Return to “The Day I’ll Join The NRA – An Open Letter To Ted Nugent”
Let's start with Social Security...74novaman wrote:In addition to lots of other things. It took 200 something years (although one could make a strong argument for most of it being since the election of FDR and his successors) to screw up this badly. Its going to take us some time to get things right again.TEX wrote:The founding fathers would be disgusted at where we are now in relation to the right to keep and bear arms.
TEX
They've done, basically, nothing. But that's not the point of the letter. It's not a 'look what we've done, what have you done?' letter. No one is going to compete with the NRA in terms of getting stuff done. Just look at operating budgets and membership numbers.seamusTX wrote:This is a pipe dream, like abolishing the federal income tax or Social Security. It is never going to happen.pbwalker wrote:How the NRA is looking to disband the BATFE...etc.
The majority of BATFE's activities involve smugglers, moonshiners, tax evaders, arsonists, and would-be terrorists.
I think their nitpicking on honest FFLs needs to stop. The NRA has tried and is still trying to achieve that goal. A BATFE reform bill is currently in the works with bipartisan support:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=5210" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What has any other group done to "abolish BATFE" other than write screeds?
- Jim
With all due respect Charles, it's a bit insulting to insinuate that those who find any validity in this authors letter are somehow lemmings who will believe anything put to print. But this is your forum and you can do as you wish...Charles L. Cotton wrote:The NRA has repeatedly pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police departments do not have a duty to protect any individual. This was one of the major points used in the NRA support of concealed-carry around the country. I just got back from the NRA meetings in Charlotte and saw a preview of a video coming out that has several police officers stating that it is very rare for an officer to be able to respond to an assault in time to protect you and that everyone citizen needs to protect themselves. NRA has been saying this for years and the article's author should know this.karl wrote:I think it's foolish to promote gun ownership and not be a member of the NRA. That being said I think he makes some interesting points. Not having seen evidence on the contrary, I think some of his points have at least some bearing. I agree that if the NRA promoted the "duty of police is not to protect" issue that a lot of people would change their minds. A common defense to gun control I've heard is that you can always call the police. What do you gentlemen in disagreement think about this?
This points out the problem/danger in typical NRA-bashing crap. Based upon your post, I'm sure you were not aware that the NRA has been doing precisely what the article accuses it of not doing. People tend to believe something simply because it is in print. It's the same tactic used by anti-gunners like the Brady Campaign when they say "studies show a firearm in your home is 47 times more likely to injure or kill a family member than an intruder." That is garbage, but those unfamiliar with the subject matter tend to believe it, simply because it was stated or in print. Only when the NRA provides accurate information do people realize they have been duped.
Chas.
the NRA has been doing precisely what the article accuses it of not doing
But that's my point...do we just give up or tone it down? No! We draw attention to the fact that it has worked in VT and AK. We (the NRA) need to be more vocal about these things. Like it was mentioned by another forum member, the NRA seems to be preaching to the choir most of the time. We (again, the NRA) need to work on drawing in the moderates and bringing to light the facts. Stop soliciting me and go after the "Harry the Hunter" types who are on the fence...seamusTX wrote:how are we going to change the minds of the 98% of the adult population that is not interested in carrying or thinks it is paranoid or dangerous?
I don't think anyone is denying that the NRA is a valuable resource for gun owners. But what I see (not you specifically TAM, just in general) is that if you critique the NRA or question anything, the venom pours out. Not really on this forum, but others that I have seen. It's really a "Wizard of Oz - Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" type of situation.The Annoyed Man wrote:Is it conceivable to you that NRA's part in those things was to be a moderating influence on the crazies, and that without the NRA's participation, those laws would have been more poisonous than they already are?chabouk wrote:I agree. But, as uncomfortable as the truth might be, the NRA had a hand in crafting every major piece of federal gun control legislation. Starting with NFA '34, through GCA '68, to the Brady Acts.seamusTX wrote:P.S.: For the record, I think the U.S. should never have started down the road of "gun control."
Sometimes, participation is the responsible thing to do, because the result of not participating is even worse.
My only criticism of the NRA is that they spend too much on mailings to active members. We live in an increasingly digitized world. It would be far more efficient, and give members more control over what arrives in their "mailbox," if more were done using emails and the web. Save a tree and do it for the chirren, and all that...
But other than that, I am a proud life member. So is my wife. So is my son. We are grateful for the NRA's advocacy in D.C.
So do we just give up? Or maybe reevaluate the means in which the message is conveyed?seamusTX wrote: However, it is very difficult to present people with a fact that is contrary to what they want to believe. They blank it out; and if they can't do that, they argue that it cannot be true.
Well said chabouk!chabouk wrote:I agree. But, as uncomfortable as the truth might be, the NRA had a hand in crafting every major piece of federal gun control legislation. Starting with NFA '34, through GCA '68, to the Brady Acts.seamusTX wrote:P.S.: For the record, I think the U.S. should never have started down the road of "gun control."
Not all of it is negative: the AWB had a built-in sunset clause (I wish all federal legislation did!), and NICS/Brady II is better than Brady I (and its waiting period). But, that's akin to arguing whether it's better to be slapped with the left hand, or the right: both sting, and free people should suffer neither.
Nobody in the current NRA hierarchy can be blamed for NFA '34 or GCA '68, but the proper roll of the NRA at that time would have been to throw a huge fit in opposition to either.
That old attitude of "damage control" rather than reversing course, seems to continue to this day.
All I'm saying is that I'd love to see this type of aggressiveness out of the NRA...How has an unalienable right to self defense been demoted to a revocable government granted privilege?
What, in his letter, do you disagree with?Dragonfighter wrote:I have to agree. This yahoo is a chest thumping idiot .
