• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NRA members

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have, five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg" Abraham Lincoln

Rail on and say what you want to about the NRA, but it won't change the great force for good that it is or erase the good it has done.
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

thorsmitersaw wrote:
Keepandbear wrote:
thorsmitersaw wrote:
Keepandbear wrote:
thorsmitersaw wrote:
The NRA is a giant compromise club.

constantly seceding groundto the enemy is no way to win a war. You must take the offensive, you must attack current legislation and NEVER introduce more restriction in any way.

If you want to help the second amendment support the Gun Owners of America (GOA)and the Jews for the Preservation of Firarms Ownership (JPFO). BOTH of whome do not defend it upon some ridiculous sporting pruposes base like the NRA. The JPFO may be even more hardcore about it than the GOA, OPENLY promoting it as a way to oppose government violence in thier pamphlets and handouts and DOCUMENTARIES they create. 'The Gang' is the latest one and its about the ATF.

As far as a presidential candidate... if you are a no compromise sort of person like me with gun rights and constitutional restrictionsthen the only real choice is Ron Paul... on EITHER side of the aisle. His record trumps all others alive today. PERIOD.
Please list the legislative achievements of either of those groups(GOA and JPFO). Show me three articles in which someone gave credit to the GOA for passing a bill or getting a candidate elected.

GOA lives by bashing the NRA and thats it.

Why dont you try to defend the search and approval crap the NRA allows and its approval of the ATF and its support for present gun laws? Anyone who supports the laws in place is not taking ground, they are only defending current losses.

The GOA and the JPFO give alot of resources to contact and link with locals and officials on many levels. They helps cut to the heart of legislation and makes sure its supporters know of is. They help fight court battles. And the JPFO creates alot of literature and movies which they have screned in a few places. The GOA makes NUMEROUS television and radioapperances. Many things the NRA ignores or supports, often times the only lobbying power to stop it is heard from these two groups! like the so-called juvenile crime bill. The NRA endorsed Bush for president... what a great success for gun rights hes been!I dont see the NRA doing anything to raech young people or educate anyone outside of its own members either like the JPFO does.

WE NEED TO TAKE THE OFFENSE. If the NRA is a army, then the JPFO and the GOA are the special forces!

interesting read here about how the NRA might be SCREWING shit up!:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119457.html



but its mainly about principle, which the NRA obviously lacks. I contribute to all three organizations but not so much to the NRA becauseI would rather give purists my money to attempt to make them into more of a force to be reconed with than contribute to a well established gun rights lite group.

Way to not address the challenge I presented. I'll address your challenge upon you answering mine.

Oh and Bush has done nothing for gun rights?!?! Maybe we should have gone with McCain or Gore instead:banghead:? Bush has only appointed two judges to the Supreme Court and that only has a 10-20 year effect? What about the Commerce in LawfulArms Act? What about the the Police Officer Carry Act? What about the descrustion of federal firearms records?

and his support of a federal "asault weapons "firearms ban?

how about his "patriot" act?

Attorney General, John Ashcroft, boasted of increasing resources to enforce gun control

"when gun owners submitted a Petition for the Enforcement of the Second Amendment, the Bush Administration attempted to intimidate them by only responding through the head of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section of the Justice Department"

"...Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the D.C. District Court, tells us that the Second Amendment is not an individual right in Seegars v. Ashcroft. The Bush Administration opposed Supreme Court review of U.S. v. Emerson, with Assistant U.S. Attorney William B. Majeta claiming in open court that there is no individual Constitutional right to own firearms, the result of the Bush Administration's actions being that Dr. Tim Emerson was convicted of merely possessing a firearm while under a customary restraining order issued during his divorce. And Bush's Solicitor General, Ted Olson, aggressively prosecuted the case of U.S. v. Thomas Lamar Bean, permanently stripping Bean of his Second Amendment rights, merely for accidentally carrying a box of .22 shells across the Mexican border. "
 

Attachments

  • bsflag.gif
    bsflag.gif
    8.7 KB · Views: 158

Thors_Mitersaw

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
299
Location
, ,
imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:
thorsmitersaw wrote:
Keepandbear wrote:
thorsmitersaw wrote:
Keepandbear wrote:
thorsmitersaw wrote:
The NRA is a giant compromise club.

constantly seceding groundto the enemy is no way to win a war. You must take the offensive, you must attack current legislation and NEVER introduce more restriction in any way.

If you want to help the second amendment support the Gun Owners of America (GOA)and the Jews for the Preservation of Firarms Ownership (JPFO). BOTH of whome do not defend it upon some ridiculous sporting pruposes base like the NRA. The JPFO may be even more hardcore about it than the GOA, OPENLY promoting it as a way to oppose government violence in thier pamphlets and handouts and DOCUMENTARIES they create. 'The Gang' is the latest one and its about the ATF.

As far as a presidential candidate... if you are a no compromise sort of person like me with gun rights and constitutional restrictionsthen the only real choice is Ron Paul... on EITHER side of the aisle. His record trumps all others alive today. PERIOD.
Please list the legislative achievements of either of those groups(GOA and JPFO). Show me three articles in which someone gave credit to the GOA for passing a bill or getting a candidate elected.

GOA lives by bashing the NRA and thats it.

Why dont you try to defend the search and approval crap the NRA allows and its approval of the ATF and its support for present gun laws? Anyone who supports the laws in place is not taking ground, they are only defending current losses.

The GOA and the JPFO give alot of resources to contact and link with locals and officials on many levels. They helps cut to the heart of legislation and makes sure its supporters know of is. They help fight court battles. And the JPFO creates alot of literature and movies which they have screned in a few places. The GOA makes NUMEROUS television and radioapperances. Many things the NRA ignores or supports, often times the only lobbying power to stop it is heard from these two groups! like the so-called juvenile crime bill. The NRA endorsed Bush for president... what a great success for gun rights hes been!I dont see the NRA doing anything to raech young people or educate anyone outside of its own members either like the JPFO does.

WE NEED TO TAKE THE OFFENSE. If the NRA is a army, then the JPFO and the GOA are the special forces!

interesting read here about how the NRA might be SCREWING shit up!:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119457.html



but its mainly about principle, which the NRA obviously lacks. I contribute to all three organizations but not so much to the NRA becauseI would rather give purists my money to attempt to make them into more of a force to be reconed with than contribute to a well established gun rights lite group.

Way to not address the challenge I presented. I'll address your challenge upon you answering mine.

Oh and Bush has done nothing for gun rights?!?! Maybe we should have gone with McCain or Gore instead:banghead:? Bush has only appointed two judges to the Supreme Court and that only has a 10-20 year effect? What about the Commerce in LawfulArms Act? What about the the Police Officer Carry Act? What about the descrustion of federal firearms records?

and his support of a federal "asault weapons "firearms ban?

how about his "patriot" act?

Attorney General, John Ashcroft, boasted of increasing resources to enforce gun control

"when gun owners submitted a Petition for the Enforcement of the Second Amendment, the Bush Administration attempted to intimidate them by only responding through the head of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section of the Justice Department"

"...Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the D.C. District Court, tells us that the Second Amendment is not an individual right in Seegars v. Ashcroft. The Bush Administration opposed Supreme Court review of U.S. v. Emerson, with Assistant U.S. Attorney William B. Majeta claiming in open court that there is no individual Constitutional right to own firearms, the result of the Bush Administration's actions being that Dr. Tim Emerson was convicted of merely possessing a firearm while under a customary restraining order issued during his divorce. And Bush's Solicitor General, Ted Olson, aggressively prosecuted the case of U.S. v. Thomas Lamar Bean, permanently stripping Bean of his Second Amendment rights, merely for accidentally carrying a box of .22 shells across the Mexican border. "

23372611.jpg


(denial)

i can post images too cool guy
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

thorsmitersaw wrote:
tarzan1888 wrote:
thorsmitersaw wrote:
Keepandbear wrote:
thorsmitersaw wrote:
Keepandbear wrote:
thorsmitersaw wrote:
The NRA is a giant compromise club.

constantly seceding groundto the enemy is no way to win a war. You must take the offensive, you must attack current legislation and NEVER introduce more restriction in any way.

If you want to help the second amendment support the Gun Owners of America (GOA)and the Jews for the Preservation of Firarms Ownership (JPFO). BOTH of whome do not defend it upon some ridiculous sporting pruposes base like the NRA. The JPFO may be even more hardcore about it than the GOA, OPENLY promoting it as a way to oppose government violence in thier pamphlets and handouts and DOCUMENTARIES they create. 'The Gang' is the latest one and its about the ATF.

As far as a presidential candidate... if you are a no compromise sort of person like me with gun rights and constitutional restrictionsthen the only real choice is Ron Paul... on EITHER side of the aisle. His record trumps all others alive today. PERIOD.
Please list the legislative achievements of either of those groups(GOA and JPFO). Show me three articles in which someone gave credit to the GOA for passing a bill or getting a candidate elected.

GOA lives by bashing the NRA and thats it.

Why dont you try to defend the search and approval crap the NRA allows and its approval of the ATF and its support for present gun laws? Anyone who supports the laws in place is not taking ground, they are only defending current losses.

The GOA and the JPFO give alot of resources to contact and link with locals and officials on many levels. They helps cut to the heart of legislation and makes sure its supporters know of is. They help fight court battles. And the JPFO creates alot of literature and movies which they have screned in a few places. The GOA makes NUMEROUS television and radioapperances. Many things the NRA ignores or supports, often times the only lobbying power to stop it is heard from these two groups! like the so-called juvenile crime bill. The NRA endorsed Bush for president... what a great success for gun rights hes been!I dont see the NRA doing anything to raech young people or educate anyone outside of its own members either like the JPFO does.

WE NEED TO TAKE THE OFFENSE. If the NRA is a army, then the JPFO and the GOA are the special forces!

interesting read here about how the NRA might be SCREWING shit up!:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119457.html



but its mainly about principle, which the NRA obviously lacks. I contribute to all three organizations but not so much to the NRA becauseI would rather give purists my money to attempt to make them into more of a force to be reconed with than contribute to a well established gun rights lite group.

Way to not address the challenge I presented. I'll address your challenge upon you answering mine.

Oh and Bush has done nothing for gun rights?!?! Maybe we should have gone with McCain or Gore instead:banghead:? Bush has only appointed two judges to the Supreme Court and that only has a 10-20 year effect? What about the Commerce in LawfulArms Act? What about the the Police Officer Carry Act? What about the descrustion of federal firearms records?

and his support of a federal "asault weapons "firearms ban?

how about his "patriot" act?

Attorney General, John Ashcroft, boasted of increasing resources to enforce gun control

"when gun owners submitted a Petition for the Enforcement of the Second Amendment, the Bush Administration attempted to intimidate them by only responding through the head of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section of the Justice Department"

"...Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the D.C. District Court, tells us that the Second Amendment is not an individual right in Seegars v. Ashcroft. The Bush Administration opposed Supreme Court review of U.S. v. Emerson, with Assistant U.S. Attorney William B. Majeta claiming in open court that there is no individual Constitutional right to own firearms, the result of the Bush Administration's actions being that Dr. Tim Emerson was convicted of merely possessing a firearm while under a customary restraining order issued during his divorce. And Bush's Solicitor General, Ted Olson, aggressively prosecuted the case of U.S. v. Thomas Lamar Bean, permanently stripping Bean of his Second Amendment rights, merely for accidentally carrying a box of .22 shells across the Mexican border. "

23372611.jpg


(denial)

i can post images too cool guy
 

Attachments

  • roflmao1[2].gif
    roflmao1[2].gif
    14.6 KB · Views: 155

Cue-Ball

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
425
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
The NRA-bashers (spit!) that pop up to bitch and moan when the NRA fails again to support full auto machine guns for everyone including felons.are detestable.
Either a person is fit to be in society or they aren't. If we can't trust someone with a firearm, we can't trust them at all, and they should still be in prison. Either our system works or it doesn't. When someone gets out of jail they have paid their dues and should be reformed. If they're not, that's an issue with our penal system and should be addressed, but not by removing someone's God given right to self defense (which we can't enforce anyway). By keeping firearms out of the hands of felons, we just encourage the government to make ever lesser crimes into felonies so that they have a justifiable cause for disarming us.

And, HankT calling Ron Paul a loony is probably the best endorsement he could ever get on this board.
 

LoveMyCountry

State Researcher
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
590
Location
Ocean Shores, WA
imported post

Legba wrote:
Sorry, but I can't hold back any more. What is this delusional belief that armed citizens, absent command, control, and communications can hope to stand up (with desirable results) against an organized fighting force, like the US military? If the government becomes tyrranical, then you and I will alike be up against the wall, unless there is a mass-mutiny in the military to back us up.

Whatever your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, a houswife with a handgun does not "a well-regulated militia" make. The founding fathers may have meant for us to be armed to secure our liberty from internal and/or external tyrrany, but the Man has the Bomb now, and you and I do not. Game, set, match. You will go the way of the Polish Cavalry if you seriously undertake an armed insurrection, justified or otherwise.

-ljp
Some will fight because to do nothing would be the worst kind of evil.

James 4:17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

LoveMyCountry
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
Keepandbear wrote:

That is why he is unelectable.
That is ineluctable.

Actually HankT he is right and you are wrong. :what:

Your word, ineluctable, is the wrong word in his context.

Ineluctable means; not to be avoided, changed or resisted : INEVITABLE

That word makes no sense and is totally wrong in his usage.


Just to put the record straight. :cool:
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I'm waiting for that "heavy door" to close.

Then, and ONLY then, will the long overdue correction occur.
What is the "heavy door?"





tarzan1888 wrote:
HankT wrote:
Keepandbear wrote:

That is why he is unelectable.
That is ineluctable.

Actually HankT he is right and you are wrong. :what:

Your word, ineluctable, is the wrong word in his context.

Ineluctable means; not to be avoided, changed or resisted : INEVITABLE

That word makes no sense and is totally wrong in his usage.
Nah. It's right.
 

Keepandbear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
24
Location
Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I'm waiting for that "heavy door" to close.

Then, and ONLY then, will the long overdue correction occur.
What is the "heavy door?"





tarzan1888 wrote:
HankT wrote:
Keepandbear wrote:

That is why he is unelectable.
That is ineluctable.

Actually HankT he is right and you are wrong. :what:

Your word, ineluctable, is the wrong word in his context.

Ineluctable means; not to be avoided, changed or resisted : INEVITABLE

That word makes no sense and is totally wrong in his usage.
Nah. It's right.

I beg to differ and so does the American Heritage Dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unelectable
 

Thors_Mitersaw

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
299
Location
, ,
imported post

again all felon legislation is horse shit.

(If you cant see that the second amendment isnt about defense, if you cant see that its about resistance to tyranny, then I can see why you would support it)

The felon legislation only makes it easier (with the plethora of laws that make it easy to become a 'criminal' in the eyes of big brother) to disarm people under the guise of 'public safety'.What of the wrongfully convicted? What of the black woman who recently got canned for defending herself with the ATTACKERS GUN! Should that 'felon' be barred from use of arms for her life?

You are givng the government the right to say who may own the means to destroy it.
Ludwig von Mises said Middle of the Road policy leads to socialism
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:
"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have, five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg" Abraham Lincoln
 

Attachments

  • me as Abe-cb.jpg
    me as Abe-cb.jpg
    16.3 KB · Views: 178
Top