Oliver North to speak at 30.06ed Church

[Greybeard]

A friend sent this to me today for consideration in putting up on DCSA's Facebook page. Then I asked if Fellowship Church in Grapevine was still 30.06ed. He replied yes and yes on 30.07. His last comment was wanting to hear my thoughts, which I will give him when time for a little sit down session. But I suspect that some of the people in church admin there will not care for what I have to say. I plan to send him a link to this thread so he can see thoughts directly from members here. https://fellowshipchurch.com/memorial-day/

[flechero]

Rather than focus on the negative of the Church being posted... focus on the fact that he'll be speaking to a group and leadership with the opportunity to impact their thinking. Maybe his visit will change lots of minds and offer hope [and opportunity] to get those signs removed. I have to think he'll weave in some pro NRA, pro carry, self defense speak.

Hopefully.

[bblhd672]

Well, Col. North did support an Assault Weapons Ban on Larry King Live, January 26, 1994. Wonder if his comments made then, “Anyone who wants to possess such a weapon (“assault weapon”) should join the Marine Corps.” came up during the NRA Board Meeting?

After my initial good feeling about his selection as NRA President, his former pro gun control remarks give me pause to wonder. We shall see if he is truly a believer in the 2nd Amendment or another “but” man.

[MechAg94]

Well, that was a very long time ago so I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. If he says something foolish, it won't do the NRA any good at all. Plus, from what I heard, he has been active with the NRA and served on the board for a few years now so he ought to know better now.

[cyphertext]

Well, that was a very long time ago so I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. If he says something foolish, it won't do the NRA any good at all. Plus, from what I heard, he has been active with the NRA and served on the board for a few years now so he ought to know better now.

That was not "a very long time ago" and a leopard doesn't change its spots. I bet he still feels that way, just more politically savvy now.

[flechero]

That was not "a very long time ago" and a leopard doesn't change its spots. I bet he still feels that way, just more politically savvy now.

I know that I said things 25 years ago that I wouldn't say now- not because I know better but because I don't believe them anymore.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now and let his actions/words speak for him going forward.

[dlh]

Well, Col. North did support an Assault Weapons Ban on Larry King Live, January 26, 1994. Wonder if his comments made then, “Anyone who wants to possess such a weapon (“assault weapon”) should join the Marine Corps.” came up during the NRA Board Meeting?

After my initial good feeling about his selection as NRA President, his former pro gun control remarks give me pause to wonder. We shall see if he is truly a believer in the 2nd Amendment or another “but” man.

I was never in the military (think President Nixon and Vietnamization, 1972) but I think Colonel North was wrong if he said the AR15 was an assault weapon used in the Marine Corps or any service branch.

I did recently purchase a true weapon of war--a Mossberg 590A1 pump shotgun. It is my understanding it was used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wonder if he wanted those banned too? Hmmm.

[RoyGBiv]

The incoming President of the NRA is speaking at an event that will prohibit the lawful carry of firearms.
I hope this was something that was scheduled before he accepted the NRA position... ? (I assume it was)

[RossA]

Yep, the NRA has had too many missteps in its history in terms of compromise on gun rights. There was a period of years a few decades ago where I intentionally let me membership lapse because of the weak leadership. We don't need that again.

[Soccerdad1995]

In Texas, private property owners are legally allowed to limit the civil rights of visitors, even if the exercise of those civil rights do not harm the property owners or anyone else in any way. Some of us cheer this as a win for private property rights. Some of us think this is unfortunate and do not believe that private property rights should extend to all aspects of a visitors life. I'm in the second category.

IMHO, a pro 2A organization should not endorse a private property owners' decision to ban firearms, even if such a decision is legal.

[RoyGBiv]

In Texas, private property owners are legally allowed to limit the civil rights of visitors, even if the exercise of those civil rights do not harm the property owners or anyone else in any way. Some of us cheer this as a win for private property rights. Some of us think this is unfortunate and do not believe that private property rights should extend to all aspects of a visitors life. I'm in the second category.

IMHO, a pro 2A organization should not endorse a private property owners' decision to ban firearms, even if such a decision is legal.

I intend to show up at the Capitol at the appropriate hearing in 2019 and call out the hipocrisy of hiding behind "private property" as an excuse for not passing good gun legislation while the regulations on businesses and what they are compelled to do by the same "private property loving" legislative body continues to multiply.

[flechero]

In Texas, private property owners are legally allowed to limit the civil rights of visitors, even if the exercise of those civil rights do not harm the property owners or anyone else in any way. Some of us cheer this as a win for private property rights. Some of us think this is unfortunate and do not believe that private property rights should extend to all aspects of a visitors life. I'm in the second category.

IMHO, a pro 2A organization should not endorse a private property owners' decision to ban firearms, even if such a decision is legal.

I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?

[BBYC]

Maybe they'll go eat at Ellen's too.

[E.Marquez]

why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property..

Some get it, some dont.
I often wonder how many that dont, are not property owners.. (as much as one can "own" property in the US).

And if they are property owners, can they with a straight face say, they have no reservations or concerns about giving free and unrestricted access of their property by others as long as it "does not affect the property"?
Keeping in mind as well, "doesn't affect" is in the opinion of the non property owner person, and it is not a fixed standard..

I'm sure there are some property owners willing to seed that control to a third party... The Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi I suppose, but Ive not met the person who would yet.

"Oh your just being extreme and exaggerating"

Ok, perhaps in illustrating the point.. So try this property owner who thinks, a third party should be able to bring with them anything they want that "does not affect" the property..

Remember it is the third party, not you that gets to decide what is not affecting your property and ok to bring with them. For those advocating such a thing... speak up..and we can play this out to see if you will admit, there are things a third party might want to bring on your privet property you would like them not to...but under your idea of right and wrong, they are allowed to, because they dont think it affect your property.

[ScottDLS]

why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property..

Some get it, some dont.
I often wonder how many that dont, are not property owners.. (as much as one can "own" property in the US).

And if they are property owners, can they with a straight face say, they have no reservations or concerns about giving free and unrestricted access of their property by others as long as it "does not affect the property"?
Keeping in mind as well, "doesn't affect" is in the opinion of the non property owner person, and it is not a fixed standard..

I'm sure there are some property owners willing to seed that control to a third party... The Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi I suppose, but Ive not met the person who would yet.

"Oh your just being extreme and exaggerating"

Ok, perhaps in illustrating the point.. So try this property owner who thinks, a third party should be able to bring with them anything they want that "does not affect" the property..

Remember it is the third party, not you that gets to decide what is not affecting your property and ok to bring with them. For those advocating such a thing... speak up..and we can play this out to see if you will admit, there are things a third party might want to bring on your privet property you would like them not to...but under your idea of right and wrong, they are allowed to, because they dont think it affect your property.

It's not his property....well maybe His property. But does the church belong to Ed Young personally? More likely some type of non-profit entity or whatever. No one is questioning what you can do with your personal property, but if you choose to allow someone in without screening them for weapons, then why should the state help you by making it a criminal offense? You have the right to exclude Republicans from your private property. But if you let me in while wearing a GOP undershirt (and I lied and told you I was a Democrat) do you get the DA to prosecute me because I voted for Trump?