terryg wrote:So, as more states adopt constitutional carry type laws, it suddenly makes it much easier to lump practically all shooting suspects into the "legally carrying" category. It won't matter then that these people could have/would have still committed the same crimes. The press will still show how they were completely legal up until the moment they pulled the trigger. Could this have a negative impact on the the concept of the armed citizen and on gun laws throughout the nation?
To me - yes. I still feel the whole open carry / constitutional carry thing will (may...) cause a huge backlash and play right into the hands of VPC and the Brady bunch. It is the 'law of unintended consequences'.
jimlongley wrote:And of course, depending on statistics to help is a double edged blade, all of the statistics in the world fail when faced with the loud emotional bad apple that spoils the entire bushel.
Exactly...
“Only at the end do you realize the power of the Dark Side.”
Andy, you know that you and I are homies, but we're going to disagree on that one. I'll respect your wish not to debate it, but I will relate for everyone else's benefit my experience from the other side of the coin.
For one thing, nearly every single issue of American Rifleman I get either has ads promoting the sale of EBRs, or articles about EBRs. I am a life member and have been for a pretty long time now, and I have never, ever, not once, seen NRA publish anything negative about EBRs—and I have seen much published that was positive. They promote EBRs for home defense, hunting, competition, collecting, and as part of the necessity of maintaining an armed populace as a defense to tyranny. I will admit that their various articles about EBRs tend to focus on American designs (Stoner, Barrett, M1A/M14, etc.) because the magazine is, after all, American Rifleman. But even so, there was an article about a year ago about the arms used by the British and Argentinians in the Falklands War which had lots of information about the use of your favorite, the FN FAL. The cover story of last months issue was about the new Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle. Other recent cover stories were about the new British sharpshooter rifle from LMT, the new FN SCAR .308, and the history and ongoing use of the M14 in the military (and civilian use of its civilian counterparts). Of course, this month's issue is nearly entirely devoted to the 100th anniversary of the 1911 pistol.
As the premier RKBA organization in this country, they represent, and publish stories about, a broad array of firearms interests. Those interests reflect the broad array of the interests of their paying membership. Not everybody who pays dues to the NRA owns or even cares about EBRs. There are lots of members whose sole interest in firearms ownership is the collection of historical antiques. There are people who love pistols but don't really care about rifles. There are people who are upland bird hunters, and people who are tactical shotgunners. There are 1,000 yard shooters, and there are CQB experts. With a current membership in the vicinity of 4 million people, those interests are bound to be broad, and they try to publish stuff that will appeal to everybody. Considering that there is such a broad array of interests, it is amazing to me that they publish so much about EBRs.
The NRA's first and foremost accountability is to their paying membership. Those are the people who pay for the publications. Those are the people who pay for the NRA's considerable political clout. A person can't sit outside the organization and say that he or she won't support it because NRA doesn't spend every single nickel it takes in (from the paying members) on that (non-paying, non-member) person's pet concerns. That person isn't paying for it, so they don't get a vote in the matter. If you want a say in how the NRA "does business," then man up and pay for the privilege to influence what the organization does (or doesn't) do. If someone doesn't want to financially support the organization as an entry into that privilege, then they can bloody well butt out. The protection of American gun rights is about the totality of guns in America, not just one segment of the market. One cannot expect someone whose sole interest in firearms is upland bird hunting and its associated concerns to throw themselves enthusiastically into supporting and promoting EBRs and their associated concerns, if EBR owners are not willing to return the favor and recognize that we are ALL in this together as Gun Owners, and not just isolated into our smaller communities according to our areas of special interest. Benjamin Franklin understood this principle when he said, "United we stand. Divided we fall." Virginians were not Pennsylvanians, but they were all, by God, Americans. The NRA is American gun owners' best hope for unity, working to ensure that our individual communities don't get picked off one by one. No, it isn't a perfect organization. There is no such thing. But it is as nearly perfect as we are going to get in earthly terms, and it IS our most effective advocate against the loss of our 2nd Amendment rights and progressivist tyranny.
With guns in 80 million American households, if all 80 million represented an NRA membership, we would have uncontested constitutional carry in all 50 states, and there would never again be another tyrannical attempt to limit our gun rights anywhere in the nation. But, as it is, only 4 million members pay to support the gun rights of the remaining 76 million households. If those remaining 76 million can't cowboy up and spend the $35.00/year for a basic NRA membership, then the least those 76 million could do is refrain from tearing down the one organization that represents their rights against a hostile takeover, because they've been getting a free ride so far and have materially benefited by having their rights defended without having contributed to the effort.
That's my experience and viewpoint, from the inside.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
And what/who exactly is a fud? Is it someone who hunts? is it someone who is only interested in hunting? Or is it anyone who doesn't agree with what you want politically? As a hunter I support your Right to Keep and Bear any kind of Arms. As a Concealed Handgun License Holder I support your right to hunt. As the owner of a number of "Black Rifles" I support your right to defend yourself. How do I manage to do this? I support the NRA, I support the SAF, I support specific state level organisations, and I speak out when I see someone who is trying to divide us into different groups. For years sporting purposes were the only ledge we had to stand on when it came to the right to keep and bear arms, by sporting purposes folks typically meant hunting. If it were not for the FUDs we would have an even bigger infestation of gun control. All efforts to Divide and Conquer should be left to the antis, lets not do the dividing for them.
As a EBR owning fud I leave you with the following thoughts:
#1: AR15s make excellent varmint rifles.
#2: AK and SKS type rifles make good hog rifles.
#3: Can constitutional carry hurt our RKBA efforts? It might, but it won't hurt it as much as this pointless internal name calling and other mindless whargarbling.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019
One cannot expect someone whose sole interest in firearms is upland bird hunting and its associated concerns to throw themselves enthusiastically into supporting and promoting EBRs and their associated concerns, if EBR owners are not willing to return the favor and recognize that we are ALL in this together
I believe you have it backwards, my friend - let me fix that for you:
"One cannot expect EBR owners to throw themselves enthusiastically into supporting and promoting the NRA and their associated concerns, if someone whose sole interest in firearms is upland bird hunting and its associated concerns are not willing to return the favor and recognize that we are ALL in this together"
[youtube][/youtube]
It's the Fudds throwing EBR owners under the bus and has been for decades - not the other way around. I support the principles of the NRA whole-heartedly - but I'm disappointed in the "leadership" who are quite happy to sacrifice my rights so that the bunny-shooters are ok. Until the NRA decide they're going to man up and support every gun-owner's rights and not just the privileged few, they can go jump in a lake as far as I'm concerned.
Andy, go back and listen to your video, at about 1:24. The interviewer (who is manifestly anti EBR just by the way he phrased the question) asks whether Jackson has discussed his point of view with the remainder of the NRA leadership. Jackson only partially answers the question, but in doing so, admits that his viewpoint is a touchy subject with the rest of the leadership. In actual fact, his views do not reflect the views of the remainder of the NRA's leadership. Heck, just ask Charles L. Cotton what he thinks about EBRs. He's on the NRA's national board. I wouldn't be surprised if he owned several of them himself, and I would wager that he represents the majority view of the board. Since the majority view of the board is what will dictate NRA's actual efforts, I don't think that Joaquin Jackson's views hold much sway with the organization.
That's kind a like me saying I won't support the republican party because Olympia Snowe is a republican (in name only). Besides, the best way to support the NRA's goals is to join and contribute.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
I know of some folks who use the term Fud(d) to refer to any hunter, so a little clarification was needed in order to know what type of person was being insulted. Now I have good news for you, your particular type of Fud has no relevence any more thanks to the U.S. Supreme Courts decisions in Heller and McDonald. With that said why bother attacking them? If we want to interact with them then lets get them to the range, or to a competitive shoot so they can see how the other side (those like us) lives. When we're not at the range lets show them why self defense is important by showing local/regional/state crime reports and make sure they understand that they alone are their first line of defense from violent criminals. So instead of alienating them, lets try to assimilate them and if we determine we can't bring them into the fold then lets not worry about them. The NRA does more than worry with hunting, although they like to show the hunting aspect more in public since it is a bit more friendly for Public Relations purposes. While the SAF got the cases to the Supreme Court, it was the NRA's arguments that won McDonald and their briefs that are frequently quoted in the Heller decision. Its the NRA that has the suit in federal court in Lubbock to eliminate the 21+ requirement for purchasing a handgun via an FFL. Then there are their legislative efforts, their education efforts (which have influenced the Texas CHL training requirements), and so on. So even though people who meet your definition of Fud are members of the NRA they most certainly do not control it. So lets refrain from the name calling and try to educate them, after all its easier to get someone to join our side if they already shoot.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019
