Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 122

Thread: Not even NRA members support carry!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    I got up to use the bathroom around 5am, heard a shuffle in the hallway and went to investigate with my pistol at a low ready (pointed at the ground!). Turned out to be my grandfather getting up and making coffee. I had quietly creeped up the hallway to the kitchen to see what it was, and as soon as I heard the familiar sound of my grandfather's slippers against the hardwood floor, I knew who it was. So I came out and breathed a sigh of relief as I holstered my pistol and said "Thank God it's you, I've never known you to be up this early!" He responded that he didn't know I was up this late. So I told him that I had gotten up to go the bathroom and heard shuffling in the hall, went to investigate, found it to be him, etc etc. He basically said that my carrying of a pistol is gonna get me put in jail! Note: When I first started carrying 6 months ago, he told me that you never carry a gun unless you intend to use it. This is coming from a lifetime NRA member! WTF?! Aren't the supposed to support us? Or at least support our right to bear arms in defense of ourselves? How is it that me carrying in my own defense is going to get me automatically put in jail?


    I am quite frankly disheartened by this attitude by a lifetime NRA member!

    WTF?!
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  2. #2
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866

    Post imported post

    Too all his/her own.. He supports the NRA which means he supports the right to bear arms, he supports the 2nd amendment and all that this constitution stands for. It doesn't mean he stands for young'ins walking around with guns.

    You have to think, back in your G'pa's childhood most households had a gun, dad was responsible for it, it was locked in a closet somewhere. He would bring it out with an old .22 to get his kids plinking. Then, back in the hiding spot. Back then, society wasn't what it is today. Guns were not typically carried on our persons when we left the home.. His views are still of that time. He's an older guy, it happens.

    Or, maybe it's time to put him in a home lol..

    www.WaGuns.org

    Currently mapping locations of Shooting Areas as well as Gun Stores - Let me know what is missing!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    The NRA is a large organization and like most, it's membership is a mixed bag. Some are members for the safety aspect, some just so they join a range, etc. Keep in mind that one of the guys on the NRA Board Joaquin Jackson stated publicly that assault rifles should be limited to a 5 round capacity. There have been other board members in the past who've gotten in trouble - both in their personal life or for commentssupporting gun control.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    The NRA will go along with whomever on 'resonable' gun control. They talk about hunting, etc... They are part of what I call 'serial mis-information' about the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

    Gun Owners of America are the only 'no compromise gun lobby.' Most others compromise on the 2A to some degree. Although I would say that SAF is also very good at understanding the true meaning and extent at which the 2A should be defended.
    Live Free or Die!

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    Remember, NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. For many members, if it doesn't concern rifles and hunting, it doesn't matter.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    I feel compelled to remind you that it was not GOA but Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and...the NRA that were responsible for slamming Seattle's illegal gun ban in court.

    Further, that it is SAF's lawsuit (nobody else's) that was just argued before the SCOTUS to strike down the Chicago handgun ban.

    It was not GOA but SAF and NRA that moved quickly to take New Orleans to federal court - and win! -- on the Katrina gun confiscations (leading to a raft of state laws forbidding that kind of B.S.)

    my $0.02 worth

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    I feel compelled to remind you that it was not GOA but Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and...the NRA that were responsible for slamming Seattle's illegal gun ban in court.

    Further, that it is SAF's lawsuit (nobody else's) that was just argued before the SCOTUS to strike down the Chicago handgun ban.

    It was not GOA but SAF and NRA that moved quickly to take New Orleans to federal court - and win! -- on the Katrina gun confiscations (leading to a raft of state laws forbidding that kind of B.S.)

    my $0.02 worth
    You are absolutely correct. And that respect is HUGE! SAF, Mr. Gottleib, Mr Gura are huge, huge, huge! It shows that SAF has been and is taking a leading role in the expansion of gun rights and my checkbook reflects that.


    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Dave Workman wrote:
    I feel compelled to remind you that it was not GOA but Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and...the NRA that were responsible for slamming Seattle's illegal gun ban in court.

    Further, that it is SAF's lawsuit (nobody else's) that was just argued before the SCOTUS to strike down the Chicago handgun ban.

    It was not GOA but SAF and NRA that moved quickly to take New Orleans to federal court - and win! -- on the Katrina gun confiscations (leading to a raft of state laws forbidding that kind of B.S.)

    my $0.02 worth
    You are absolutely correct. And that respect is HUGE! SAF, Mr. Gottleib, Mr Gura are huge, huge, huge! It shows that SAF has been and is taking a leading role in the expansion of gun rights and my checkbook reflects that.

    I agree as well Dave. I think the point that some of us are making is that just because an individual is a member of the NRA, does not automatically mean that that individual has the same goals in mind as far as the Right to Bear Arms as we do. I do fully appreciate the efforts of the NRA, SAF et. al. in their efforts to support our rights.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    ak56 wrote:
    I agree as well Dave. I think the point that some of us are making is that just because an individual is a member of the NRA, does not automatically mean that that individual has the same goals in mind as far as the Right to Bear Arms as we do. I do fully appreciate the efforts of the NRA, SAF et. al. in their efforts to support our rights.
    +1

    ANY large organization is going to have a large varying of opinions among its members (just look at us here, and we ain't that large ). And even a few dolts who make you wonder if they just wandered in from the street as they seem so contrary to the organization's purpose (again, look around here). It's not right to take the opinion of one member of a group as speaking for the whole. The NRA's official position is that it fully supports the Second Amendment and the right to carry. And it's actions as an organization by and large reflect that. A few eyebrow-raising comments from some members don't negate the group as whole (us again). The NRA still is, has been for a long time, and probably always will be, the greatest voice for the RKBA in this country as reflected by its actions. Not the only voice.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    This is not about NRA Members and I agree with the Grandfather view on the issue, first chance you get you over react and go into full warrior or combat mode instead of taking into account who else is living in the house.

    Why could you not have stopped and listened longer or just announce "Hey Grandpa is that you?"


    G22Paddy wrote:
    I got up to use the bathroom around 5am, heard a shuffle in the hallway and went to investigate with my pistol at a low ready (pointed at the ground!). Turned out to be my grandfather getting up and making coffee. I had quietly creeped up the hallway to the kitchen to see what it was, and as soon as I heard the familiar sound of my grandfather's slippers against the hardwood floor, I knew who it was. So I came out and breathed a sigh of relief as I holstered my pistol and said "Thank God it's you, I've never known you to be up this early!" He responded that he didn't know I was up this late. So I told him that I had gotten up to go the bathroom and heard shuffling in the hall, went to investigate, found it to be him, etc etc. He basically said that my carrying of a pistol is gonna get me put in jail! Note: When I first started carrying 6 months ago, he told me that you never carry a gun unless you intend to use it. This is coming from a lifetime NRA member! WTF?! Aren't the supposed to support us? Or at least support our right to bear arms in defense of ourselves? How is it that me carrying in my own defense is going to get me automatically put in jail?


    I am quite frankly disheartened by this attitude by a lifetime NRA member!

    WTF?!
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Well, I just got off the telephone with a nice gentleman from Arlington, WA who tells me in no uncertain terms that he believes the "in-your-face" approach (his words not mine) of open carry activists is going to alienate the middle masses and a lot of shooters.

    His comment: "If it comes to a vote, I'll vote against (open carry)."

    His shooting buddies, he says, are right there with him.

    Something to think about.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Well, I just got off the telephone with a nice gentleman from Arlington, WA who tells me in no uncertain terms that he believes the "in-your-face" approach (his words not mine) of open carry activists is going to alienate the middle masses and a lot of shooters.

    His comment: "If it comes to a vote, I'll vote against (open carry)."

    His shooting buddies, he says, are right there with him.

    Something to think about.
    Dave,

    I think many people understand his concern. As I have stated many times, I also share that concern and I am not an in your face type. I simply carry, most of the time in a dockers, shirt with a collar, nice shoes kind of way.

    I do see several here that are more forward than I am and they make me cringe. I would rather that they are more like me! Duh, I am 'normal'. However, I understand that living in a free society has certain risks, trade-offs and things I don't like (antis). I understand that movements have the masses and those that push the envelope, agitators and radicals. I will encourage them to behave, but once again this is a free society. I will encourage them to make the open carry of a properly holstered handgun 'normal' and not a fringe type of deal.

    I am not sure what type of vote he would have? Can you expand on that comment?
    Live Free or Die!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    A constitutional amendment vote.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    I am not sure what type of vote he would have? Can you expand on that comment?
    Unfortunately, the Heller case opened up a can of worms by allowing "reasonable restrictions". The banners are going to pick up that ball and run with it and we'll be litigating for years whether their bans are reasonable or not. Laws on open carry might be on their menu.



  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    A constitutional amendment vote.

    Oh, ok. Well since neither he nor I will be voting on one. But again I understand his sentiment. But then again I am not a member of the NRA.
    Live Free or Die!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Dave,

    Nobody has to like the more in-your-face approach, but still it's disappointing to see the short-sightedness displayed by your Arlington acquaintance. Does he really think that, if Brady and their ilk were waxing in power instead of waning, that they wouldn't eventually get around to targeting his firearms too?




  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    Dave,

    Nobody has to like the more in-your-face approach, but still it's disappointing to see the short-sightedness displayed by your Arlington acquaintance. Does he really think that, if Brady and their ilk were waxing in power instead of waning, that they wouldn't eventually get around to targeting his firearms too?


    I offered to put him in touch with some of you guys to chat about it. He declined.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    kparker wrote:
    Dave,

    Nobody has to like the more in-your-face approach, but still it's disappointing to see the short-sightedness displayed by your Arlington acquaintance. Does he really think that, if Brady and their ilk were waxing in power instead of waning, that they wouldn't eventually get around to targeting his firearms too?


    I offered to put him in touch with some of you guys to chat about it. He declined.
    Just goes to show he's no different, and no better, than the brady bunch. Utterly convinced of his own superiority of thought and unwilling to even discuss the matter. Happy to stand idly by while others rights are stripped away. As long as you don't touch MY guns, you can take theirs. History has shown the sad fallacy of that attitude.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    I am not sure what type of vote he would have? Can you expand on that comment?
    Unfortunately, the Heller case opened up a can of worms by allowing "reasonable restrictions".
    The Heller case didn't really "allow" reasonable restrictions, they just agreed that reasonable restrictions could continue. RR have always been allowed when dealing with any Constitutional right. The question has always been what is reasonable.

  20. #20
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Well, I just got off the telephone with a nice gentleman from Arlington, WA who tells me in no uncertain terms that he believes the "in-your-face" approach (his words not mine) of open carry activists is going to alienate the middle masses and a lot of shooters.

    His comment: "If it comes to a vote, I'll vote against (open carry)."

    His shooting buddies, he says, are right there with him.

    Something to think about.
    There is a lot of people that hate the attitude or projection of "in your face" and it can harm the view of those in middle ground or ever those that support the cause.
    I believe the majority want to make open carry a common everyday event that does not cause alarm.

    There are those here that do a great job in promoting the open carry issues and I commend them for that and there are those that go over that line and they should reconsider their approach.

    Take for instance as we can see in some of the post here, when confronted in a restaurant or store about open carry by management, why not cover up and then enter into a discussion or offer literature about the laws.
    The idea here is to stop the conflict gain respect and then educate, when it comes to private business we must show respect for their rights as we wish them to respect our rights.

    Dave on your post it is spot on and there are many around Washington who feel the same way. I feel it has little to do with the open carry issue then it has to do with concern of attitudes of shove it in my face.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    BigDave,

    I understand your overall point, but in the recent Starbucks stuff did we really have anyone at all who was expressing unhappiness with Starbucks itself, rather than with the Brady folks?

  22. #22
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    BigDave,

    I understand your overall point, but in the recent Starbucks stuff did we really have anyone at all who was expressing unhappiness with Starbucks itself, rather than with the Brady folks?
    For the majority of what I saw in video and read it was a good representation of the open carry movement.

    But I have to be honest here, when I seen the cowboy type revolver and holster brought to mind the old comments of "Wild Wild West" while I do not personal have an issue of this carry but I feel those on the fence has helped push some over the fence (even though he was well dressed and respectful).

    Like it or not, how we present ourselves, others will make their choices based on appearance only and well they do have a voice and vote.

    Do we tailor ourselves to achieve others backing, well it is each persons choice.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    BigDave wrote:
    kparker wrote:
    BigDave,

    I understand your overall point, but in the recent Starbucks stuff did we really have anyone at all who was expressing unhappiness with Starbucks itself, rather than with the Brady folks?
    But I have to be honest here, when I seen the cowboy type revolver and holster brought to mind the old comments of "Wild Wild West" while I do not personal have an issue of this carry but I feel those on the fence has helped push some over the fence (even though he was well dressed and respectful).
    I would suspect, however, that if seeing someone openly carrying a firearm in a respectful and legal manner pushed someone over the fence, they probably weren't far from the fence to begin with. We weren't ever going to convince that person. They were just waiting to be on the other side.

    I think a better point was made earlier that many more people now realize it is legal than prior to the coverage that we have received.

  24. #24
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote
    I would suspect, however, that if seeing someone openly carrying a firearm in a respectful and legal manner pushed someone over the fence, they probably weren't far from the fence to begin with. We weren't ever going to convince that person. They were just waiting to be on the other side.

    I think a better point was made earlier that many more people now realize it is legal than prior to the coverage that we have received.
    Being on the fence and it falls our way it better then falling the other.

    I feel Starbucks has done the cause a great deal of good for open and concealed as legally armed citizens and by those who showed up did a service in presenting them as respectful citizens.

    Impressions in the public can do good or harm no matter how right we are, it is something we need to keep in mind.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    BigDave wrote:
    heresolong wrote
    I would suspect, however, that if seeing someone openly carrying a firearm in a respectful and legal manner pushed someone over the fence, they probably weren't far from the fence to begin with. We weren't ever going to convince that person. They were just waiting to be on the other side.

    I think a better point was made earlier that many more people now realize it is legal than prior to the coverage that we have received.
    Being on the fence and it falls our way it better then falling the other.
    I totally agree. I'm just not convinced that people who come out against us because of a western holster were ever going to be on our side on this issue.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •