TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/03/open ... ed-nugent/

interesting read...the writer brings up some very valid points...

In other words, he will join the NRA after the NRA adopts his personal agenda.

Please explain why every anti-RKBA group and politician condemns the NRA for killing "sensible gun control" legislation. Please explain why politicians who have A ratings from the NRA broadcast that information -- and so do their opponents. Please explain why Bill Clinton gave the NRA credit for the Republican landslide in 1994. Please explain why members of Congress rated the NRA the most effective lobbying group in Washington.

There are other pro-RKBA groups that take more ideologically pure positions. Good luck to them. They have had years to achieve five-digit membership numbers.

I would not be a member of any group if I required it to do everything that I want. But I like to think I'm a mature adult who wants to do his part to achieve reasonable goals.

- Jim

The author doesn't have a point, he lives in a dream world with no idea how things work in Washington. If his proposed tactics worked, then GOA would have achieved everything he wants. What has GOA accomplished? Nothing, not one single thing.

Chas.

P.S.: For the record, I think the U.S. should never have started down the road of "gun control." I think it has done no good. Criminals who cannot possibly obtain or possess a firearm legally get firearms all the time. The few who are too stupid to figure out how to flout firearms laws use other weapons. This lesson has been illustrated by history time and again, everywhere the experiment was tried.

But the U.S. made that mistake before my grandfather was born. We are not going to reverse a century and a half of history in a few years, and we are not going to do it with overheated rhetoric that alienates people who might otherwise be persuaded to our point of view.

- Jim

Well, to each their own. I'm not denying the NRA is a powerful force, but I'd disagree that he doesn't have points.

As a side note, this isn't written about on behalf of the GOA. It's the JPFO.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The author doesn't have a point, he lives in a dream world with no idea how things work in Washington. If his proposed tactics worked, then GOA would have achieved everything he wants. What has GOA accomplished? Nothing, not one single thing.

Chas.

I have to agree. This yahoo is a chest thumping idiot.

Heck, I'd be happy if the NRA were to take a more aggressive stance like the AzCDL.

Dragonfighter wrote:I have to agree. This yahoo is a chest thumping idiot .

What, in his letter, do you disagree with?

I think the burden of proof is on you, since you brought up the topic, to explain how any of his points would effectively promote the right to keep and bear arms. By effectively, I mean have more than a snowball's chance in a pizza oven of passing legislation or changing public opinion.

- Jim

I'll pick the CCW Laws for grins...

I think we'd all agree that the NRA stands for the 2A. If they do, why are they not vocal about the CCW laws. It does not say that we have the rights, but with a license. It says we have the right regardless. Would you like to save your $140? I know I would...We don't see blood in the streets of AK or VT and we won't see it in AZ. So why can't the NRA get behind this for ALL states?

How has an unalienable right to self defense been demoted to a revocable government granted privilege?

All I'm saying is that I'd love to see this type of aggressiveness out of the NRA...

Its all about the money.

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?

I think he wants basically what all of us want, he just wants it now, the NRA is working on a valid political timeline, I don't doubt that most of the NRA would love to have all those things, but it's just too much too quick, too much weight to throw around before you're shooting blanks. Politics works slower and stupider (hah!) than most people want.

seamusTX wrote:P.S.: For the record, I think the U.S. should never have started down the road of "gun control."

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.

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.

I could find similar critiques on issues with the GOP, but I still vote Republican. I just joined the NRA yesterday.