1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

NRA makes deal with Dems

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Rich's Mom, Jun 15, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rich's Mom

    Rich's Mom TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    24
    This a forwarded message from a gun rights organization. You all might want to check out the URLs listed...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    URGENT ALERT: NRA cuts deals to limit free speech
    Three prominent Washington D.C. websites are reporting what many capitol insiders warned of: the National Rifle Association has made a deal with the devil (i.e. anti-gun Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to limit the free speech of Americans in exchange for their carved-out exemption.

    While some pro-gun rights advocates may think free speech does not matter or that nothing another gun advocacy group does should ever be questioned, the National Association for Gun Rights and I take a very different view.

    Without the right to free speech, we are defenseless in the battle to save our Second Amendment rights.

    Let me be clear: restricting our First Amendment rights is the first step to stripping us of our Second Amendment rights, and should be resisted at every turn.

    We don’t care who you are or what an organization may have done in the past – we only care about whether your actions will promote or harm our rights.

    And frankly, this craven deal by the NRA will damage our gun rights and our free speech rights. After you read up on the facts, I ask you to give the NRA an earful by calling 1-800-672-3888 and insist they renounce the deal with Pelosi and Reid. Believe me, it is not too late if you will get involved.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/


    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38500.html


    http://www.campaignfreedom.org/newsroom/detail/shotgun-sellout-house-democrats-cut-special-deal-with-nra


    Though at first objecting to the DISCLOSE Act, which would radically limit the free speech of organizations and thus, gun owners, the NRA has now agreed to an exemption for their organization (and other mammoth, mostly liberal, organizations like AARP and probably Moveon.org) in exchange for support of the Democrats’ bill.

    This legislation would place draconian limitations on the ability of organizations to voice their opinions on politicians, and by extension, their legislation. The chilling effect on free speech would be difficult to overstate.

    Along with their tacit endorsement of Senator Harry Reid, the NRA is signaling that they trust the Democrats will spare the Second Amendment from further assaults.

    But that’s a strategy of appeasement, and to put it bluntly, it’s insane. It just delays the inevitable.

    Winston Churchill addressed this strategy when he said “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

    Background:
    This is not the only time the NRA has cut a deal to harm gun owners and gun rights in the glare of an anti-gun media frenzy.

    Just a three years ago, the NRA joined with arch gun-hater Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) to pass H.R. 2640, the Veteran’s Disarmament Act. When gun control advocates saw the Virginia Tech shootings as an opportunity to pass gun control, the NRA immediately signed the documents of surrender and actively lobbied Congress to pass legislation that will disarm tens of thousands of Americans, including veterans.

    Why did they do that? Frankly, they were more concerned with what the media and Washington power-bosses were saying than their loyal-to-a-fault members.

    Similarly in 2004 when, desperate to pass the Firearms Manufacturers’ Lawsuits Protection bill, the NRA dangled a re-authorization of the Clinton Assault Weapons ban in front of hungry politicians. The deal was going to be that if anti-gun politicians voted for the Lawsuit Protection bill, the NRA would not oppose re-authorization of the sun-setting Clinton Gun Ban.

    Thankfully, a coalition of groups led by the National Association for Gun Rights joined together to kill that deal by exposing it to the light of honest gun owners across this nation... just like we are doing now. In that fight, after a few weeks of excuses and covering their tracks, the NRA backed off of the deal, the Lawsuit Protection Bill still passed and the Clinton Gun Ban ended.

    What can you do?
    Tell the NRA you’ve had enough, and urge them to kill the DISCLOSE Act, not cut a deal to pass it. Call them at 1-800-672-3888 today, as it may be too late tomorrow.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
  2. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    With the advent of the internet NRA is getting exposed when they pull this kind of thing. They are going to take a big black eye for this one.
     
  3. Paladin

    Paladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,384
    I smell a rat. I don't believe any other organizations description of NRA positions.
     
  4. Big Heap

    Big Heap TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,748
    NRA stopped fighting for 2nd amendment rights quite a long while ago. Now every bill they have their mark on further restricts gun rights. The NICS Improvement Act, The BATF reform act... now this. http://www.nrawol.net/ Stop admiring the NRA for what it once was and see it for what it has become.
     
  5. jbbor

    jbbor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,036
  6. Gary Waalkes

    Gary Waalkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,398
    I urge people to read the Statement from the NRA - Tuesday 15 June 2010.

    The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

    In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

    The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

    The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

    The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

    Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.

    On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

    The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

    The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.
     
  7. Paladin

    Paladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,384
    Just one of the points of the bill, and which the National Association for Gun Rights mis-characterized the NRA's position.


    "The bill calls for new disclosure requirements to accompany political advertising by outside groups, which can now spend millions of dollars in campaign-altering political activity without publicly identifying their donors"


    Remember,,hussein was elected with huge amounts of 'foreign, non-source disclosed' money.


    The NRA did not 'side' with anyone, except their own members. Their sole concern was for their members...
     
  8. cloud_of_8s

    cloud_of_8s Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    61
    Location:
    Western PA

    cloudof8s_2010_0606.jpg


    I have just sent an email to the NRA informing them of my cancellation of my membership. I urge everyone NRA member to consider and choose wisely. There are other organizations providing better representation.
     
  9. Gary Waalkes

    Gary Waalkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,398
    Cloud of 8s - you did not provide a reason or reasons - you say there are other and better pro gun orgs. Please name them, please provice the number of members and please tell us your average annual contribution to the the fight.

    Try to read some background on how and why the disclosure bill came up in the first place. Please take a bit of time and read the NRA statement I posted above. Perhaps they (the NRA) are wrong, perhaps not. but for a fact is that after the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that orgs can speak out in front of an election, many forces (including anti-gun forces) have been hatching new laws to prevent free speech and most of the public supports them.

    So the NRA got in a plug for an exemption for any org that has been in business for 10 years and has at least 1 million dues paying members. Stopping this new election reform legislation is nearly impossible. but instead of quitting the NRA - how about volunteering for a phone campaign or post card follow-up etc. How are you going to stop this legislation? Quitting the NRA will not stop the Dems passing this law.
     
  10. Allen-MX8

    Allen-MX8 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    618
    Read the June 15th statement from the NRA. See the website link:http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13902

    Don't quit NRA but give them support!!

    We must support NRA stronger now than ever before!

    Allen--Member of NRA since 1954 and a Life Member since 1976!!
     
  11. setool

    setool Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    278
    All fellow members,

    How on GOD'S green earth can anyone think the NRA is making a pact with the devil ???

    They are the one TOP SHELF organization who stands up for our GOD given and Constituonal Rights as honest and peace loving people !!!

    I don't get a lot of this b.s rhetoric.

    If we divide ourselves, the weak (DUMOCRAT') will prevail !!!

    We need to stand united against these liberal DUMOCRATS....

    Mark Schneider
    NRA LIFE MEMBER
     
  12. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Insert twaddle from Oregon here >>>
     
  13. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    First the NRA supports an anti-gunner over a pro-gunner because they anti-gunner has a better chance of winning. Hell, they might as well support Chuck Schumer with that twisted logic.

    And now the NRA craps on the First Amendment, as long as they are exempt. Interesting how they did not get exemption for GOA, JPFO, SAF or any of the hundreds of small state and local pro-gun groups.

    The NRA should have fought this to the mat. Cowards.

    I remember all too well how the NRA threw a bunch of us to the wolves in 1986, causing many to quit until the NRA grew a set again and backed renewal of the 1994 AWB. Even then many refused to join or rejoin. What would their membership be today if they hadn't pissed off some of the most hard core pro-gunners they could ever have? And it seems they periodically tick off pro-gunners with their idiotic spokesmen supporting gun control in some way. I won't stand for backstabbing. Wayne LaPhew needs to get his head out of his ass.

    My membership renewal is up. I want some serious answers from NRA leadership about this liberal turn they've taken and a pledge to stop it before I renew. This liberalism needs to be nipped in the bud RFN.
     
  14. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    When NRA operates like this, it is like the unions screwing over everyone in America because their only job is to represent their membership.

    When everyone except NRA is deprived of their right to free speech, NRA's free speech is meaningless. More and more NRA is operating like the republican party, doing what is tactically best to ensure a "win", rather than standing up for the second ammendment within the greater context of freedom. They use the word freedom often in their commentaries, but obviously the word has little meaning to them. I am a long time NRA member and expect to continue to be.
     
  15. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    "When we barter with politicians over how much we are going to allow them to violate the Constitution, we have already lost the argument ........" From the following commentary -


    Battle for liberty begins with guns


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: June 15, 2010
    3:10 pm Eastern

    © 2010

    There is confusion within the conservative community – and even among some gun owners – over what exactly the gun-rights argument is all about. Similarly, there is confusion among some gun voters about the goals and objectives of the conservative movement.

    The simple answer is that these battles are about freedom, individual liberty and the rule of law.

    Our system of government is founded on principles of the rule of law and individual liberty. No man – or government agency – is supposed to be above the law, and all citizens are supposed to be able to go about their peaceful business, enjoying their "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without fear of harassment or any limitation beyond the rights of others and the basic rules spelled out in the Constitution.

    The right to arms is a fundamental right that ensures that the weakest among us have the capacity to resist physical assaults and government excesses. This right is no more negotiable than the right to freely exercise the religion of our choice or the right of free speech and a free press. The right to arms also serves the role of safeguard for all of the other rights enumerated within the Constitution and of the limits imposed upon the federal government by the Constitution.


    Citizens have a responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution. Within the Constitution we were provided with a number of tools with which to accomplish this mission: the right to petition Congress to let them know how we feel about their activities, the right to a free press to illuminate those activities and the right to arms as a last resort for the citizens to remind politicians just who is in charge and to force an end to unconstitutional activities if the other tools fail.

    The Constitution also included a mechanism for making changes to it in case we the people ever decided that it needed amending. The power to make such changes was not given to politicians or to judges; it was reserved exclusively to the people, and it was structured in such a way as to ensure that only changes that are broadly supported by a strong majority of the people in most of the states can be enacted.

    Fundamental rights are not open to restriction or limitation under the Constitution, and all attempts to do so violate not only the Constitution itself, but the principles of individual liberty and responsibility upon which our nation was founded.

    When we barter with politicians over how much we are going to allow them to violate the Constitution, we have already lost the argument – just as all credibility in the debate over gun rights is lost the moment the pro-rights side accepts some "minor infringements" in the name of public safety or "common sense."

    Whether the issue is registration, mandatory training, waiting periods, background checks or some other convoluted "common-sense" scheme, the fact is that gun-control laws infringe upon a fundamental right.

    Even if such laws did not violate constitutional rights, they have been proven to be completely ineffective at their stated purposes. Gun-control laws have never resulted in any noticeable reduction in crime, accidents or suicide – they simply do not work.

    What these laws do accomplish is systematic harassment and demonization of gun owners and deterioration of the Constitution, rule of law and the supremacy of individual rights.

    Gun voters and gun-rights organizations are committed to restoring and protecting the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment exists as a safeguard to protect the Constitution as a whole. One cannot rationally work on behalf of the Second Amendment and simultaneously oppose other aspects of the Constitution. There can be no Second Amendment without the Constitution, and there will not long be a Constitution without the Second Amendment.

    All parties involved in support and defense of any portion of the Constitution must support and defend all of it, or else their activities are in vain. Similarly, those who support the Constitution and the rule of law must work on behalf of all aspects of the Constitution and its duly ratified amendments, or else their proclaimed support rings hollow and they are actually endorsing a "death of a thousand cuts" for our nation.

    While opposition to some aspects or provisions of the Constitution is totally acceptable, such opposition must be couched within the framework provided by the Constitution. Anything less is truly un-American.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His writing can regularly be seen in Shotgun News and Front Sight magazines as well as here on WorldNetDaily.
     
  16. W.P.T.

    W.P.T. TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,371
    I have been a NRA life member for over 30 years and have seen many screw ups over those years by the NRA ... They give you the impression that they know what they are doing when in reality all they are trying to do is keep their logo in front of your face so you think they are on a constant defense for gun owners rights ... The first rule of making a deal with a Politician is you are not going to win, you can't possibly win, they forget what they promised once its all behind them and the NRA knows that ... WPT ... (YAC) ...
     
  17. b12

    b12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,045
    I honestly was considering to sighup for life time member ship but I'll put that on the back burner. I will wait and see what more happens with its members. I will wait a while to resigh up for a 3 yr membership. I want to see what policies will be now. In no way should they had given in to any form of freespeech. Barry's administration is looking down the road to run over the NRA and now the got a foot hold. Remember Austriala.

    Right now they won't go after the guns but they will gol after any components one at a time.

    What ever deal was cut only a couple of people will benifit greatly from it but it won't be the regular members.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.