Here's a picture I hadn't seen before. A grant from the NRA to young shooters. Another thing the GOA doesn't do.
Posted on 04/27/2007 11:15:33 AM PDT by neverdem
The problem is that the government would have access and authority when they want it and that would provide them with the means to selectively target anyone, any group, they chose to go after.
Further, your note regarding not allowing confiscation (and an earlier post about keeping a stash) makes an otherwise law abiding and patriotic citizen a criminal.
Ness got Capone on tax evasion, there is no reason to believe that a future administration would not go after critics for 'disallowed gun ownership'.
The time for all this trashing of the GOP is now before we choose a candidate - so you are right to do this - although it is amusing that every time a new candidate is mentioned, there is literal hsyteria on these posts pointing out how just plain AWFUL and out of the question, fill-in-the-blank is.
But after someone you don't want is selected you will continue to trash them, stay home, or vote for the other guy insisting there is no difference when of course there is AND thereby giving even more power to the dims next time.
That's fine - that will settle it. As masters of voter fraud, the dims will make sure that we never regain power.
Meanwhile you will become more and more frustrated, still waiting for a cross between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Stewart who are not going to reappear at a time when just normal people, never mind heroic people, won't even get into politics.
You will tell yourself and others, as another poster did, that you'd rather have a bloody nose than bloody shorts having insured that you will have both and probably getting all our throats cut too, since islam is NOT going away and, being basically cowards, are only waiting until we weaken ourselves enough to suit them.
Duly noted...
And I see your point...
But answer me this...When does a “law”, overide an inalienable right endowed upon “you” by “your” creator???
When does an “law” override a “moral” right to self-preservation, a law that would remove or make it “illegal” for you to defend against an immoral and illegal act against you???
Suzanne Hupp made a point about her incident (Lubys’ in Killeen, Texas) that if she had the chance to choose between having a felony conviction, and have her parents alive today, she would have done it in a heartbeat!
I think we need to beat those policies and risks against us into oblivion! And if we have to civily and moraly dissobey an immoral law, I believe there would be a lot of people we might have to crawl over to get to the head of that pack, if it was that important to you...
If it ever came to us seeing what the government (any political lean to it) had in store for us, I think we’d still be ahead of the game...And I also believe in a short while that the effects on enforcement of that immoral policy/law would manifest itself very quickly into something very unpleasant...
But this is only insomuch in regards to how committed both sides are to their convictions...
If it weren't for the built in expiration of the AWB, itself a compromise by some Republicans, for their support on the bill, it would still be with us as there were too many RINOs in Congress to get a repeal past, even after the '94 election, which swept the R's into power, mostly on the basis of the 'Rats getting too far out in front.
You'll notice that the current incarnation of the AWB, HR 1022, (It picked up another cosponsor on April 16, it now has 41 cosponsors) which would ban virtually every semiautomatic rifle and shotgun, has no expiration built in.
Another factor is that voting for RINOs provides the Republican party with no incentive to move in the direction of being more conservative. After all, if we elect RINOs, that means that RINOs are electable and there will be more RINO candidates.
Of course it will be written in such a manor that it can be enforced that way.
Before long if you see a marriage counselor, before your marriage gets really on the rocks, perhaps through your church or through the program that many employers have, it will be bye bye RKBA, for both spouses.
But if you are a Jihadi going to your mosque for instructions on how to commit mass murder, the government will have to keep its hands off, separation of Church and State don't ya know.
That's true, but they can ask for unanimous consent at 0 Dark Thirty, as they did when they saw to it that the Assault Weapons Ban not be repealed back in '95 when the ban was only a year old, and Republicans had gained control of Congress in part because they said they'd repeal the ban.
Similarly the Brady Bill passed because of an agreement, at Oh Dark Thirty, with 3 senators present, to end the filibuster.
The assault weapons ban was not passed as a stand alone bill with a "pure" up and down vote, instead it was inserted into the Crime Bill, which was difficult to vote against in the first place, and easy to justify to your constituents, "even though" it contained the AWB.
Yep, it does, called the Brady Act, passed in '93 after Clinton became President. Somehow we got along without it before then, at a time when there were a lot more gun dealers, when guns could be bought through the mail from the Sears and Wards catalogs. When even "convenience stores" (that is "gas stations, like 7-11 only more local) sold ammunition and sometimes guns as well. When even Target sold ammunition and accouterments. And you could also buy gun in many hardware stores. Now, thanks again to Clintoon, when we have many fewer places to buy guns, and have to jump through more hoops to do so, we have all these school shootings, and other incidents of mass murder.
The law is not written in stone and need not be expanded just because it can be. We fought it then, or many of us did anyway, and we'll fight it now.
Most of us can still read and understand the Constitution. I remember my oath.
Molon Labe!
ping
Much of that was done by state associations, sometimes working against the NRA, sometimes with it. The NRA first opposed, rather than supporting, the case which saw the DC gun ban overturned by a Federal Appeals court on the basis that it violated the *individual* right *of the people* to keep and bear arms. The NRA has no such victories. Emerson, which the NRA did support, ended with what can be read as dicta in the case supporting an individual right, but the gun law concerned (Lautenberg Amendment) upheld, and with Emerson stripped of his RKBA, forever.
That said, there is room for both the 400 pound Gorrilla, the NRA, and the little yappy dog, GOA. I'm a member of both. I don't see the GOA grabbing members from NRA, certainly not many, but rather serving as a "rougher around the edges" group that does a better job of keeping the main issue to the forefront, and has probably helped turn the NRA around somewhat. These days La Pierre sounds more like Larry Pratt than Pratt himself sounded 10 or 15 years ago. Similarly the SAF/CCRKB provides a more "intellectual" counterpoint to both GOA and NRA. Then there is the JPFO, talk about edgy. Whoo FReeping Who!.
You really think Schumer voted to confirm Alito and Roberts?
i bought my first gun at age 18 at a sporting goods/camping supply store in NYC and took it home on the subway!so i do remember the good old days-it was an enfield mk5 jungle carbine and it had a real nasty recoil-the first time i fired it the extractor broke-anyhow-i believe the rules against nuts,felons,and illegal aliens possessing firearms predated the brady abomination by quite a bit
>You really think Schumer voted to confirm Alito and Roberts?
Good point. The court choices are worth fighting for.
Thanks, I’ve had a lot of go-arounds here at FR lately on that issue.
I’m pleased to hear from someone with a bit of common sense.
Yes, it is true that compromise is itself a slippery slope.
I am encouraged by some of our progress (expansion of the castle doctrine, for instance), but I regret how much ground we have lost and how the 1968 GCA abomination is still the law of the land.
I suspect that the only flames you'll find are in the lamps burning the midnight oil over at the GOA's fundraising department. Let's see now... We've got:
this is where I got into a little misunderstanding with what I wrote there...
My premise was that I just don’t see this type of gun-control legislation going anywhere...
Sure it’ll raise the BP of a few people, and it should raise it in all of us...
But the fact is that even with a liberal majority in both houses now, and an absolutely clear desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to sign stuff like this...
I don’t see it getting the legs to pass...
They are not quite ready for us yet...Hopefully they never will be...
Perhaps the NRA needs to counter: "Should individuals that would seek to use firearms criminally be allowed out on the streets?"
Here's a picture I hadn't seen before. A grant from the NRA to young shooters. Another thing the GOA doesn't do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.