the best fuel for the anti gunners would be to see the pro gun advocates starting to battle each other. Discussions, debates, sharing opinions and disagreements is obviously going to happen however, we do not want to show weakness or splintering of support among gun supporters.
Yet you IMMEDIATELY badmouthed the new org as an NRA shill, as your main argument against them. Does not that inidcate "NRA = bad?"Wrong twice.
I don't see the NRA as being bad (usually), they just aren't as good as they claim to be.
So, what metric will YOU use? So far, it seems to be "they do what DVC wants done, in the way DVC wants it done, as long it isn't the way the NRA does it."DVC said:If NFC consistently does good things, they are good. This is a good start. What they do next (and next, and next) will show us the overall trend.
What difference would that make in your eyes? Are you also anti-public school?DVC said:Were you public schooled? I can find no other explanation for your failure to understand that the phrase "the NFC is actually trying to get something done" is the acknowledgement that you claim I refuse to give. Admittedly, I am surprised, but I'll take surprises like this all day long.
You brought up a "point" with no basis in facts. Facts that should be evident to anyone following NV legislative processes.DVC said:I brought up a point that I wanted others to consider. If you want to condemn me because you missed it, that's your problem, not mine.
The NRA is "talked about to be a threat" by the mainstream media.
The same mainstream media that thinks that we shouldn't have guns, that paints us all as ignorant drunken rednecks who are looking for a place and time to snap and become mass murderers, is telling the world how afraid they are of the NRA, but refusing to admit that the SAF, SAS, JAFO, GOA etc even exist.
I can hear them pleading "Oh, don't throw me in that NRA briar patch!!!"
Why not?
"Splintering" won CCW for Arizona.
"Splintering" put the Heller case before the Supreme Court, and WON it.
In fact, if you look back, I can't find a single major military or political campaign in history which was won by consensus. Quite a few have been LOST that way, but none won.
The NRA isn't Patton, it's more of a Bedell Smith. Or a better example would be John DeWitt, who "went along to get along" to remain in political favor.
Yet you IMMEDIATELY badmouthed the new org as an NRA shill, as your main argument against them. Does not that inidcate "NRA = bad?"
Yep mainstream media never been any help. Why do you suppose the mainstream media does not talk about the other groups as a threat to anti gun issues?
You seam to enjoy taking thing's to extreme.
I agree checks and balances are needed and to go along to get along brings out the worse of both sides. Constructive push back is important. However if the pro gun groups give any indication of on going or serious in fighting the main stream media will be all over the issue.
The MM is largely lazy. They don't want to do the work to differentiate between the NRA and other gun groups.
The other issue is that they don't want to give publicity to more effective groups -- at least, not in any positive way. If they tell about JPFO or SAS, suddenly the issue takes on a minority-rights slant, and it's their opponents who have the moral high ground.
Those who have been paying attention see what the NRA has and has not done. The MM sees the NRA as both an easy target and as someone they can promote but who won't really do too much.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" -- Barry Goldwater
I'm fighting to keep people alive. If you can show me a way to do that through weakness and compromise, it would sure save me (and others) a lot of sweat and annoyance. Believe me, I would rather spend my time flying experimental aircraft, or with some beautiful Filipina on the beach at La'ie.
Make no mistake. I'm not a gun hobbyist. I admire special or antique firearms, but I'm not a hunter, a gamesman or a playtime shooter. My primary interest is that a gun in the hand of an intended victim is the best crime control ever, and guns in the hands of millions of Americans is the only thing that keeps totalitarianism from taking over the planet. "If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. " -- Ronald Reagan
If the MM were going to do that, they would have made a lot of noise about how the NRA tried to derail Alan Gura when he was taking Heller to the USSC. Instead, they pretty much had nothing to say about it after a couple of "even the NRA is against taking this to the Supreme Court" stories in the early stages.
No, that indicates that any group associated with the NRA is suspect, because NRA isn't as good as many claim it to be, such as those who credit the NRA with the major advances made in gun rights over the last several years.
Though a formable origination if the media said JPFO opposes a particular gun law the mainstream public will say big deal, who the he*l is that?
Oh, so the group is suspect, because the NRA isn't "good"? Okay, that makes ALL the difference.....
Yes, defense of liberty is not a vice. In my mind Barry Goldwater's defeat is when our country went from a kick a$$ and take names to can’t we all hold hands, skip and get along?
Your statement, “I’m fighting to keep people alive. If you can show me a way to do that through weakness and compromise, it would sure save me (and others) a lot of sweat and annoyance.” Thanks to you and others for the fight.
Agreed it cannot be done through weakness, which was my my point to start with. I do not believe we are close however, it was my attempt with my first reply to say as we battle which group or process is the best for the needed results we need to be careful not let it turn into or be perceived as infighting a real sign of weakness. The mainstream media and anti gun groups would be all over that issue.
Your explanation of your interest was not needed for me. It is obvious you are compassionate for the mission and on top of your game and research. I am one of those playtime shooters and hunter doing my part for whatever it is worth to see the same result you talk about.
It is very aggravating not to be able to open carry my firearm as the 2nd amendment allows. I live 2 miles from the Commufornia line and it boggles my mind with no more than a few steps I can go from a law-abiding citizen to a felon.
By the way, you quoted Ronald Reagan. Have you ever been to the Ronald Regan library? It is an amassing place. To read some of his early writings it was obvious early on he had a real love for the USA and the American people. One can easily spend 4 hours there. It is located in Simi Valley 30 or so miles north of LA.
Depends upon what the group is "for." If they are "for" getting rid of guns, I would not support them, whether the Brady Campaign is associated with them or not.Well . . .yeah . . ?
If I told you that a newly-formed group were associated with the Brady Campaign, do you suspect them, or do you support them until you see what they do?
The NRA is not a civil rights organization, and the 2nd Amendment is not recognized as a civil right.DVC said:The NRA has a very spotty record when it comes to civil rights, and WORKED AGAINST the most important move forward in the history of the Second Amendment. Once they realized that they couldn't kill it, they tried to take it over, and then once it passed, they tried to claim the credit.
Some people like the NRA, others don't.DVC said:With a record like that, why would anyone with any intelligence NOT be suspicious of a group associated with them?
Instead of whining about my suspicions, PROVE THEM WRONG. If this is the great civil-rights tool that you claim it to be, SHOW US.
Until you do, you have no right to complain that I'm tarring you with the same brush that marks your "associated" organization.
Perhaps that is the best statement made here so far.[NFC will] STILL be the NFC if they were affiliated with JFPO or GOA........... Judge them for what the NFC says and does.
The NRA is not a civil rights organization, and the 2nd Amendment is not recognized as a civil right.
You come in here and start going off about a new gun rights org, simply because of who they affiliate with, even though the group they affiliate with IS a gun rights group.
The new group, contrary to what you attempted to claim in the first, is NOT a construct of the NRA.
For example, they would STILL be the NFC if they were affiliated with JFPO or GOA........... Judge them for what the NFC says and does.
The "point" is that it isn't a recognized civil right, and has nothing to do with voting.Voting was "not recognized as a civil right" until 1965, so I don't see your point.
Whether you want to agree or not, the NRA IS a gun rights organization. And, once again, it isn't about civil rights at all, no matter how often you try to claim it is.You'd better let the NRA know that. According to their website: "The primary goal of the association would be to 'promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis'" . . .
The ILA, formed 104 years later, is barely mentioned on their official history page, and gets less than 10% of the NRA budget. I knew two former members of the NRA Board (Colonel Cooper and Neal Knox), and they told me of their struggles to try to get the NRA to do anything solid about civil rights. Even the Colonel couldn't get the NRA to stop working against the CCW initiative drive.
The BEST method to have such a new group be influenced so you would have to eat crow, would be for you to JOIN and be a voice for their direction.DVC said:Wilco. I WANT to be proven wrong, I want to discover that they are strong, committed and effective allies in this important fight. I want to have to eat crow and join this group. But it will take proof, not mere words.
Time will tell. Either help, or I have little doubt that you will find SOMETHING to snipe at them about. You claim you want to be proven wrong, yet you keep moving the goalposts on them. Get in there and be a part. Or, don't. Sniping in here does no good.DVC said:PROVE ME WRONG for doubting. That is the challenge, and the only acceptable standard.
I remain unconvinced, but it doesn't matter -- affiliation is suspicious enough.
Whether you want to agree or not, the NRA IS a gun rights organization. And, once again, it isn't about civil rights at all, no matter how often you try to claim it is.
The BEST method to have such a new group be influenced so you would have to eat crow, would be for you to JOIN and be a voice for their direction.
Or, you can snipe from the sidelines when they don't look like they are working towards what YOU feel they should be working towards, in the way YOU feel they should be working towards it.........
The choice is yours, but you will be likely to be taken much more seriously if you become a part of the group.