• 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.

Not even NRA members support carry!

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
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?!
 

massivedesign

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
865
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
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..
 

New Daddy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
123
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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 [font="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial"]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 comments supporting gun control.
[/font]
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
imported post

Remember, NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. For many members, if it doesn't concern rifles and hunting, it doesn't matter.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.

:D
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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.

:D
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.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
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 :lol:). 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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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?!
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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?
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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?
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
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.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top