« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Shocking Emails Show National Rifle Association Worked to Prohibit Rifles From National Parks

What will they change their middle initial to now?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  July 13th, 2010 at 02:35 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

You know things are bad for the National Rifle Association when it has to get the New York Times to run a puff piece on it.

But in their zeal to get a puff piece out there as well as their collaboration with the left on the DISCLOSE Act, the NRA has angered a number of people on Capitol Hill.

Shocking new e-mails obtained by RedState show that the National Rifle Association actively opposed and sought to undermine gun-rights legislation offered in the Senate by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).

The New York Times article contains this paragraph:

With a push from the N.R.A., a popular bill last year restricting credit card lenders came with an odd add-on: It also allowed people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

This is referring to legislation by Senator Tom Coburn, which would have allowed rifles and pistols into national parks — legislation the NRA actively tried to undermine. In other words, in getting their puff piece written by the New York Times, the NRA is taking credit for things the NRA actively tried to stop. That is not the whole story.

A congressional aide tells me, “You’re absolutely right that many conservatives view the NRA as an organization that represents itself rather than the 2nd amendment. For instance, the NRA was livid when Senator Coburn introduced the guns in the park amendment without their permission. The NRA worked to undermine the amendment.”

Specifically, the NRA tried to weaken the guns in parks language working with House Democratic leadership (after it passed the Senate overwhelmingly). The Coburn language returned to the states complete authority to determine firearm possession laws in national parks and refuges. This change mirrored similar regulations governing firearm possession for the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. In some instances, this would result in park and refuge visitors being allowed to carry handguns and rifles in national parks. Ironically, the National “RIFLE” Association wanted to change it so that Coburn’s legislation did not include “rifles” or other long firearms.

Another source familiar with the behind the scenes machinations on the DC voting rights bill tells me that despite the claims in the New York Times article, “the NRA had nothing to do with the addition of the DC Gun language to the DC voting rights bill. Senator Ensign did not give the NRA a heads-up for fear that Reid would block the Amendment, because the NRA would have ratted Ensign out to Reid. They may have helped in the House to make sure the DC voting rights bill include gun rights language, yet they were not part of any pre-Amendment offering strategy sessions.”

Why? For fear that they would rat out the Republican effort to Harry Reid.

RedState has obtained a series of emails between the NRA and congressional aides wherein the NRA is clearly pushing for a Nancy Pelosi backed language to undermine Tom Coburn backed language. In the chain of emails, the NRA says it wants a House version because Senator Coburn’s would have unintended consequences. What were those unintended consequences?

From: NRA
To: Congressional Aide
Sent: Mon May 18, 2009
Subject: Re: Congress Poised to Restore Common Sense Second Amendment Rights

The Coburn amendment to H.R. 627 is open to criticism and potential problems since it is not limited to concealed firearms, or even concealable firearms. Rifles, shotguns, legally possessed machineguns or destructive devices, could all be carried if the person is not prohibited and the person complies with state law.

Two very important points to consider on the language:

1. Limiting to concealed handguns squares with the motive for the federal rule change to legalize self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges – i.e. the growth of right to carry states.

2. Concealed (and therefore concealable) handguns are less likely than rifles or shotguns to be used for poaching – unlike in national forests and BLM lands where hunting is frequent and legal.

Note the NRA uses the words “destructive devices.”

Let’s ignore the fact that the inability to conceal a rifle might actually be of benefit to park rangers should poaching happen. Instead, let’s focus on the National Rifle Association trying to prohibit rifles from national parks.

What. The. Heck?

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    I’m an NRA life member. Previous reports resulted in a couple of emails to the NRA. I also know the NRA board member who lives a few block away. He’s going to get an earful.

    This time the NRA gets a paper letter demanding a reply.

    I’ve ignored my NRA ballot every time it comes in the mail with my American Rifleman (now I realize that the NRA has relied on this). No more.

    We need to demand that NRA board members who wish to be re-elected speak out publicly on these issues.

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com IronDioPriest

    It appears that the NRA has succumbed to the eventual fate of nearly all activist organizations.

    They begin with a mission, but as they grow and gain influence, power, money, and layers of bureaucracy, their mission gives way to the narrow self-interest of the organization’s survival. Their principles go out the window, and are replaced with ever-increasing degrees of shameless brokering designed only to perpetuate the organization, no matter what gears need greasing, or what ox needs goring.

    By definition, this means that the NRA has become more “liberal”.

  • mtt_from_nc

    I have always held 2nd amendment issues on a pedestal, and I’ve been an NRA member for most of my adult life; that’s not about to change. Therefore, you can imagine that I am delighted with every gun-rights victory that comes to pass. The Coburn amendment was no exception, and I think it was the right thing to do – at the national level. However, I DO UNDERSTAND THE NRA’S CONCERN for how the language of his amendment leaves the new law open to scathing criticism: gun owners and the NRA don’t need bad press right now! If we focus on the most important aspect of our 2nd amendment rights – self defense – then we’re ironclad; if we bite off more than we can chew while our enemies are looking for any chance to villainize us, then we have opened ourselves up to danger and we chance losing more than we have gained. The NRA’s point – that it might behoove prudence to refrain from carrying long guns into national parks for the time being – would have been better brought up in, and left up to, the states, and Coburn’s amendment leaves it that way. So the NRA needs to take that battle to the state level, and let the federal law stand as it does. They’re not necessarily wrong; they just tried to change the wrong law.

  • conservativecrusade

    and if you want to remain in ignorance, so be it. But our rights to arms have little to do with self defense and you saying that shows you do not know a thing.

    Our right to guns is simply that, the right to own guns, period. There is nothing more or less about that right.

    And as far as the NRA, they can shove it right up their stink hole. They are not supposed to come against any infringement of our right to bare arms, period. And lately they seem to be lost in what their job is. The very first hunt I ever went on was in a national park and I carried a long gun along with a pistol. So yes, they should have been protecting that right with all they had. Your blindness and willingness to copulate the left and their minions just so we do not get “bad press” really speaks volumes of what you really have on a pedestal!

    Quite frankly, any true believer in the 2nd amendment cares less about bad press or what the leftist jackasses think about us. We only care that we have the right to have weapons, use them, and if anyone does not like it….come try to take them!

  • conservativecrusade

    They are not supposed to come against any infringement of our right to bare arms, period.]

    Should be

    They are not supposed to be for any infringement concerning our right to bare arms, period.

  • skorrent1

    In terms of liberal backlash, they’ve always been more outraged by handguns than long guns.

    National Parks are “National”, should be governed by federal law. They were happy to do that when you couldn’t carry your long gun on or across the (yards wide) Blue Ridge Parkway here in NC during hunting season. Sauce for the goose, and all.

    “Long guns are poaching weapons” sounds like the anti-gun “handguns are only good for killing people.” You either trust your citizens or you try to control them.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    because they moved beyond 2nd Amendment issues.

    And now they’re finagling with dingy Harry.

    So, live it alone and don’t hold them accountable?

    Great. Let’s do the same for Obama. Everyone quit blogging and squatting in corners waiting to spread “bad press” that might source back to a gun-clinger or rightwinger. 2010 is *so* in the bag!!

    “…they just tried to change the wrong law.”

    There’s more where this came from. Corruption needs to be rooted out!

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    Google “Yosemite drug bust” and you’ll see that there are more sorts of dangers out there beyond bears and mountain lions.

    Wouldn’t you just love to run into your own personal Yosemite serial killer at your local national park?

    The NRA would rather the feds fast assume you were the criminal and not the guy trading or raping in the bushes!

    We burn our NRA caps tonight, right before we grill our all-American hamburgers with American cheese.

    Progressive push-overs.

    What a disgrace!

  • Locked and Loaded

    the NRA, rather than dealing forthrightly and honestly with Tom Coburn (my senator, BTW), undermines and deals dirty with him, yet plays along with Harry Reid. I suppose Reid has a better NRA rating than Coburn.

    Now, I suppose I will not try to rescind my Life Membership in NRA, but I am more ticked with every move they make, and all the glitz and glamour they put on, and all the blowhard efforts at taking credit for legislative action will not change it.

    Others have stated it already: This kind of treachery will not stand; the NRA is assuring its own demise.

  • eaglewingz

    The NRA may soon learn that like AARP and the AMA, when it sleeps with socialist democraps it will lose many members as a result, and influence in the upcoming Republican Congress as well. This is shameful conduct and the NRA Board Members who supported this should resign in disgrace.

  • stnmikita

    Well, I’ve sent my scathing email full of questions off to NRA-ILA.

    Now we’ll see what they have to say.

    Disgusting.

  • america1st

    The NRA membership needs to revolt, as we did with the “Cincinnati Reforms” and put an end to having professional bureaucrats running the show. Do you think Wayne LaPierre or Chris Cox **WANT** to see the fight resolved, that this is their principle interest? They’d be out their cushy jobs and perks. The way the NRA is administered is no different than the roles of Arlen Specter, Juan McAmnesty, etc. RINOs, Inc. in the GOP – “reach across the aisle” . . . and play kissy face with the enemy. They started down this path with GCA68, and have been playing the game ever since.

  • mtt_from_nc

    I understand your zeal and commitment; I never said I was for a permanent restriction against long guns in nat’l parks, and I never said “long guns are poaching weapons,” but I am asking you all to think tactically AND strategically (and I commend the NRA for attempting to do this, even if their methods were unwise and self-defeating.) The second Amendment IS most definitely about self defense – the right of the people to defend their own property, persons and loved ones against harm from both criminal elements AND from an out-of-control government. It is only peripherally about hunting, and the NRA’s focus on maintaining our right to self defense is unassailable: the entire history of that right, as well as the statements and sentiments of the founders stand as a mountain of evidence to that conclusion. Their concern for bad press, lawsuits, and other antagonistic reprisals is very real, and very keen. They know – or should know – that the Left will use the states (as this is a state issue now) to attempt to restrict carry of ALL types of weapons in these places, and my view is that they were attempting to limit the ammunition that the gun-banners would have available to do that. Agreed, they went about it all wrong, and they should have thought about this more before they did what they did. They gave themselves a bad rep by fighting this in D.C.; they should have discreetly gone to the states, asked for a limited restriction with a two year sunset clause, and wherever they got that, the gun-banners would have had one less place to look for blame and worry, and that much less room to accuse the NRA of being irresponsible and overzealous. As for those of you who stand on principle alone, with no thought for strategy and long-term success, you strike me as uncompromising, over-eager and bull-headed. You will not win a political fight with that approach, and while I agree with your principles, I do not agree with your strategy. Small steps, steadily achieved, will win our cause and crush our enemies; attempting to triumph in one bold stroke increases the dangers of a public backlash, and while you stand there saying, “come and take them,” you know damn well you wouldn’t stand a chance against the federal government if they really wanted to come take your guns tomorrow. It’s an appealing thought, and comforting, perhaps even cathartic, but not realistic. One of two things would result: either, you would make your final stand and go out, Ruby Ridge style, or you would acquiesce and let the jack-boots turn your house upside down and walk away with your small armory. That’s the fact, and to pretend otherwise is to fool only yourself. This IS a political fight, and politics takes a strategic, patient, thoughtful mind. There is more than one side to every story, and I don’t think you are giving the NRA a fair shake on this one.

  • mark1957

    Someone needs to tell that to the Drug smugglers and Human smugglers that have taken over the southwestern national parks.

  • romeg

    of Evidence that the Founders had “Self Defense” in mind when the Second Amendment was drafted and added to the Bill of Rights.

    Read the amendment yourself. “A well regulated militia being necessary for the maintenance of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    I defy you to, somehow, sift “Self Defense” out of that language.

  • free2smooze

    G.O.A.

  • mtt_from_nc

    Posted by: Helen Doyle Peil Baker

    “If this is true or not true, I believe we need to really think things through more………Obama wants to divide and conquer us…. and wants desperately to disrupt the power of the NRA……..they are a huge lobby. Once done away with Obama and his minions would be able to pass BAD GUN legislation. Conservative ideals plus NRA and other pro gun groups works!!! Please let’s put our energy where we need it most to take our country back!! “

  • mtt_from_nc

    First of all, you didn’t even quote the second amendment correctly; you left out one KEY phrase – “of the People” – and a few commas that, like it or not, do have a bearing on the interpretation of the text.

    Grammatical issues aside, I’m proud of you for reading the Constitution, but if you want to understand it as the founders understood it, you have to read more than just the words of that singular document; you have to read their commentary, the debates on the adoption of that document, and a good deal of their personal and professional correspondence (i.e. letter, diaries, etc.). I’m not here to do your research for you, and to list all the instances that their sentiments highlighted the predominant motivation as one of self- and national-defense would take pages and hours of work, but they’re out there. I’d suggest you begin with Jefferson, Adams, and Ben Franklin (you may even find something from Madison, if you look hard enough), then proceed to the records of the debates if you’re still not satisfied. Now, get up off your rump and go find them, if you dare. I have other things to do.

    BTW, how on earth did we just win the Heller decision if the 2nd amendment wasn’t strongly tied to the right to self defense???

  • mtt_from_nc

    Strike “maintenance;” insert “security.”

    The ACCURATE text of the second amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

  • txgho1911

    Some way or another any threat to NFA and GCA of any weight will nullify the 2nd and all congressional support and court deference. I can agree as far as crew served weapons but even a private select fire rifle of recent mfg should be as common as the AR15 plinkers so common now.

  • fideist

    We have all heard the old adage that there are certain things you never want to see made, one is sausage and the other is legislation.

    Look, I was a lobbyist with the IL State Rifle Assn (state affiliate of the NRA) back in the early-90s, and we did all sorts of things to legislation to win our fights. One of the most common and least understood by those not in the know is the “poison pill.” On the sly we would withhold fighting against the most outrageous anti-gun amendments in committee because we knew it would be poison to the legislation when it came on the floor.

    “You must stop it!” “You must fight it!” Is what the lobbyists are told by their supporters. No, you must pick your fights with the end — support of the 2nd Amendment — being the ultimate, absolute, and final goal.

    And THAT is what the NRA does. It is of one single mind and focus. I know my felllow conservatives are ticked about the NRA not opposing Harry Reid. But the NRA is using the long focus here. They are keeping a promise to ALL congresscritters, local, state, national, in all elective offices. “You stand by us, we will stand by you (even against our friends)”. For the NRA to turn on Harry Reid now would shake the organizations ability to lobby on every level! Organizations, like people, are only as good as their word. And in politics, the promises between lobbyists and legislators are almost sacrosanct.

    I saw a post earlier here on RedState outlining all of the places Reid opposed gun owners and their rights. Now THAT would carry weight with the powers that be and could tip the balance if the cry got loud enough! As could NRA members complaining directly to the leaders of NRA-ILA.

    But pointing out these little criticisms of how the NRA is doing its work, often, as in this case, only shows a lack of clarity on the one making the charge.

  • conservativecrusade

    the pious arrogant part, but your argument is void of reason and reality. Your stupid reply dripping with ignorance and venom does nothing to change the fact, you are wrong.

    Defense is a part of owning a gun, but the right to it is not based on self defense. Period. And for you to argue otherwise is ludicrous and ignorant.

    Now go back to stupid land and leave the discussion to those not willing to BS the masses!

  • conservativecrusade

    jump from a high cliff so that we can avoid your nonsense!

    And by the way, you small steps analogy is about as dumb as I have seen. We do not have the ability to take small steps as we are already behind in the fight and are facing loosing the right to have guns in this generation.

    Now go get lost dumb one!

  • Tbone

    There are more NRA members who belong to the organization because it supports hunting than belong for political reasons. There are more members who belong because of competitive target shooting than belong for political reasons and there are more members who belong because of firearms training, particularly needed for concealed carry permits, than political reasons.

    The NRA has to balance the needs of all these members.

    It is legal to hunt/target shoot in National Forests. It is illegal to hunt/target shoot in National Parks. The blanket firearm ban in National Parks was infringing on the rights of millions of state issued, concealed carry permitees to enter a National Park with their otherwise permitted handgun. This affected these individuals’ Second Amendment rights.

    Because hunting is not permitted in National Parks, anyone in a National Park with a long gun hunting weapon or long gun target shooting weapon would be open to question as did they have it with them for an illegal purpose such as hunting or target shooting.

    To avoid this concept becoming a red herring type issue in the legislative process, it makes great sense to exclude these extraneous firearms from the legislation.

    I am disappointed that an organization that is strongly aligned with our Second Amendment rights keeps coming under attack from those who really don’t understand or unwilling to learn the comprehensive nature of its involvement in hunting, shooting sports, firearms safety training, police training, gun range development, AND political advocacy.

    BTW, even under current law, a properly cased weapon can be transported through a National Park.

  • persiflage

    The NRA’s actions, and you are a voting member, you have the perfect remedy at hand – vote in board members who think like you do and will do your bidding. Participate in the elections every spring, prior to the annual meeting. Better yet, run for the board yourself, to be certain your intentions are properly represented. Stop the “I’m quitting” stuff, and trying to punish the NRA because it didn’t do what you would have preferred. Start a revolution and take it over! The NRA is a representative organization (considerably more so than the US Congress), and as a voting member you have the power to throw the “bums” out and make it represent you.

    Or does that just seem way too hard compared to complaining and threatening?

  • Tbone

    that was appealed to SCOTUS. It is an excellent piece of work going back into the bearing of arms under English Common Law. I think you will find the defense of the person to be prominently mentioned as one of the foundations for the drafting and adoption of the Second Amendment.

    Then you can tell the judge that his arguments, which were affirmed by SCOTUS were ignorant, wrong and devoid of reason and reality.

  • conservativecrusade

    non NRA member that loves to defend them.

    You said:

    Because hunting is not permitted in National Parks, anyone in a National Park with a long gun hunting weapon or long gun target shooting weapon would be open to question as did they have it with them for an illegal purpose such as hunting or target shooting.

    How wrong you are. I know it must get old for you to try to argue a subject, yet be so wrong so often. You should really look up the laws before you post incorrect information for once!

    Now if you would like to be correct the next time this discussion comes up, just ask and I will give you a full list of National parks that DO, did not catch that, DO DO DO allow hunting in their borders!

    Ahhh, what the hell, I feel a little generous. Here is the law on hunting for national parks, and if you ask nice, like I said above, I will list some parks where I have hunted and where it is legal to hunt.

    TITLE 36?PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY CHAPTER I?NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PART 2?RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION

    Sec. 2.2 Wildlife protection. (a) The following are prohibited: (1) The taking of wildlife, except by authorized hunting and trapping activities conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (2) The feeding, touching, teasing, frightening or intentional disturbing of wildlife nesting, breeding or other activities. (3) Possessing unlawfully taken wildlife or portions thereof. (b) Hunting and trapping. (1) Hunting shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law. (2) Hunting may be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically authorized as a discretionary activity under Federal statutory law if the superintendent determines that such activity is consistent with public safety and enjoyment, and sound resource management principles. Such hunting shall be allowed pursuant to special regulations. (3) Trapping shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law. (4) Where hunting or trapping or both are authorized, such activities shall be conducted in accordance with Federal law and the laws of the State within whose exterior boundaries a park area or a portion thereof is located.

    And since you keep beating the NRA/hunting drum, let me remind you in your horrible disappointment that without the right to bare arms, there is no damn hunting, All the BS you list that the NRA “deals” with has no bearing on this debate, although you love to regurgitate it time after time, as none of it will exist if we can not own guns. Sort of like me fighting to have the right to use a fork and spoon all while loosing the right to have food.

  • conservativecrusade

    What an attorney argued in liberal times or what justification the Supreme Court gave in its decision does not negate the fact that our right to bare arms is not dependent on self defense. In fact, the right is nothing more nothing less than a granted right to have a gun for anything or nothing at all. If I want to own 1000 guns and do nothing but attach them to my walls as decoration, that is my right.

    The argument has no basis in reality. And using some case to try to justify that claim is pathetic. The self defense premise mainly came from the law that required all guns in the home to be made inoperable preventing their use in the event of invasion. This does not relegate the entire right to only or mostly self defense.

    Now you go read the ruling in its entirety along with the basis for bringing the action, then come back and lets chat. Until then your google explanations are boring!

  • Tbone

    “that without the right to bare arms”

    Now, Sparky,

    I draw your attention to (b)(1)&(2). If hunting is permitted by a specific law in a particular National Park, that law will also permit the possession of a hunting weapon in that particular National Park. As such, this cancels out the general prohibition of weapons in that particular park.

    I know reading and comprehending a law is far harder than copy and pasting it, but do try.

  • Tbone

    You may have done the first you obviously were unable to do the second.

    And now I am done with you in that you are deficient by not having a third digit of IQ and that isn’t going to change, now is it?.

    I have 5 years here pissing on better than you.

  • rightwingyahoo

    “bear” meaning to carry around, not “keep and bare arms” which I suppose means to wear sleeveless shirts?

    Which is a good and inalienable right too, of course, They should have put in the the 2nd amendment too, you know.

  • whiskey_sierra

    >the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    It does not say the ‘right of the Milita”, or the right of the government, its says specifically the right of “the People”.

    CLUE: If you can’t defend your ignorant point without PURPOSELY lying about the text of the Constitution….you might be wrong.

    ”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

    “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” – James Madison

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people?s liberty teeth and the keystone under independence.” – George Washington

  • conservativecrusade

    when your small mind and useless argument holds no sway or merit, you always revert to attacks. But that is OK, I feed off of your anguish! I enjoy knowing that you are unable to stay seated in any debate where someone speaks back. So carry on, today is a hot slow day and I need the entertainment!

  • conservativecrusade

    in such horrible fashion!

    So funny that you conveniently skip the fact you claimed no hunting is allowed in National Parks, that this law will change nothing as it is “not legal” anyways, then try to claim a current exception would be an exception to the attempted law to ban long guns from NP.

    Do you live in stupid land all the time?

    If the law passes, they will be banned even where it is currently allowed. Even in the National Parks where you so stated no hunting was allowed, but was wrong about that! The NRA should be screaming about it, especially as you have stated before, they worry so much about the hunters in the membership numbers!

    Now just say “ooops I was wrong, hunting is allowed in some National Parks and this law is a bad thing for the entire NRA membership and they should be against it!” Its OK, you can retrain your egotistic mind that sometimes it can be wrong and you are still viable.

  • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim
  • JSobieski

    nt

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    I know many couldn’t get past this point in your rambling monologue, even had you formatted it better!

    You deserved getting clobbered.

    NRA has betrayed many, many members, and you’re a groupie who’s crying foul because your mindset is aligned with “there are things the public shouldn’t knooow…shhh.”

    Criminal.

    Silly posts from your FB won’t cut it either.

  • mtt_from_nc

    You are SO right on point. And thanks for speaking up; I was getting tired of fighting this one all by myself. :0)

  • mtt_from_nc

    I’m not sure (based on these blue lines to the left) if you were replying to romeg’s comment, “there is not one shred, smattering…” but I think you were. In any case, I believe you are completely right about this point, and you did (some of) what I refused to do for another post here, from concervativecrusader, or whatever the handle is. Those are all great quotes that speak to the primary motivation of the founders, and it’s great that you posted them for all to read. Thanks for taking the time to do that; it gives this thread some concrete facts for some of it’s less enlightened participants to mull over.

  • Tbone

    ROFLMAO!

  • robobbob

    “Note the NRA uses the words ?destructive devices.?

    This is a category recognized by the BATF

    And yes, with enough money and patience, you can get permits for things like anti tank guns, RPG, grenades, grenade launchers, motor operated guns, weapons over .50 cal, etc. These are classified as “destructive devices”

    And yes, I’m sure that eventually someone would try and excercise that right if its not clearly spelled out in the bill.
    Do you really want a photo of that showing up in the MSM?

  • wayneepalmer

    I think i understand now. The NRA – having become a creature of DC – has become infected with the REAL OBSESSION of the Washington Culture Club.

    Handguns are pretty good for home defense against criminals. The NRA supports that and always has.

    In all reality, only the nuts who don’t think ANYONE should have a gun of ANY kind are opposed to handguns.

    DC is obsessed with long guns, especially semi-automatic ones MORE TO THE POINT MILITARY STYLE GUNS.

    The folks in DC have decided that it is time to take control of the peasants – once and for all – just like the British did. They also remember how well that worked out last time because the Brits waited too long to disarm the populace.

    Everything that is being done is to arrange a series of incidents and issues that will allow them to disarm the public to a degree that will insulate the DC crowd from public anger when they do the things that they believe they have divine right to inflict on the rest of us.

    While the NRA is in favor of people having the right to defend themselves from criminals, it is controlled by people that are terrified that WE THE PEOPLE may decide to exercise the full expression of the Second Amendment against the tyranny of their friends in Washington DC.

  • freedmfiter

    I am a Life Member of the NRA and a rabid supporter of our ?RIGHT? to keep and bear arms for hunting and for self defense and hell just because the Founders said so. Debaters in this thread make great arguments, but I think most are missing the point. Call me na?ve, but I trust that the NRA and NRA-ILA has our rights and freedom firmly in their ?gun sights?. I believe they, as all experienced hunters do, recognize that just because you have a shot doesn?t mean you should take it. Legislation, like hunting takes time and patience. If you shoot and miss, you may not get another shot. If we get upset at their process and withdraw our support who is going to fight the battle?

  • conservativecrusade

    Tbone will only make one or maybe two arguments for you, base his arguments in nonsense, and when someone states the obvious that his argument is void of reality, he will revert to a toddler temper tantrum. You know the type, “I hate you mommy.” it was entertaining for a while, but since for some reason he is unable to use any other lines than “low IQ,” “sparky,” and “pissed on…..” it has lost its ability to amuse anymore.

    At least you make arguments based in reason, even if it is only your own reason. His are simply baseless arguments that he has gathered from rhetoric talking points. And to top it off, his love affair with the NRA only extends to his rhetoric, not his checkbook since he has stated he has no membership. I would assume at least you have put in the effort to support the group you believe is in a worthy mission. He will just sit on the sidelines waiting for someone to speak out against the NRA so he can run in and let them know he has pissed on better. But actually support financially what he claims he believes in……no way!

  • dudette

    you guys are loaded for bear this morning….OK I belong to NRA what is the REAL gun rights group? There are so many and now I am “gun-shy” of joining something that might turn out to be—I dont knwo, a division of ACORN or something—seriously—what group has the best record and will take up the fight?????

  • pittbull

    I, somehow, seem to have either misplaced or lost my booklet sized copy of the Constitution of the United States of America. That’s my bad, and I do apologize. Please forgive me, and I’ll try to find another copy. I don’t own a ballistic firearm right now, but that may be remedied in the near future.
    Right now, I’m going to pop a top on a Guiness and enjoy the show.
    Cheers! :)

  • pittbull

    I read somewhere that an armed society is a polite society.
    I love the sound of that.

  • klesb

    It is past time for the NRA Headquarters crew to start acting like they represent us Gun Owners who understand what the Second Amendment was intended for.

    As it is, they are giving the appearance of representing us like the AARP represents the interests of seniors, and like the AMA represents the interests of physicians! Not!

    Where are the NRA Board members? I recommend an emergency “Come to Jesus” meeting, and an attempt to regain credibility with the members!

  • hproesemann

    That`s strike four with the false statements Eric. I`m now ending emails to the Red State. You are not reporting the news correctly when it comes to the NRA.
    And a lot of other replies here are flat out ignorant. There are a lot of you that do not understand the Bill of Rights.

    My subscription to Human Events is done as well.

  • JSobieski

    Isn’t the normal instinct to fight back even harder when you feel that you are wronged? Who just quits and walks away?

  • Richard Mullins

    ::::::::::::::roll keyboard cat video:::::::::::

  • JSobieski

    If the NRA endorses Reid, it will be hard for the NRA to convince me that they can think even 1 step ahead.

    The NRA needs to get its head out of its own @$$ before they get the benefit of the doubt with me.

  • janis

    is the person who is the editor of RedState, your emails will be for naught. But email away, oh mad little man.

  • cactusjack

    I have been right on the verge of joining NRA all this last year because I started going to the range & shooting with my 20 year old son and really enjoy it. Asked em to send me the sign up but for some reason I was getting strange vibes off their literature, it used all the right words and phrases but had kind of a hollow “feel” to it, like I really had no idea how they would actually use my money. Huh. Same way you get unsure feelings about some charities, but 100% commitment for others. End of long story I didn’t join. Thank you RS, I will hold off a little longer before I reconsider joining…

  • teabag

    Our right to keep and bear arms is not just because the Second Amendment says so. The founders included the Second Amendment specifically because they wanted the citizens armed and capable of taking the country back from thPose who would usurp the power that belongs to the people, and/or a Supreme Court that would undermine the constitution. I recently researched the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms, and found that the Founding Fathers did not trust those who we elect to relinquish power when the time came. Sooer or later, they knew, some group would seize power, or try to. The Founders were very clear in their speeches and letters that when that time came, it was the DUTY of every citizen to oust such usurpers. Sad to say, our constitution has been ignored in many ways for years. It is not just Obama.
    Our legislators make promises, and then do as they wish, mostly in pursuing personal wealth. The last part of the problem is us – we the people – who have been complacent for years, not taking part in our own governance, unless it was on a single selfish issue. We are finally awakening to the fact that if we ignore our government it will cease to be our government; it will be our master.
    We must work actively to govern ourselves, as we are, and always were, suppose to. Now prepare yourselves – for whatever might come.
    Ron DuBois Bogota, NJ

  • Tbone

    Over the last 5 years, I’ve sent them a bit north of $125,000.

    Now, STFU.

  • conservativecrusade

    such a big number and 125 lifetime memberships worth, yet you claimed not to be a member. Sort of odd and outlandish but I am not one to call an internet bragger a liar. But in the twilight zone chance you did, they sure found a fool and a sucker, one born every day they say, and you wasted your money so they could run to the bank of Reid.

    Now come on TBone, all the times you repeat the IQ comment, can you not come up with a better line that the one you did?

    But since you asked, and since I could care less how much or nothing you have sent the NRA, I will answer your question.

    I began my membership to the NRA in 1949. I carried that membership all the way until 2006. Now I am not sure how much that adds up to over the years, including the funds I have given when they have sent out requests for certain projects, purchasing their magazines outside of the included one(s), the NRA credit card, etc, but it adds up to more than most have given. I was also president of a charter organization of the NRA for years. Now I spend my money with a group that actually supports gun rights 100% of the time, the Gun Owners of America.

    But if it will make your day go better then I am “impressed” with your claim of giving. But it still does not change the fact you do not know what you are talking about, you stated you are not a member but then claim to have given 125 lifetime memberships worth of money, and cry when someone tells you that you are wrong, then revert to your few lines of insults. But at least this time you came up with a new one, “STFU” but I must kindly refuse to oblige.

    Tissues and soap are on the desk behind you!

  • mtt_from_nc

    Guinness is good, but I like the Blue Moon the best. Anyway, I hope it was entertaining for you; it certainly was for me. Now, it’s white russian time, then bed (and no, that doesn’t make me a Commie, too!). lol.

    BTW, I emailed NRA and found out this whole Reid endorsement thing is a hoax; it isn’t true at all. Lot of fun, though, and I got some great pointers and quotes out of it. ‘Night, everybody!

  • mtt_from_nc

    Okay, people, this is our of control. I already said that the NRA hasn’t even considered endorsing Reid, so we can mark that one off the list right now. As for this whole guns in the parks fiasco, I’ve said my piece and the replies above (especially the ones from I-wish-my-brain-could-process-more-than-two-sentences-at-once “Veronica” and the King of ad hominim attacks, “Conservativecrusade”) only made me laugh. Thanks, btw, for that dose of humor – you know what they say about either laughing or crying; well, I wanted to cry for your plight – it’s truly sad – but seeing as how you both flaunt it so proudly, I figured you must be proud of your disability to comprehend a simple line of reasoning, so I just had a good belly laugh and decided to write this parting note. And, that’s all I have to say to you both, except to leave you with one final remark: if you can’t think any more clearly and rationally than this, PLEASE, for God’s and America’s sake, stay away from the polls come November. And with that, I’m signing off and hopefully, you two will fade into the sunset, travel the world, gain a hefty dose of wisdom, and come back to an America that the rest of us thinking people preserved in freedom and prosperity for the likes of you and your kind to enjoy.
    So long!

  • mtt_from_nc

    A comment form one who understands that things are not always as they seem: a most welcome post, and well received by this gun-owner.

  • mtt_from_nc

    I’d like to know how a threat (I presume you mean a legislative/judicial threat) to the NFA a/o GCA would imperil the second amendment. I don’t follow that logic at all. The 2nd was primal to either of those, and they are only federal laws in the US Code; the 2nd is a Constitutional amendment, carrying the supreme weight of the law behind it. It stood before these acts were ever dreamed of; how could their demise possibly nullify or weaken it?

  • mtt_from_nc

    Ok, this is a question ()God, I thought I was done here tonight!):

    this “law” that you two are debating, is it a LAW, already entered into the US code, or is it a piece of pending legislation?

    I was under the impression that Tbone was talking about the LAW that went into effect last Feb, allowing the carry of firearms in Nat’l parks. It sounds like (as best I could decipher from the venomous rambling) that Mr. Crusades is talking about a PENDING piece of legislation, viz: “If the law passes, they will be banned…” & “the attempted law to ban long guns from NP.”

    Now, if I understand this, the only law at question is the one that has already passed – I know of no others following suit on this topic – and I can say this about the law as it stands right now: any legally-possessed guns may be carried into national parks, whereas that was not the case before the Coburn amendment went into effect. Previously, the law MAY have allowed carrying & hunting in SOME parts of SOME parks, but these were exceptions to the rule, as the law that Mr. Crusades clearly states above; as a general rule, national parks were considered to be gun-free zones to all types of weapons, long guns or handguns. Hunting, therefore, would have been generally prohibited within these parks, UNLESS an exception was made, as per the law that Mr. Crusades graciously posted for our benefit above. Now, however, this is no longer an issue since the Coburn amendment opened these parks up to all manner of carry (but NOT hunting, any more than it would have been allowed previously), and hence the issue at hand: if the hunting in the restricted areas of these parks is still illegal, but the carrying of all sorts of weapons – including long guns – is not, then it raises a legitimate suspicion for anyone to be carrying a long gun (hunting rifle or shotgun) within the areas of those parks where the hunting remains against the law. Simply put, why, in the places you can’t HUNT, would you be carrying a HUNTING weapon?? And THAT is what the NRA was hoping to avoid becoming a problem in the media; it looks bad, even if no one’s poaching animals, it’s bad press for gun owners and the NRA, and IT HURTS OUR COMMON CAUSE. Is that simple enough for you to understand, Mr. Crusades?? I don’t think I can spell it out in any more elementary of a fashion. Unless I am confused on the point of which law you were quoting, this seems to me to be the crux of the issue; it doesn’t get any deeper or more basic than this.

  • mtt_from_nc

    ["All the BS you list that the NRA ?deals? with has no bearing on this debate"]

    Not at all true; the other concerns of the NRA (namely, the right to self defense) has ALL the bearing on this argument, because that was the WHOLE POINT of the Coburn amendment: to allow the carry or possession of a personal firearm, for SELF PROTECTION, within the national parks, where, previously, all weapons – and particularly handguns – had been generally prohibited, all minor hunting-related exceptions aside.

    You , sir, fail on this point. I really don’t understand how you can’t wrap your head around this?! It’s so simple!

  • mtt_from_nc

    That’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to get through to some of these numb-sculls all day long: That, and the misconception of illegal poaching in restricted lands, seem to be precisely what motivated the NRA to oppose the Coburn amendment, but my contention was that they, perhaps, should have let the Coburn amn’d't pass just as it did, then taken that concern to the states, who would then (and now do) have sole jurisdiction over the laws governing the possession of arms within the national park sectors that fall within their respective state boundaries. That way, the Fed. gov’t leaves the widest leeway, and the states have the most control over what happens within nat’l parks inside their borders. Anyway, You’re right on about that: is that a picture you want all over the evening news, to smear gun owners and the single most effective lobbying organization that represents them? Not me, no way. Gun ownership comes with responsibilities, and when we shirk those by throwing caution to the wind, we get a disaster. These rash fools think they’ve won, but they’ve opened themselves up to a BIG loss down the road – all it takes is one ignorant, cocky jack@ss to do something stupid and the Feds will clamp down tighter than ever. “See, America? See, Congress? We told you you couldn’t trust those crazy gun nuts in the parks! This lunatic’s carrying a bazooka around in Yellowstone, scaring the hell outta people! And look what that idiot’s doing! We caught him on tape shooting a spotted owl with a .30-06!” And that’s it, over and done. No more guns in the parks for anybody, for any reason. Case closed: score one for the gun-ban lobby; NRA/gun owners take a hit.

  • mtt_from_nc

    We’re only talking about what’s allowed in national parks, not in your home, on the range, or anywhere else. The NRA didn’t even remotely suggest that anyone ban long guns; they were simply trying to keep long guns – hunting weapons, that is – out of areas of national parks where hunting isn’t allowed. They didn’t want to allow any more opportunities than were necessary for accidents/foolishness/criminal abuse of the right to carry in those defined areas. They – and we, gun owners – don’t need to create any opportunities to let anyone make us look bad; that would do more harm to all the NRA’s causes than carrying a long gun you can’t use in an area of a park where there’s no reason to have it. If you think the NRA is in concert with the global elite conspiracy (which may well exist and be steering the course of events as we speak) then you’re out of your mind. They’re one of the few powerful organizations that’s actually trying to fight FOR us, not against us.

  • mtt_from_nc

    Nice post; nice quote. Kudos for both.

  • mtt_from_nc

    Seriously, I don’t work for them, but I am a member and I won’t be moving. There is no better than NRA, and I’ll tell you why: One, they are sincere – not perfect, but sincere and determined, and they have been for over 100 years. Two, they have the largest membership, which translates into the largest treasury and the most powerful lobby in their field. Three, the accusations you’re hearing here against them are not true: they haven’t endorsed Reid (and after this, I’ll guarantee they won’t even consider it) and they know Washington politics, which means they know how to pick their battles so they win the WAR – this Coburn/guns in the parks deal might sound bad on first blush, but it’s POLITICS, and most of the people slamming the NRA over this don’t have a clue about how that works, even in a system that’s not corrupt and run by money. So quit fretting; the NRA’s not selling you out. They still have your back, and they still have one aim in mind: the protection and expansion of our right to keep and bear arms. Sit tight, ride the wave and don’t let little things upset you. Lookit, the most important thing in this fight is to stick together, and 95% of gun-owners rally around the banner of the NRA; that where we all need to be if we really care about the preservation of that right. Hang in there; it’s not as bad as it looks right now, and later on, with the distance and perspective brought by the passage of time, you’ll come to see this is all just a bump along the way, no biggie.

  • mtt_from_nc

    My count’s up to two. One more and I won’t be coming back on a regular basis either. Inaccurate reporting is just lazy – or intentionally deceptive and divisive. Either way, it’s nothing I want to imbibe. Consider yourself warned, Red State. I was a fan, but you’ve burned me twice; no. three and I’m gone.

  • mtt_from_nc

    Yeah, thanks Red State – for helping the enemy! One less NRA member = $25 less money they can spend on saving the 2nd amendment for ALL of us. You can blame yourselves for that: one phone call, opne email to NRA would have laid all this to rest. WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?

  • mtt_from_nc

    (and/or his staff) SHOULD FACT CHECK HIS STORIES BEFORE POSTING LIKE HE KNOWS WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT! I dunno who does the “research” but it’s second rate at best. I liked Eric when I met him, and he may not be personally responsible for this mess, but his organization is, and that makes him at least partly at fault. The story on Reid was an outright LIE; the story on the parks/Coburn is skewed and misleading, not to mention unnecessarily divisive at a time when we all need to be sticking together in every way possible. There’s no excuse for that, no matter what. It didn’t even take me ten minutes to figure out the truth behind BOTH of these stories. It’s almost like Red State has a covert liberal mole starting bad rumors just to rattle the confidence of this amazing coalition of conservative/libertarian/tea party Americans that has threatened to turn things around in a few months – and it’s working! We’re falling for it like mindless rats! WAKE UP people. JUST DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH< AND QUIT GETTING HYSTERICAL. Cool heads win wars; hot heads just blow their tops. Don’t be hot heads and we CAN take back congress. We have to do this, for ourselves and our children – and, admittedly, even for those who disagree with us, because if we don’t then dissent will be a capital offense by next decade. And ERIC: Please, GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT from now on. Thx.

  • mtt_from_nc

    i can’t heed my own advice! lol. still up and at it; why, I don’t know.

  • gekster

    Then post them and give links to said facts.

    You said that you were at strike two with Erick,
    and would leave if you got to strike three.
    Isn’t this the third strike, and your out.
    Now go sit on the bench and shut up.

  • Tbone

    You said “his love affair with the NRA only extends to his rhetoric, not his checkbook ”

    I answered and then you said; ” I could care less how much or nothing you have sent the NRA,”

    You said about me: “they sure found a fool and a sucker, one born every day they say, and you wasted your money so they could run to the bank of Reid.:”

    Then you said about you: “I began my membership to the NRA in 1949. I carried that membership all the way until 2006. Now I am not sure how much that adds up to over the years, including the funds I have given when they have sent out requests for certain projects, purchasing their magazines outside of the included one(s), the NRA credit card, etc, but it adds up to more than most have given. I was also president of a charter organization of the NRA for years. ”

    So thank you for welcoming me to the NRA sucker Club. LOL

    BTW, obviously you think the NRA did you wrong. Maybe you didn’t get elected to the Board after being a member for 57 YEARS? Talk about being a sucker.

  • soljerblue

    regardless of what Mr. pottymouth conservativecrusader thinks about it. The problem I have with the NRA, however, isn’t just an interpretation of a particular bill. My problem as a Life/Endowment member is with their apparent willingness to consider endorsing senators who voted for Sotomayor and will probably vote for Kagan. And I have said as much in letters and emails to Messers Cox and LaPierre. The Supreme Court is the last stop for the Second Amendment, and to even consider supporting an MC who votes for its avowed enemies runs counter to everything they say they believe. But those who, like conservativecrusader who pick up their marbles and cuss out anyone who disagrees with them fail to see a certain truth. There is NO pro-2A organization with the political and financial clout to replace the NRA. Better to fight within the organization to change it, as others here have said. Walking away serves no purpose other than making you feel good for about five minutes.

    And, yes, the right to defend one’s life and property was very much part of the Founders thinking on the 2A — self defense both individually and collectively. That goes back to the heart of British common law, seen as a natural, God-given right that was protected, not granted by the Constitution. If you’re too busy or cociksure about your opinion to do the research on that, read Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller. He laid out the history and the thinking with his own research, as good as anything I’ve ever read on the subject.

    And, if Erick won’t tell you, conservativecrusader, I will — if you can’t keep your conversation on here civil, and devoid of ad hominem attacks, go post on HuffPo somewhere. You debate like a progressive anyhow — lots of name calling and very little substance.

  • conservativecrusade

    that your far out claim of donation did not impress me enough go away?

    Again tissues and soap on the desk behind you, close the door gently as you go because you have become boring and predictable.

    Now all of us who saw your claim will go back to humming that tune, something about pants on fire!

    But really tboney, since you make the IQ remarks for everything, please try to demonstrate your 3 numbers a little better in your response as the one above is really, really poor and lacking any depth. I mean if you are going to tell everyone they only have a two digit IQ, you really have to be on the ball in your sarcasm!

    Now take a few days, write it down, review it, re-write it, but come with something good and entertaining. If you are not entertaining, you have nothing then!

  • conservativecrusade

    it is not that they only did me wrong that cause so me and so many others to leave, it was they did the entire country wrong and it is getting worse day after day.

    But as you have demonstrated time after time, you know little, but you think you know that the NRA can do no wrong and has no stink!

    What is funny, is that in the real world, the way you act about the NRA would be called childish infatuation if it were directed towards a person.

    Must be nice to be so starry eyed!

  • Tbone
  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    No arguments, no ‘he started it,’ no excuses.

  • geocon90293

    This in-fighting among ourselves is very disturbing . GOA has less than 1/2-million members to NRA’s 6-million-plus . We all want the 2nd Amendment to stand as a guarantor of full rights to firearm possession . On that we can all agree . It is a very bad point in time to be dividing ourselves . Instead we need to use all of our powers of NRA membership to bring LaPierre to either make his strategy clearer or change it to something that conforms with our perceptions of the NRA mission. If you want to register a protest , keep the NRA membership and join GOA as well . That will send an unmistakable message to LaPierre to clean up this mess and will only cost you another $20 or so per year ( less than one box of .45 ACP ). But , I urge you all to consider very carefully before canceling your NRA membership . We cannot lose that muscle right now . It would be very helpful if Mr. Erickson settled down a bit and offered some kind of ( less-emotional-laden ) suggestions to repair the organization rather than rants that are stirring the membership into self-destructive in-fighting . Maybe Red State could mobilize a kind-of sub-lobby that would communicate our issues to LaPierre in a unified voice . That might get a lot more attention than our individual letters .

  • conservativecrusade

    of a few dudette, listen to those who consistently know whats going on. Many of us were members for years and were members when the NRA never compromised on the right to bear arms.

    One group you should look at is the GOA, Gun Owners of America. They are now what the NRA was 10 years ago.

  • conservativecrusade

    Complaints have been lodged and have been lodged for years now. People call and complain, even many on here. Threats to stop memberships have been made and it has not done a thing.

    Nothing has worked and it is getting worse every time the NRA speaks or chooses a position.

    You said to stay with them and I must respond to that with this, horse poo. You do not stay in the home of a traitor just in the hopes of change. You join the real warrior and do your best to shut the traitor down.

  • conservativecrusade

    “Consider yourself warned, Red State. I was a fan, but you?ve burned me twice; no. three and I?m gone.”

    I am sure they are all getting together now just to make sure you are appeased. But then again, Erik may just decide to have fun and hit you with the next pitch saving you the trouble of getting pissy over strike three!

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    .

  • rob123

    I’m so sick of all these BS attacks on the NRA just because they were smart enough to get an exception (that will likely destroy the bill) carved out for themselves. By doing this, they did more to kill the Disclosure act than anything any other person or group had any chance of doing.

    Now you’re attacking them because they wanted to get an amendment to a bill passed as easily as possible. It’s obvious that they weren’t trying to “restrict” gun rights as much as they were trying to ensure that it passed. They were merely worried that without limits the amendment might not win approval. This is nothing new. It is exactly how the legislative game is and always has been played. Their CONSERVATISM wasn’t needed in that case, but it wasn’t some form of treason to their cause either.

    All you whiny panty-wastes out there who get all worked up every time one of these know-nothing loud mouths spouts off need to pull your heads out of your posteriors. Not only is the NRA one of the most hard working and successful national gun rights groups out there (the SAF being just about the only other one – I can list all the legal accomplishments of the GOA in one word, “zero”), they have done more to shoot down the Disclosure Act than any 10 of these loud-mouthed idiots combined, who apparently just want to make a name for themselves by tearing down a group that’s actually doing something rather than just running their mouths.

    Also, Reid is one of the most gun-friendly members of the Senate, from either party. He has done far more for gun owners and gun rights than most Republicans. For the NRA to stab him in the back now, just because he’s a Democrat, would permanently destroy what power they do have, because no Democrat would ever fear angering them again, since they could expect the same treatment if they voted pro-gun as if they voted anti. Anyone who doesn’t understand this doesn’t have enough intelligence to even have an opinion worth listening to.

    I can’t believe you’re not smart enough to see that the NYT article wasn’t a “fluff piece” (wasn’t even close), but an attempt to do exactly what your article proves it’s succeeded in doing: driving a wedge between conservatives and the NRA. The NYT said to itself, “Conservatives aren’t smart enough to see how what the NRA did was beneficial to them, they’ll just attack whatever we give the right scent to like a bunch of dumb animals”. And every time someone writes or buys into one of these idiotic articles, they prove them right.

  • mtt_from_nc

    I second EVERYTHING you said, and I’m glad you said it. You know, this controversy (and the one about Reid) has really opened my eyes to how many people – NRA members, gun-owners and pro-second amendment ‘advocates’ – really don’t have a clue about the history behind the amendment they claim to support so adamantly. Additionally (and this is not nearly as surprising), a preponderance of people don’t have any savvy about the political process; they’re so gung-ho and uncompromising that they feel slighted whenever a bill or amendment isn’t exactly the way they want it to be. I could go on, about things like strategy, civility, etc, but you get the picture. I would say let them leave the NRA; in better times, it might not have been dangerous, but now, under the present circumstances, these fair-weather friends will really hurt not only the NRA, but the very vitality and momentum behind their “#1″ cause. Whoever started these rumors/exaggerations of fact really had to be in league with Obama, because they’re doing an excellent job of dividing an otherwise solid base of conservative patriots. It really makes me saddened and disappointed that we’re not smarter than to be led astray like this. If we act this way now, over something as innocent and minuscule as a single amendment to a single bill about guns in national parks, then what will become of us when we have to face the real artillery later on toward the election???? Will we cave like a house of cards? Are we just a bunch of pissed-off, tightwad, working Americans that can’t see any farther ahead than tomorrow morning’s breakfast? Because if we blow up at ONE ANOTHER over THIS petty shit, WE WON”T MAKE IT PAST SEPTEMBER! What happened to standing together as one?! Yes, principles are important, but the ability to let a battle be lost for the sake of winning the war is not just a quaint truism; it’s the life-blood of warfare, and THIS IS WAR! We are at war with traitors to our nation’s founding principles and financial future! EVERYBODY here needs to do “US” a big favor: Read Sun Tzsu’s “Art of War.” It will open your eyes to the nuances of fighting someone as smart or smarter than you, and you should NEVER underestimate your enemies. That, and learn to play chess (I’m not kidding!). Do those two things, at least, and you will have helped this cause and every other cause you ever become involved in – and you might even come to understand both why the NRA-ILA wasn’t wrong to do what it did, and why the NYT was so damn clever in printing this piece.

  • mtt_from_nc

    Why do you consistently contaminate this thread with your drivel?! I’m not a supporter of personal attacks, but you, sir, are an ignorant, mouthy asshole who has a) no notion of what a rational argument should even resemble, b) no clue about the “facts” of the case, and c) not the faintest idea how to spell, even though your computer will do 90% of that job for you. Shut the hell up, stop misleading people, and go suck on a Popsicle or something! This lady (I presume “dudette” insinuates the female gender) is genuinely interested in how to make her money and her time yield the most effective results for a cause she obviously believes in, and your telling her to jump ship and join GOA is the worst advice you can give her at this time. What people like you are going to achieve is one single disastrous result: the failure of the gun-rights cause in its most dire and trying hour! Can’t you see (and I’m writing this more for the benefit of her and others, because I KNOW you can’t see anything past the end of your own nose) that telling everyone to leave the NRA will only get less than half of them to actually do it? Then, once the NRA’s membership has dwindled to 2/3 of its present count (and its treasury reserves have dwindled proportionally), the NRA will still be the dominant lobbying org for this cause, but it will simply be less effective in its pursuits. The GOA ain’t got shit for a lobby, it has Zero track record and Zero for court cases won; it’s Powerless with a capital “P” compared to the NRA, and even if it took HALF of the NRA’s membership, it would still take it years to boot up it’s lobbying team and garner a name for itself and some modicum of pull on the Hill. That’s years of time wasted for all of us, and years of time the NRA will be crippled, and hundreds of thousands of dollars the NRA won’t have over that time to fight for our common cause! YOU’RE A G-D IDIOT, IF YOU THINK THAT’S THE WAY FOR US TO WIN! What the Hades is wrong with you , man?! I declare, I don’t think you were EVER an NRA member! I think you work for the same liberal NYT editor that printed this in the first place, ’cause your “arguments” and their story go hand-in-hand. God, help us all, WHEN IS ERIC GOING TO BLOCK YOU FROM POSTING?!

  • mtt_from_nc

    THIS whole fiasco is # 2 for me. The other one, which constituted even worse reporting practices, was the post about the NRA supporting Reid. I can see that all the buffoons on here are eager to see me go; well, I can only imagine that would make life easier for those of you who are upset by reason and facts, and if all the sensible folks on here got so fed up they left, that would make RS a happy little home for everyone else to sit around and blather their BS back and forth. Unfortunately for all of you who want to wallow in your comfortable ignorance and vile hatred, I’m not going anywhere now, no matter how irresponsible the reporting gets, simply because of these comments that expressed such an interest in my departure. Erik (there you go, man, I spelled it right this time; sorry for the other typos) can kick me off if he likes, but it won’t be because I open my mouth about things I don’t know about; in the meantime, you all have a LOT more of me to look forward to! I’m unemployed right now, so I can spend ALL F-ING DAY ONE HERE! Merry Christmas, MoFo’s!

  • gekster

    Your intellgence is just overwhelming, and I bow to your intellect.
    That will win many friends, and I’m sure your mother is very proud of you.
    But like I stated above, If YOU know the facts, then post them with links to back them up.
    And I didn.t call you any names, my friend, just asked for the facts
    you are using to rebutt Erick’s diary.
    But if all you can do is throw fits instead of fastballs, I think you will be hitting the showers pretty soon.

    Your on deck.
    Lets see what you got.

  • JadedByPolitics

    ..

  • Christine (Trelaina)

    after you hit the Pile.

  • Christine (Trelaina)

    your status as a member here is not entirely within your own control.

  • gekster

    Do you kiss your mother, wife, and kids with that same potty mouth.
    I’m going to go chop some wood now.
    Seams I have a bit of extra adrenaline I have to work off.

  • mtt_from_nc

    Here’s the NRA’s contact info:
    URL for NRA-ILA (Email is found on this page): https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx
    Phone: (800) 392-VOTE (8683), Monday-Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., EST.

    And here, in full, is a copy of the email I received from them regarding their “endorsement” of Senator Reid:

    “Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA regarding recent reports that the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) has endorsed U.S. Senator Harry Reid for reelection.

    “For the record, the NRA-PVF has not yet made an endorsement in the Nevada U.S. Senate race. In fact, there have been no announced endorsements for any U.S. Senate seat for the November general elections-period.

    “For several reasons, we generally do not announce ratings or endorsements until closer to the elections. There are still votes to be graded and other information to be evaluated prior to issuing an accurate grade as Election Day nears.

    “The NRA-PVF looks at the entirety of a candidate’s record. We start with the candidate’s voting record (if any), along with answers to questionnaires, statements and floor speeches the candidate makes on Second Amendment issues, as well as any action the candidate may have taken as a committee member or leader.

    “Our endorsements are not given lightly, nor are they issued in every race. An NRA-PVF endorsement is something that has to be earned. As we do every election year, we wait until all the votes are taken and evaluate a candidate’s entire record. Making a decision prematurely, before votes are taken, risks giving
    politicians a “free pass”-something we can’t and won’t allow.

    “It is important to note that the NRA is a single-issue organization. Our ratings and endorsements are based solely on a candidate’s support for, or opposition to, our Second Amendment rights. Other issues, as important as they may be to many people, do not and cannot play any role in those decisions. NRA represents a broad coalition of American gun owners, who are bound together by their support for the right to keep and bear arms.

    “For us to factor non-gun-related issues into our ratings would foolishly divide our unified base of support on the Second Amendment. This policy has served NRA and gun owners well over the past three-plus decades, making us the nation’s preeminent pro-Second Amendment advocacy group.

    “We fully understand that voters must take into account a variety of issues when deciding for whom to vote. We respect that. It is our responsibility, however, to provide voters with information solely on a candidate’s position on gun-related issues so that they may factor that consideration in addition to other issues.

    “Admittedly, Senator Reid’s record is not perfect; few politicians’ records are. For a number of years (primarily in the 1990s) Sen. Reid had some problematic votes on our issue. But in the last five years, he has dramatically improved his record on our issue, so the NRA-PVF would be irresponsible if it did not give due consideration to those recent votes and actions. There is no doubt
    that, as Senate Majority Leader, Reid has supported efforts to protect Americans’ gun rights, both by voting FOR pro-gun measures AND preventing anti-gun legislation from reaching the Senate floor.

    “In 2004, Sen. Reid voted against efforts to reauthorize the Clinton ban on “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, which are standard equipment for many rifles and for most modern semi-automatic pistols designed for defensive use. Early last year, he flatly stated he would
    oppose any effort to reinstate an “assault weapon” and magazine ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future. In 2005, Sen. Reid was instrumental in Senate passage (and eventual enactment into law) of the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (PLCAA). That law shut down reckless lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers, which attempted to hold them liable for the misuse of firearms by criminals. Sen. Reid also cosponsored the PLCAA in the previous Congress and voted against the Feinstein Amendment to ban “assault weapons” and
    “large” magazines, and the Kennedy Amendment that would have banned most hunting ammunition.

    “Sen. Reid voted for legislation, which became law in 2006, to prohibit gun confiscation during states of emergency. He also voted for legislation to allow commercial airline pilots to be armed in the cockpit to protect their passengers and crews .

    “In the last two years, Sen. Reid voted for the Ensign Amendment to repeal the Washington D.C. gun ban and restore self-defense rights in our nation’s capital. He cosponsored similar legislation — S.1414 — in the 108th Congress. He also voted for an amendment to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for
    self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges. This federal policy change took effect on February 22. In addition, Sen. Reid voted last year for the Thune-Vitter Amendment to provide national reciprocity for state Right-to-Carry permits. Sen. Reid also voted twice for the Wicker Amendment allowing Amtrak passengers to include firearms in their checked luggage. In his capacity as
    Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid made votes on all of these amendments procedurally possible. And these are but a few examples of Senator Reid’s support and leadership on Second Amendment issues.

    “All of which leads to a very serious question for all NRA members and gun owners who oppose Sen. Reid to contemplate: who would take Reid’s place if he loses his race-and his critically important position as Senate Majority Leader? Remember,
    the Senate Majority Leader is the gatekeeper who decides which legislation will be considered on the Senate floor. If Sen. Reid loses, the next candidate for Majority Leader is very likely to be Charles Schumer of New York or Dick Durbin of Illinois -two of the most anti-gun U.S. Senators in history!

    “It is critical to the defense of the Second Amendment that we have pro-gun majorities in the U.S. Congress.

    “While no endorsement has yet been issued in this race, nor any other U.S. Senate race for the November general election, rest assured that we will make all of these announcements at the appropriate time and in light of our election policy.

    “Thank you for contacting us and please keep an eye out for our grades and endorsements as the election nears.

    “Should you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact us again at any time.

    “Sincerely,
    Michael Land
    NRA-ILA Grassroots Division”

    Now, you have the facts about Reid and the NRA. You can find out for yourself why they did what they did with the Coburn amendment – I don’t have the time or room to post all that. I’ll leave that one up to you all.
    Gekster: I apologize for being rude to you, and to others here, in my previous comments; my prolonged and heated exchange with “conservativecrusade” had worked me into a madness – I can’t tolerate idiots, especially vocal ones – and I had been awake and tired for far too long. Please accept my apologies; I understand that you were only asking for citations, and that’s not unreasonable at all. I will, in the future, try to provide ample ones. So long, and best wishes.

  • conservativecrusade

    thought you were leaving. So enjoyed the baseball analogy as such.

    By the way

    “my prolonged and heated exchange with ?conservativecrusade? had worked me into a madness – I can?t tolerate idiots, especially vocal ones – and I had been awake and tired for far too long. ”

    That comment by you and the poorly hidden insult is sort of like an idiot student telling the world he knows more than his teacher. You calling someone else an idiot is along the same lines.

    Now hurry up and find your strike three as you are not entertaining enough to even pass a few minutes of the day away.

  • conservativecrusade

    cause we have ran out of tissue here. Your nonsense and lack of understanding is amazing!

  • conservativecrusade

    if you looked at the person who asked the question, you would know why dudette was in my post. Now go on back to dummy land, you are boring us all!

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    NT

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    [N/T]

  • gekster

    and ya didn’t have to cuss to make a point. very good.
    I appreciate the info and the link.
    and most people who threaten to leave usually get jumped on, just as a note.

    as far a conservativecrusader, your on your own.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …when I say to keep it civil?

    Anybody else that wants to volunteer to be an object lesson, feel free to speak up.

  • gekster

    going to slow today.

  • Scope

    your posting history shows that you are more than willing to egg on disruptions on the site. While you may be on the right side of the issue at times, you seem to have barged in with name calling, incitement, and a willingness to involve yourself in arguments where it would be better left alone. You were quick to jump in on the very heated thread from last night, you know which one I mean. You clearly made it worse.

    Is there any chance that you would consider backing off from your posts that engender nothing more than being combative? For awhile I watched a long time member seem to fold in on himself, and it was a very sad time. Your comments were not helpful. Please reconsider your replies, and, keep them on an debate/informative realm.

  • Tbone
  • Christine (Trelaina)