NRA Saga Continues

[Dusty Stevens]

That's the money quote, literally. I'm a Life member, and a regular contributor to the Golden Eagles, but no more, not until a major reform is done and LaPierre is gone. After seeing the expense reports for which he was responsible, which included private jets, custom tailored suits, high end restaurant bills etc., all on my dime, I say no more. Reform or die, as far as I am concerned. As has been pointed out by others, money needs to be spent on defending the Second Amendment with NO compromises, and the SAF and GOA seem to be much more effective in doing this than the NRA, especially in its current iteration.

But you could throw millions of dollars at these other orgs that nobody has heard of and it wont make a bit of difference. They dont have the ear of the ones in charge. It sure does sound good but your efforts are better spent on fixing the only org that CAN make a difference

 

[300_whisper]

But you could throw millions of dollars at these other orgs that nobody has heard of and it wont make a bit of difference. They dont have the ear of the ones in charge. It sure does sound good but your efforts are better spent on fixing the only org that CAN make a difference

How do we do that? Call in? Email? How do you make them listen?

I like the idea of supporting the other groups because they don’t have the spotlight and these SJW goons won’t target them bc they won’t even know they exist.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

^^ thats true for a counter point for sure. I see all sides.

 

[Mike7.62]

Yet after every mass shooting some of us wish that the idiot who did it wouldn't have had access to firearms, it's a double edged sword here. Just because you own a gun, doesn't mean I have to trust you with it.

I guess the phrase "shall not be infringed" eludes your comprehension.

You want the rest of us to give up our rights to own militia equivalent weapons because you're afraid that a few criminals might get access to them and perpetrate crimes. News flash, all of the mass shootings were done by people with SSRI prescriptions that were prescribed to them in direct contradiction to the FDA black box warnings concerning them, and the firearms used were mostly stolen. Many of the perpetrators were on LE radar screens and never interdicted prior to their bad acts. So we have a massive failure by the medical profession, and LE, yet the firearms owning public is supposed to yet again "compromise" our rights to satisfy the failures of other segments of society, specifically those paid to supervise these classes of people, i.e., those with criminal records or mental health issues, or both.

Sorry, not buying it. Once we compromise away our rights, as you and many seem to desire, the next step is more "common sense" initiatives. Once they disarm us, the next step is genocide. Don't believe me? Look at history. How many arms confiscations preceded genocide? ALL of them. The demonization of a certain class of people has already started here in the US, and is growing daily. Once the guns are gone, the cleansing can start, and I for one do not wish to be cleansed.

 

[Jammer Six]

But you could throw millions of dollars at these other orgs that nobody has heard of and it wont make a bit of difference. They dont have the ear of the ones in charge. It sure does sound good but your efforts are better spent on fixing the only org that CAN make a difference

If we threw millions of dollars at them, it would change. Overnight.

 

[Jammer Six]

News flash, all of the mass shootings were done by people with SSRI prescriptions that were prescribed to them in direct contradiction to the FDA black box warnings concerning them, and the firearms used were mostly stolen.

Check your facts.

 

[Mike7.62]

But you could throw millions of dollars at these other orgs that nobody has heard of and it wont make a bit of difference. They dont have the ear of the ones in charge. It sure does sound good but your efforts are better spent on fixing the only org that CAN make a difference

IIRC, it was the SAF that had the lead in Heller and McDonald, not the NRA. The NRA needs an overhaul in a big way, and the first thing that needs to happen is an independent third party audit, open to all voting members to see exactly where the money is going. Throwing good money after bad does no one any good.

 

[Mike7.62]

Check your facts.

I have, and every one of the mass shooters was either on SSRI's or had been within a month or so. The black box labels specifically say that these meds should only be given while the patient is under direct supervision of a psych doc, and NOT under the age of 26, as feelings of rage, tendencies toward suicide, and violent outbursts may present.

 

[jghoghunter]

"Sorry, not buying it. Once we compromise away our rights, as you and many seem to desire, the next step is more "common sense" initiatives. Once they disarm us, the next step is genocide. Don't believe me? Look at history. How many arms confiscations preceded genocide? ALL of them. The demonization of a certain class of people has already started here in the US, and is growing daily. Once the guns are gone, the cleansing can start, and I for one do not wish to be cleansed."

There has not been a truer statement made in this entire post.
Well said!!

LOOK AT HISTORY. This is exactly why they don't teach history anymore.

 

[ED3]

But you could throw millions of dollars at these other orgs that nobody has heard of and it wont make a bit of difference. They dont have the ear of the ones in charge. It sure does sound good but your efforts are better spent on fixing the only org that CAN make a difference

For being a group nobody has heard of, The Second Amendment Foundation was instrumental in the winning the landmark cases of Heller vs Washington DC, and
McDonald v. City of Chicago

 

[Jammer Six]

I have, and every one of the mass shooters was either on SSRI's or had been within a month or so. The black box labels specifically say that these meds should only be given while the patient is under direct supervision of a psych doc, and NOT under the age of 26, as feelings of rage, tendencies toward suicide, and violent outbursts may present.

Cite, please.

 

[300_whisper]

I guess the phrase "shall not be infringed" eludes your comprehension.

You want the rest of us to give up our rights to own militia equivalent weapons because you're afraid that a few criminals might get access to them and perpetrate crimes. News flash, all of the mass shootings were done by people with SSRI prescriptions that were prescribed to them in direct contradiction to the FDA black box warnings concerning them, and the firearms used were mostly stolen. Many of the perpetrators were on LE radar screens and never interdicted prior to their bad acts. So we have a massive failure by the medical profession, and LE, yet the firearms owning public is supposed to yet again "compromise" our rights to satisfy the failures of other segments of society, specifically those paid to supervise these classes of people, i.e., those with criminal records or mental health issues, or both.

Sorry, not buying it. Once we compromise away our rights, as you and many seem to desire, the next step is more "common sense" initiatives. Once they disarm us, the next step is genocide. Don't believe me? Look at history. How many arms confiscations preceded genocide? ALL of them. The demonization of a certain class of people has already started here in the US, and is growing daily. Once the guns are gone, the cleansing can start, and I for one do not wish to be cleansed.

I don’t think that’s where milo was going with his statement. Lol

I’m pretty sure there are a lot of people out there who we could all agree that we shouldn’t trust them with a firearm.

Additionally, there are certain people who shouldn’t own them. I don’t have a solution, and I don’t think government intervention is the correct answer either. We fall back to the issue of freedom vs security. I like freedom. I can provide my own security

 

[Jammer Six]

I don’t have a solution, and I don’t think government intervention is the correct answer either.

The problem there is that while government isn't the "correct" answer, it's the only possible answer. No one else could get it done-- no one else would be able to either prevent those that shouldn't own firearms from owning them (and yes, I agree, they absolutely do exist) or take them from those who demonstrate they shouldn't own them.

If anyone but the government did either of those things, I would be against them, simply because they aren't the government I elected.

 

[CT10ring]

"Sorry, not buying it. Once we compromise away our rights, as you and many seem to desire, the next step is more "common sense" initiatives. Once they disarm us, the next step is genocide. Don't believe me? Look at history. How many arms confiscations preceded genocide? ALL of them. The demonization of a certain class of people has already started here in the US, and is growing daily. Once the guns are gone, the cleansing can start, and I for one do not wish to be cleansed."

There has not been a truer statement made in this entire post.
Well said!!

LOOK AT HISTORY. This is exactly why they don't teach history anymore.

"Common sense" in re: firearms = the end of individual 2A rights.
The backstop of the U.S. Supreme Court to safeguard and reaffirm - our liberties - all of them, w/o the "feelings" of the moment - is not to be underestimated.
The NRA will sort out the issues - that's the simple minded, hopeful version. Politics has been a pay for access, votes for sale and compromised legislation for 100's of years.
Let's hope this bet on the NRA pans out.

 

[Milo 2.0]

I guess the phrase "shall not be infringed" eludes your comprehension.

You want the rest of us to give up our rights to own militia equivalent weapons because you're afraid that a few criminals might get access to them and perpetrate crimes. News flash, all of the mass shootings were done by people with SSRI prescriptions that were prescribed to them in direct contradiction to the FDA black box warnings concerning them, and the firearms used were mostly stolen. Many of the perpetrators were on LE radar screens and never interdicted prior to their bad acts. So we have a massive failure by the medical profession, and LE, yet the firearms owning public is supposed to yet again "compromise" our rights to satisfy the failures of other segments of society, specifically those paid to supervise these classes of people, i.e., those with criminal records or mental health issues, or both.

Sorry, not buying it. Once we compromise away our rights, as you and many seem to desire, the next step is more "common sense" initiatives. Once they disarm us, the next step is genocide. Don't believe me? Look at history. How many arms confiscations preceded genocide? ALL of them. The demonization of a certain class of people has already started here in the US, and is growing daily. Once the guns are gone, the cleansing can start, and I for one do not wish to be cleansed.

Where in this post did I say anything about my willingness to compromise? NICS checks are the law of the land for the majority of purchases. I am a law abiding citizen, just because I said if I sell you a gun, paperwork will be done, you have assumed for some reason that I lack resolve in this matter.
I personally think even felons should be able to own 1 gun for the sole purpose of self defense, but then again we may have to revert back to the comment you quoted me on. In times where people use guns against defenseless persons, I sure as the hell do not wake up to the news and say, "I am proud to be gun owner". It's the exact opposite, after a quick prayer, I hang and shake my head and ask how did this looney slip through the cracks to give myself and 70 million(?) other gun owners another black eye.
You fight the fight the way you see fit, and I will do the same.

 

[Raythemanroe]

Yet after every mass shooting some of us wish that the idiot who did it wouldn't have had access to firearms, it's a double edged sword here. Just because you own a gun, doesn't mean I have to trust you with it.

Limiting honest people from purchasing a gun or the amount of ammo a magazine can hold will never prevent a shooting.. I don't have to trust anyone, neither do you. You don't have to like me or I do you. Freedom isn't you being comfortable in what I do. People's feelings should never be a factor.. Creating more victims because of good heartfelt intentions (although ignorant to facts) is still wrong..

Ray

 

[Raythemanroe]

If you think the idea that the government regulating your guns/ammo/2nd amendment is somehow going to prevent crime. Then you just haven't been paying attention.

Ray

 

[Knotwild]

The first two linked groups - SAF, and GOA are first rate, aggressive organizations worthy of your support.
It's been several years since I've donated any money to the NRA, but I support SAF, and GOA.

Now about the NAGR...

Before you send them any money,
Google " National Association for Gun Rights scam"

Thanks ED3. I didn't do my due diligence on researching the NAGR. They are downright scary.

I am going to go back and edit my post to remove it.

 

[Milo 2.0]

Limiting honest people from purchasing a gun or the amount of ammo a magazine can hold will never prevent a shooting.. I don't have to trust anyone, neither do you. You don't have to like me or I do you. Freedom isn't you being comfortable in what I do. People's feelings should never be a factor.. Creating more victims because of good heartfelt intentions (although ignorant to facts) is still wrong..

Ray

If you think the idea that the government regulating your guns/ammo/2nd amendment is somehow going to prevent crime. Then you just haven't been paying attention.

Ray

You act like I am not aware of any of the things you have said here. Let's set one thing straight, you live in a state that restricts the things you mentioned, not I. I can shower up here in an hour, get dressed, and at 8am mountain time buy 10 or more firearms at once, clean any store out of 30rd AR mags, and as much ammo as I see fit.
Just because I said at times some of us wish some clown had never owned or had access to guns, does not make me an advocate of regulations or gun control, and I'd like to know just how you made that conclusion. Because it was a simple statement that I doubt I am alone in, in that train of thought.

 

[Mike7.62]

Cite, please.

The Libertarian Institute has a very good study on this. Unfortunately, when I try and upload it here I receive a message that the link doesn't have an allowed extension. Tell you what though, why don't you Google "SSRI use in mass shootings" and you will see numerous articles on this subject.