
06-15-2007, 23:35
Originally posted by thetoastmaster
I want gun ownership rolled back to 1933. I want to buy a Thompson from the Sears catalog and have it shipped COD to my front door. I do not believe that it is the government's business what I own or don't own.

If a man is not fit to own a gun, then he is not fit to be walking the streets. He should be incarcerated if he is a threat to others.

I do believe that our rights come from the hand of Providence. Where do you think rights come from, the State?

Remember, what the State giveth, the State can taketh away.

Well put Sir!

Back in 1933 you COULD order a thompson (full auto with a drum) direct form sears by mail or just drop by the ACE hardware and pick one up. Other than a few gangsters killing some other gangsters (who couldn't legally own them anyway and of course were criminals who had access to everything) everythign was fine.

If a man is free to walk the streets he/she should be free to own weapons. Anything less is pure stupidity. Criminals will always have guns and mad men will always find something (gun, knife, sword, car, bomb ect.) to kill other people.

Gun laws disarm the law abiding and embolden the criminal. Everyone, everytime.

Jerseycitysteve
06-16-2007, 07:36
I want my life rolled back to 1979 when I weighed 140 rock hard pounds, because I was 24 years old. Today, I am 52. Our nation and technology have changed greatly.

We, therefore, are never going back to those days. Forget it.

The founders did not believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the constitution. They also believed in the tendency of humanity toward sin and the need to be governed (not ruled mind you) so they put in place a government based on separation of powers and limited suffrage.

We do not have anarchy, yet, in the USA. If you want felons, terrorists, the insane, and heaven knows who, to order weapons from the Sears catalog, you will have to form your own nation.

I believe that "the people" in the second amendment are law abiding citizens. Sadly, we need NICS to keep weapons out of the hand of those who don't abide the law or, due to severe mental defect, cannot.

boilergonzo
06-16-2007, 14:37
Very difficult topic. I do not want the mentally ill to have handguns, for their safety and others. I also feel it is dangerous to give power to individuals to decide upon another's sanity. Rosie might believe anyone wanting a gun has mental issues, and use that as justification for denial.

Perhaps a nationwide network where a practicing psychiatric expert can place a temporary "no guns sales" for an individual into NICS pending a full mental evaluation (if you have been unfortunate enough to have family members have problems, you will understand where I am coming from). Said comment has hard expiration dates (say 30 days) unless the State can present data to a court to illustrate mental instability and risk to self or others to extend the limitation. Using NICS ensures a national database and puts the onus on the State to regulate physicians regarding the truly mentally ill.

Yes, some people will slip through and still be free and deranged due to reluctance of some physicians to limit borderline individuals. That risk is acceptable considering the alternative (free citizens being unfairly restricted beyond reasonable means).

I can keep you completely safe from external harm... but you won't like it!

aux reduit
06-17-2007, 08:25
Originally posted by Jerseycitysteve
Sadly, we need NICS to keep weapons out of the hand of those who don't abide the law or, due to severe mental defect, cannot.

Uhmmm how does that work again?

Let's see criminal walks into gun shop:

Criminal: Gimme that for-tay yo!
Owner: Sure just let me run the background check
Criminal: never mind.

Later that day in an alley down the street:

Criminal: Gimme that for-tay yo!
Ciminal2: Sure: $700.00
Criminal: [pays]

Yep that NICS sure is working well. :upeyes:

That said I don't think the NRA really sold anybody out, however this certainly isn't much of a compromise, they should have at least attempted to attach repeal of Lautenberg or something to this bill....bunch of pansies.

Jerseycitysteve
06-17-2007, 11:52
Originally posted by aux reduit
Uhmmm how does that work again?

Let's see criminal walks into gun shop:

Criminal: Gimme that for-tay yo!
Owner: Sure just let me run the background check
Criminal: never mind.

Later that day in an alley down the street:

Criminal: Gimme that for-tay yo!
Ciminal2: Sure: $700.00
Criminal: [pays]

Yep that NICS sure is working well. :upeyes:

That said I don't think the NRA really sold anybody out, however this certainly isn't much of a compromise, they should have at least attempted to attach repeal of Lautenberg or something to this bill....bunch of pansies.


Nothing like racist dialect humor to make an argument.:shakehead:

:tongueout: :wavey:

aux reduit
06-17-2007, 12:01
Nothing like ignoring the point when your argument for more gun control is exposed as completely without merit. :thumbsup:

mitchshrader
06-17-2007, 12:04
LIE. gun rights, once removed, aren't restored.

not for felonies, no matter the law, they don't fund any such restorations.

not for psych evals unless you bring MAJOR heat on the system, and it's flat out impossible without political suasion and big bucks..

though EVADING that system is as easy as having money, sometimes not even as much money as it costs to buy a gun legally.

this law produces no result that helps. it is a incestuous orgy of feelgood by three gun control organizations.

yes, sell em like hammers, show proof of american citizenship and adult status. i think the 2nd applies to americans.

and i think

shall not be abridged, means, 'shall not be abridged'.

am i upset? well, is white lipped trembling upset?

it's like republicans stealing, i expected better of them. traitors always shock me, i'm not cynical enough.

despise em? you have no clue. wayne poodleboy ain't got much to go to be benedict arnold. hell, he's ready for a position in the bush administration. mebbe he could work for gonzales.

Jerseycitysteve
06-17-2007, 12:17
I have deleted my post in the name of Christian charity as today is the Lord's day.

:tongueout: :wavey:

Jeff82
06-27-2007, 15:39
All y'all need to get on the horn to your senators yesterday.

http://www.gunowners.org/a061407.htm

I think the NRA's got this one wrong (and I'm an Endowment Member.)

hoosier#17
07-01-2007, 11:13
Yeah, why are we arguing amongst each other? Get on the horn with that senator or congressman. I believe they still work for us (when they do work):suntan:

Jeff82
07-01-2007, 11:32
http://www.gunowners.org/a061807.htm

This is the link I meant to send. Much more thorough article.

Pay special attention to Schumer's amendment the last time this came up. The idea is NO ONE gets off any list.

Pop Gunner
07-08-2007, 05:43
as stated by;

(How about the 83,000 returning Iraqi and afgan veterans who will be prohibited from buy a firearm from a FFL because of their 'PTSD' flag?)

what is the specific legislation on this PTSD ruling?

glockman2005
07-19-2007, 09:46
thetoastmaster; I agree 100% with everything you say-- and no offense Jerseysteve but maybe you should go back to Jersey.
psychologists and psychiatrists think everyone, except other psychologists and psychiatrists have some sort of Mental problem, I don't care who you are. Should we let pseudointellectuals like this regulate our GOD GIVEN, Constitutionally guaranteed Rights? Heeeeeeel NO! If it was up to the Shrinks nobody in the country would own a gun.
But lets go back to the beginning, the GCA OF 1968 was taken WORD FOR WORD from the Nazi Weapons Act of March 1938 that was signed by Fuhrer ADOLPH HITLER. Why the H are we living under a Nazi weapons law here in AmeriKa??? Screw the commies & Nazis. This is America.
Our solidiers in WWII didn't die face down in mudholes to give us a Nazi law here in America. Lets go back to Constitutional Law!!! Where is Patrick Henry when you need him?

Loucks
07-19-2007, 21:40
Originally posted by glockman2005
[T]he GCA OF 1968 was taken WORD FOR WORD from the Nazi Weapons Act of March 1938 that was signed by Fuhrer ADOLPH HITLER. Why the H are we living under a Nazi weapons law here in AmeriKa??? Screw the commies & Nazis. This is America.
Our solidiers in WWII didn't die face down in mudholes to give us a Nazi law here in America. Lets go back to Constitutional Law!!! Where is Patrick Henry when you need him?

Cite, please, or GTFO. Wikipedia disagrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968#Controversy), and the burden of proof falls on you.

That's a great rant, though. Constitutional Law is whatever the SCotUS says it is, your protestations to the contrary. Hopefully, the Parker appeal will be accepted and go our way, but I'm not holding my breath. Also, way to invoke Godwin's Law while simultaneously channelling Walter Sobchak.

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z112/officially_rigged/Walter-Sobchak.jpg

Edit: Please don't spell "America" with a "K" unless you're an angsty 17 year old. It makes my eyes bleed.

glockman2005
07-25-2007, 18:26
Why don't you bug out? are you a pig? Gee that picture Really scares me.... if you listen close you can hear my teeth chattering.

Loucks
07-27-2007, 04:23
Originally posted by glockman2005
Why don't you bug out? are you a pig? Gee that picture Really scares me.... if you listen close you can hear my teeth chattering.

I'm not a "pig." The picture would make more sense if you had read my post. Suffice to say, it wasn't meant to be scary.

Should I assume that you're not going to bother addressing the content of my post?

glockman2005
07-27-2007, 07:53
Check out the book printed by JPFO on the origin of the GCA of 68. I have a copy. The GCA of 68 & Hitler's NAZI WEAPONS ACT OF MARCH 1938 are printed side by side in German & with an English translation. Even the italics are the same. I would think this would be common knowledge to everyone; at least it is to all of my gun friends.

Gun Control'': Gateway to Tyranny
by Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman

Produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, this book contains the German language original of the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, a page-by-page translation, and then a page-by-page comparison with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. The similarities are striking. The book also contains an actual copy of the correspondence between the U.S. bill's sponsor, Sen. Thomas Dodd, and the Library of Congress which translated the Nazi law for him.

Loucks
07-31-2007, 01:36
There's quite a difference between "the similarities are striking" and "OMG! Nazis are taking away my guns!!!"

I accept that there are similarities, and that the German law may have been used as an exemplar. Even so, your argument is ludicrous. As far as I can tell, it goes something like this:

=>The Germans had a law that restricted firearm ownership.
=>The USA has a law that restricts firearm ownership.
=>The US law was influenced by the German law.
=>The German law was signed by Fuhrer ADOLPH HITLER.
=>Therefore, The USA is under Nazi rule.
=>Additionally, commies are somehow involved. Because everyone knows that the Nazis were commies! The commienazis are coming! Hide the women and children...

And that's where it ends up, in full-blown nonsensical rant mode. The fact is, the origin of the law's language is irrelevant. Even if we adopted a law that was first passed in a country full of baby-eating goat-molesters, the law would stand or fall on its own merits. The Constitution is subject to the interpretation of the court, and if the courts find that the GCA of '68 is constitutional, then the GCA of '68 is constitutional regardless of what your (or my) personal opinion may be.

glockman2005
07-31-2007, 06:55
Loucks, Which part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand amigo? And tell us please, which branch of LEO pays your salary? BATF?
Anyone with 2nd grade reading skills can see that the GCA of 1968 Plainly violates the US Constitution. Only a "gun hater" or NWO stooge would argue otherwise.

you said:
The Constitution is subject to the interpretation of the court, and if the courts find that the GCA of '68 is constitutional, then the GCA of '68 is constitutional regardless of what your (or my) personal opinion may be.

NOT TRUE! It doesn't matter even if the Sup. Court did away with the 2nd Ammendment; our Right to keep and bear arms and to defend our homes comes from the CREATOR ---- not ANY Defacto government slimeball. Have you ever read ANY of the writings of the Founding Fathers??? ALL of our rights come from the CREATOR, therefore NO government "official" can take them away. Study the Constitution.

Jeff82
07-31-2007, 19:27
Originally posted by Loucks
if the courts find that the GCA of '68 is constitutional, then the GCA of '68 is constitutional regardless of what your (or my) personal opinion may be.
BS. Dred Scott. SCOTUS can be wrong. If they are wrong with the right to self defense then it's up to the citizenry to make it right. It's that important.

glockman2005
07-31-2007, 21:53
Jeff; I agree with you 100%. Hitler's Nazi Weapon Law of 1938 was "the law of the land" at one time. That didn't make it right.
The US Constit. is the Supreme law of the land; anything that contradicts that is on its face Illegal and therefore to be ignored.