The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment


Bohemian

New member
The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment

While the GOA – Gun Owners of America, JPFO – Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and a multitude of others have never compromised on the Second Amendment; much to this authors dismay the NRA unbelievably continues to compromise on the Second Amendment, while continuing to put their hand out for financial contributions from those that feel NO COMPROMISE on the Second Amendment or the Constitution is acceptable…
Talk about a Judas…

The NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22


A few of the more heinous compromises of the NRA in recent history are:

  • Continued failure to seek repeal of 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA, Brady Bill(s) (Including NICS Act).

  • Failure to follow through with their promise that repealing the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA 1986 will be a high-priority. Moreover, public education on the Constitutionally Protected lawful ownership of Full-Auto and other NFA/Class III firearms.

  • E.G.: Following the unconstitutional 1986 Class III weapons ban...
Wayne LaPierre stated, "Repealing the machine gun amendment...will be a high priority," and promised the NRA's members that the organization would "actively work toward the repeal of the recent machine gun ban and will take all necessary steps to educate the public on the sporting uses and legal ownership of automatic firearms."
They have not done diddly in over two-decades…
WTFU Sheeple…

  • Endorsement of the original NICS Act. (The Brady Bill) – Arm in Arm with Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and Sarah Brady… WTF?

  • It is long past time for lawyers and others to speak about the true meaning of the amendment. In an interview with Charlayne Hunter-Gault on The MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour on December 16, 1991, former United States Chief Justice Warren Burger stated that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." [105] He continued, "they (the NRA) have mislead the American people." [106] The gun control debate is difficult enough without entering false issues into it. [107]: Link Removed

  • Link Removed


  • Endorsement of the NICS Improvement Act of 2007.
Here is a statement from the Gun Owners of America:
“When the NRA and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) agree, that tells you it’s something worth doing,” Schumer said. — The Associated Press, September 26, 2007
The quote above explains the problem we are facing. Both sides of the gun control debate — with the exception of Gun Owners of America and many pro-gun groups at the state level — are supporting the Veterans Disarmament Act (HR 2640).

  • Link Removed

  • Failure to support the 10th Amendment Initiative, AKA: Firearms Freedom Act(s).
September 2009 American Hunter NRA Official Journal of the National Rifle Association: Special Report By Chris W. Cox NRA-ILA Executive Director p17-18. “Firearms Freedom Act” One issue that’s received a lot of publicity is the “Firearms Freedom Act” – state legislation that tries to exempt firearms, ammunition and accessories from federal regulation, as long as the gun or other item is made in a single state, for use only in that state. This legislation was enacted this year in Montana and Tennessee, and proposed elsewhere. The idea behind the legislation is to challenge federal gun laws in court. While reducing federal controls worthy goal, this kind of litigation faces major obstacles – mainly because the Supreme Court has given Congress a very long leash when it comes to activities that could affect interstate commerce. (For example just four years ago, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could still enforce federal drug laws against Californians who grow their own marijuana for medical use.) Because of these issues the NRA will continue to focus on the other kinds of pro-gun legislation described in these pages. An even more important point is that no one should try to take advantage of the Montana or Tennessee “Firearms Freedom Acts” without consulting a competent attorney and being prepared to pay large legal fees. Anyone makes firearms commercially, without complying with federal law, is likely to be prosecuted. “Firearm Freedom Act” supporters have never planned to test these laws in criminal cases, and no one who puts himself in that situation should expect support from the NRA.
This is simply spineless, I have discussed the FFA at length with the individual in Montana whom wrote it and they DO plan to test it in federal court ASAP. While I adamantly disagree with the way the Montana & Tennessee Firearms Freedom Acts are written; because they themselves compromise that the NFA, GCA, FOPA, NICS and other federal infringements still apply; and that as written it could simply be trading Federal Firearm Infringement for State Firearm Infringement; it’s a significant step in the right direction; towards the abolishment of infringement pre-existing, fundamental, unalienable rights, re-affirmed by the Constitution and the Second Amendment…
For those that do not know the history of the NRA’s Second Amendment compromises; this is the Benedict Arnold approach; when it looked like he was going to end up on the losing side; instead of digging in and saying hell-no, like we did at Lexington & Concord and elsewhere; Benedict Arnold played both sides of the fence until he could no longer and was ultimately chased out of the country with his tail between his legs.
Inviting Anti-Second Amendment Record Politicians to speak on behalf of Second Amendment support at NRA conferences… Such hypocrites include but are not limited to:

  • Governor Willard Slick-Mitt Romney (R-MA).

  • Juan McCain (R-AZ).

  • Senator Fred Thompson (R-GA).

  • Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

  • Failing to oppose and condemn other Obama Anti-Constitution & Anti-Second Amendment record nominees, and their Senate confirmations thereof. (Besides Sotomayor)

  • Link Removed.
NRA Sells Out, Helps Pass Massive Brady Gun Control Expansion
By Gun Owners of America , A No-Compromise Gun Rights Organization - June 14, 2009
-- Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves Republicans in the dark --
Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.
At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally reserved for "non-controversial" bills).
Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late. Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of America.
Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making, unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.
The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House. The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check Bill."...Link Removed

  • For Those Still Believing In The NRA Or The Tooth Fairy
By Michael Gaddy October 15,2003:
Millions of Americans have joined the NRA, send money for dues and are solicited many times each year for donations to assist with the legal rights of gun owners-- or so they say. Well, they are paying their lawyers all right, but not to defend the rights of those they claim to represent.
On October 8th, in a case before the District of Columbia Federal Court, NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook made the following statements to the Court in response to the Judge claiming the right of government to place restrictions on the right to bear arms.
“YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME.
Later in the proceedings there was this exchange.
“THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN IMPOSE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS?
MR. HALBROOK: YES, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR.”
The complete annotated transcripts of the hearing can be found here… Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

  • For many years the NRA has been selling us out to the government. They have supported every restriction government could concoct to limit the right of citizens of this country to own and carry firearms. I documented this fact in an article over two years ago. Republished here… Link Removed

  • Not so long ago I was having an email exchange with a writer at another site on the subject of the NRA sell out. I was amazed when this former law enforcement officer, who claims the Second Amendment is the “backbone” of freedom, said he would continue to support the NRA because they have a good youth education program (Eddie Eagle) and you had to be a member to belong to most gun clubs. Hey, Idiot, what damn good is that going to be when we can no longer own a firearm!
Folks, it is time to fish or cut bait. Without the right to own and carry firearms we are done. If you perchance are waiting for those freedom-loving Republicans to come to your aid, please send me a note from the gulag. At least the democrats tell you they are going to take your guns if they get the opportunity.
If you are standing around waiting on the "pretend to be Christian" to stand up for us by doing away with the assault weapons ban right before the election next year -- don’t forget to take your Prozac.
Just like the NRA, we give the government power by recognizing and supporting it. It then uses our money to make them more rich and powerful and to ultimately sell us out and enslave us.
Just keep voting and sending money to the turncoats like the NRA. Life as an unarmed slave will be your just reward.
Perhaps they will let you watch as your daughters and wives are sold to the highest bidder, but probably not, as you will not have been seen for several years if you are a threat to government as a former gun-rights zealot. Just can’t beat that "Patriot Act".

  • Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is a sure sign of insanity. – Albert Einstein.

  • Don’t forget to put that tooth under your pillow!

  • Is the blood shooting out of your eyeballs yet?

  • Apparently the NRA believes that true supporters of the Second Amendment have A.D.D. like the Socialist Gun Ban Obama & Company supporters have…
I have been a lifetime member for decades, but I am sick and tired of the NRA’s COMPROMISE approach to their support of the Second Amendment. While I cannot take back the money I paid long ago for my lifetime membership, I certainly can stop flushing my Second Amendment support dollars down the NRA crapper…
Moreover, instead give those dollars to the GOA, JPFO, GONV, OathKeepers and others who still hold that the Second Amendment is non-negotiable…
I encourage all No-Compromise Supporters of the Constitution and Second Amendment as they were written and intended by our founding fathers to email, snail mail, telephone and fax the NRA – The National Rifle Association, to implore the NRA to cease and desist their Compromise approach to supporting the Second Amendment…
Or your Second Amendment support dollars will go elsewhere…




 

J

JSDinTexas

Guest
Add to this, I had a friend (VN Vet) that wanted to join the NRA until he got an NRA telemarketer that wanted him to go lifetime. When he hesitated the caller got huffy and, as he put it, down right rude.
I emailed the NRA to inform them of this and never got a reply.
I joined GOA today.
 

Boomer

New member
Go fish...

I used to be a member of GOA as I believe we need solidarity in purpose between all pro 2A groups. However I have seen nothing but rhetoric & vitriol from the GOA towards the NRA.

They are the little guy wanting to be the big guy & believe a means to an end is to bash the NRA at every turn.

Philosophically I am with the GOA as I dont believe in compromise either. The reality is compromise is a necessary evil.

The anti's aim for a total ban, we want total freedom. Obviously the only solution lies somewhere in the middle.
 

NDS

New member
Go fish...

I used to be a member of GOA as I believe we need solidarity in purpose between all pro 2A groups. However I have seen nothing but rhetoric & vitriol from the GOA towards the NRA.

They are the little guy wanting to be the big guy & believe a means to an end is to bash the NRA at every turn.

Philosophically I am with the GOA as I dont believe in compromise either. The reality is compromise is a necessary evil.

The anti's aim for a total ban, we want total freedom. Obviously the only solution lies somewhere in the middle.
The solution lies with following the Constitution.
 

Bohemian

New member
Go fish...

I used to be a member of GOA as I believe we need solidarity in purpose between all pro 2A groups. However I have seen nothing but rhetoric & vitriol from the GOA towards the NRA.

They are the little guy wanting to be the big guy & believe a means to an end is to bash the NRA at every turn.

Philosophically I am with the GOA as I dont believe in compromise either. The reality is compromise is a necessary evil.

The anti's aim for a total ban, we want total freedom. Obviously the only solution lies somewhere in the middle.


Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?


GOA's (and other supporters of the Unabridged Second Amendment) Animosity towards the NRA is well-founded in fact... as the many primary source citations support unequivocally...

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...

Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

Gun Owners of America - "The Only No-Compromise Gun Lobby In Washington":
Link Removed

The Unabridged Second Amendment...
Link Removed
 

Boomer

New member

Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?
]

If you are going to quote my text at least do me the courtesy of reading all of it.

Boomer said:
Philosophically I am with the GOA as I dont believe in compromise either. The reality is compromise is a necessary evil.

Assuming you just read that you will see we are on the same side but lets get on with it.

Boomer said:
Philosophically I am with the GOA as I dont believe in compromise either. The reality is compromise is a necessary evil.

While it is all well & good to stand on principle of "Shall not be infringed" lets get real shall we? It is a very different world today then when our forefathers had the genius to put pen to paper & craft this nation. A arm in those days was a decidedly different animal then it is today. Hell a field piece of those days, the terror of the battlefield is of little consequence today.
Today automatic rifles are commonplace (I support there private ownership BTW) but what about Claymore mines, Recoilless rifles & Vulcan cannons, are they not also arms? Should they likewise "Not be infringed"? If you say yes you are either naive or a fool. If you say no then you are a hypocrite & we are back to square one.
So where does that leave us? That compromise is a necessary evil & GOA beating their collective chests is nothing but a recruiting ploy.

Lets get super real here. You want to say "Shall not be infringed" & back down on nothing eh? What is better to be altruistic & have all of nothing or be realistic a little of everything because if we thump our chests & keep quoting the 2nd amendment we will lose the hearts of the rest of the nation & I assure you when that happens we will indeed have all of nothing.
 

Bohemian

New member
If you are going to quote my text at least do me the courtesy of reading all of it.



Assuming you just read that you will see we are on the same side but lets get on with it.



While it is all well & good to stand on principle of "Shall not be infringed" lets get real shall we? It is a very different world today then when our forefathers had the genius to put pen to paper & craft this nation. A arm in those days was a decidedly different animal then it is today. Hell a field piece of those days, the terror of the battlefield is of little consequence today.
Today automatic rifles are commonplace (I support there private ownership BTW) but what about Claymore mines, Recoilless rifles & Vulcan cannons, are they not also arms? Should they likewise "Not be infringed"? If you say yes you are either naive or a fool. If you say no then you are a hypocrite & we are back to square one.
So where does that leave us? That compromise is a necessary evil & GOA beating their collective chests is nothing but a recruiting ploy.

Lets get super real here. You want to say "Shall not be infringed" & back down on nothing eh? What is better to be altruistic & have all of nothing or be realistic a little of everything because if we thump our chests & keep quoting the 2nd amendment we will lose the hearts of the rest of the nation & I assure you when that happens we will indeed have all of nothing.

I read your post the first time and my response stands...

Just what party of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?

Did we not start the Revolutionary War @ Lexington & Concord because the British wanted to take our cannons and powder away and limit the number of weapons & types thereof and powder we could have and where we could store it?

Did we not die at the Alamo for pretty much the same reasons?

Not much of a chance of removing or replacing a tyrannical government without the "Unabridged Second Amendment" is there?
Link Removed

You are reiterating the arguments of those that wish to erode the Second Amendment and other rights bit by bit...
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...078-gun-bans-dont-think-can-happen-watch.html

Just because through our own ignorance and neglect of the Constitution we have allowed compromises does not mean we have to accept them as prima facie evidence and just bend over and keep letting them take the rest bit by bit...

For somebody whom is flying a OathKeeper Avatar you really should have some one on one conversations with Stewart Rhodes...

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...al-challenge-constitutionality-1986-fopa.html

Link Removed

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...ology-common-use-firearm-weapon-criteria.html

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...ra-continues-compromise-second-amendment.html

Come%20And%20Take%20It%20flag%20with%20Cannon.gif


Come%20And%20Take%20It%20Flag%20with%20Assault%20Rifle.gif


Come%20And%20Take%20It%20Flag%20with%2050%20BMG.gif
 

GOV5

New member
The President of Grassroots South Carolina sent me a response to one of my emails. He said they are a non-negotiating organization when it comes to strictly following the letter of the law as held in the Second Amendment. "We fight, we don't compromise", he said.

I LIKE THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Boomer

New member
While I will stand with you in solidarity we have a fundamental difference of opinion.
Until such time as we are able to self police our nation & remove the vermin that infest it I can not advocate the ownership of military grade weapons without stringent background checks.

For somebody whom is flying a OathKeeper Avatar you really should have some one on one conversations with Stewart Rhodes...
I would like that; but even so everything I have read or heard he has never advocated the unrestricted distribution of military grade hardware.
 
W

wolfhunter

Guest
Go fish...

I used to be a member of GOA as I believe we need solidarity in purpose between all pro 2A groups. However I have seen nothing but rhetoric & vitriol from the GOA towards the NRA.

They are the little guy wanting to be the big guy & believe a means to an end is to bash the NRA at every turn.

Philosophically I am with the GOA as I dont believe in compromise either. The reality is compromise is a necessary evil.

The anti's aim for a total ban, we want total freedom. Obviously the only solution lies somewhere in the middle.

When a compromise is reached with a Liberal, YOU move to the Left. Liberal policy never moves to the Right.

We want NO gun control, they want total gun control. If we compromise and allow SOME gun control, exactly what did the Liberal give up?
 

fuhr52

New member
If Liberals can't compromise in their favor the issue generally becomes unconstitutional and time to head to the courts.
 

JJFlash

New member
Actually, I find it ironic that while our Constitutional Republic is under ever-increasing attack, our "gun rights" are getting stronger. Good thing, too, for obvious reasons...

I'm a pragmatist like Boomer and a purist like Bohemian. So, I think we should keep up the fight, knowing that we're not going to see the complete restoration of "...shall not be infringed" anytime real soon. But, we should give no quarter at all to the socialists, for the reason that Wolfhunter stated.

So, yeah, if someone asks me if we should have military grade hardware, my answer is "yup" (a la Bohemian). And when they follow up by asking if I think that is realistic and going to happen anytime soon, I say "nope" (as per Boomer). But, that doesn't change the Constitution or my opinion.

My two cents.
 

Ropadope

eHarmony Reject
I've never given the NRA my money and I never will.

Cased closed on my part. There are other Gun Rights orgs out there that do not comprimise their efforts.
 

GOV5

New member
Boomer brought up a good point about owning Claymores, etc. They are arms too, and I don't think many here would agree that they are something they ordinary citizen needs for self-defense. It doesn't pass the "reasonable" test in the gun world, and law, lingo. So he proved his compromise point.

Even I don't understand what you want, and I'm a gun owner and carrier. The first thing, from a political stance, in a fight that you have to do is STATE what you are fighting for/about. You have not done that. Please state to me and the rest of the Forum what you want to see done about the Second Amendment rights.

So far all you have done is rave and rant. If you sound like a "gun nut" to me, just think what you sound like to an ANTI-Gun person. Trying to be a Ted Nugent clone is not helpful, as his rants in the public eye have hurt our cause more than any other single person against our fight for our rights. I wish he would just shut up!

If we "compromise" about assault weapons, or hand grenades, or Claymores, what have we lost? In negotiations, that's called a "throw away". It's something that you compromised on that didn't mean anything to you anyway. You just had it in the bag of giveaways for negotiating tools and tactics.

You need to understand the fight a little better, and how to do it....and know, and state, exactly what the fight is about. Specifically, what you think the 2nd A means as it pertains to the right to own and carry weapons of personal defense. There is no way we can own weapons that would stand up to our Military waging a fight against us citizens. By the way, do you think it's OK for a citizen to also own an F 16? That's a defense weapon too.

Hey Marine, you are an expert in combat and killing people. That doesn't make you a genius at all things. Consider the fact that you MIGHT NOT be right, or see all the angles of a particular issue, and that somebody else MIGHT. You post some good info on here, but your delivery needs a little polishing. And I know Marines don't like ANTHING that is tarnished!
 

Bohemian

New member
Boomer brought up a good point about owning Claymores, etc. They are arms too, and I don't think many here would agree that they are something they ordinary citizen needs for self-defense. It doesn't pass the "reasonable" test in the gun world, and law, lingo. So he proved his compromise point.

Even I don't understand what you want, and I'm a gun owner and carrier. The first thing, from a political stance, in a fight that you have to do is STATE what you are fighting for/about. You have not done that. Please state to me and the rest of the Forum what you want to see done about the Second Amendment rights.

So far all you have done is rave and rant. If you sound like a "gun nut" to me, just think what you sound like to an ANTI-Gun person. Trying to be a Ted Nugent clone is not helpful, as his rants in the public eye have hurt our cause more than any other single person against our fight for our rights. I wish he would just shut up!

If we "compromise" about assault weapons, or hand grenades, or Claymores, what have we lost? In negotiations, that's called a "throw away". It's something that you compromised on that didn't mean anything to you anyway. You just had it in the bag of giveaways for negotiating tools and tactics.

You need to understand the fight a little better, and how to do it....and know, and state, exactly what the fight is about. Specifically, what you think the 2nd A means as it pertains to the right to own and carry weapons of personal defense. There is no way we can own weapons that would stand up to our Military waging a fight against us citizens. By the way, do you think it's OK for a citizen to also own an F 16? That's a defense weapon too.

Hey Marine, you are an expert in combat and killing people. That doesn't make you a genius at all things. Consider the fact that you MIGHT NOT be right, or see all the angles of a particular issue, and that somebody else MIGHT. You post some good info on here, but your delivery needs a little polishing. And I know Marines don't like ANTHING that is tarnished!

Perhaps with a better grasp of the framers founding documents, their writings and what the first 56 of them put on the line when they signed the Declaration of Independence; you & others herein and elsewhere would understand the difference between a rant and integrity, honor and veracity and the content of ones character...
The Declaration of Independence
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Constitution of the United States
Articles of Confederation
Bill of Rights and Later Amendments
The Federalist Papers...
Link Removed

Further, perhaps reading up on the Battles of Lexington & Concord and the Alamo, you will have a more clear understanding of why Government (Fed, State or other Municipality) cannot be permitted to limit the type or class of weapon(s) WE THE PEOPLE CAN KEEP & BEAR...
Does "Come And Take It" ring any bells?

“Important principles may and must be inflexible.” Abraham Lincoln

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." - Patrick Henry

Please show me where in the Constitution, Second Amendment or any of the founding documents that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Except ...
IF it does not pass what current day society (mob rule democracy vs. Constitutional Republic) deems reasonable...

Explain how without a Unabridged Second Amendment "WE THE PEOPLE" could ever be able to remove and replace a tyrannical government?

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...ology-common-use-firearm-weapon-criteria.html

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...al-challenge-constitutionality-1986-fopa.html

Link Removed

Do we really want to follow in the foot steps of modern day England, Australia, Canada etc., where the people gradually compromised & conceded their rights away, to their current sad state of disarmament? This is what is happening folks...
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...078-gun-bans-dont-think-can-happen-watch.html

The Unabridged Second Amendment...
Link Removed

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe 1789

WTFU SHEEPLE !!!

TAKE BACK THE REPUBLIC
 

MONTANA

New member
If you are going to quote my text at least do me the courtesy of reading all of it.



Assuming you just read that you will see we are on the same side but lets get on with it.



While it is all well & good to stand on principle of "Shall not be infringed" lets get real shall we? It is a very different world today then when our forefathers had the genius to put pen to paper & craft this nation. A arm in those days was a decidedly different animal then it is today. Hell a field piece of those days, the terror of the battlefield is of little consequence today.
Today automatic rifles are commonplace (I support there private ownership BTW) but what about Claymore mines, Recoilless rifles & Vulcan cannons, are they not also arms? Should they likewise "Not be infringed"? If you say yes you are either naive or a fool. If you say no then you are a hypocrite & we are back to square one.
So where does that leave us? That compromise is a necessary evil & GOA beating their collective chests is nothing but a recruiting ploy.

Lets get super real here. You want to say "Shall not be infringed" & back down on nothing eh? What is better to be altruistic & have all of nothing or be realistic a little of everything because if we thump our chests & keep quoting the 2nd amendment we will lose the hearts of the rest of the nation & I assure you when that happens we will indeed have all of nothing.
Well said. Saying no compromise on any right to keep and bear arms puts us in the "nut-case" category and endangers all of our rights. Should I be allowed to have a surface to air missle or a weapon of mass destruction? Our constitutional rights have to be balanced with common sense and sanity. I do not believe there should be restrictions on handguns and long guns of any type, including machine guns, but beyond that, one may be getting into the area of the rediculous. :wacko:
 

Bohemian

New member
Boomer, Montana, Gov5...

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” - C.S. Lewis

First & foremost, don't take my Commitment, Courage and Honor instilled in me by being a 4th Generation Marine with a career spanning nearly 3 decades to imply a somehow more patriot or holier then thou implication, because that is not where I am coming from...

I adamantly believe compromise on the Second Amendment is a fundamentally flawed view, that as history has taught us, always ends badly...

Compromise by definition essentially means agreeing to the lowest common denominator...
Since we as Conservatives, Libertarians etc., have literally nothing in common with the gun-grabbing liberals...
As wolfhunter pointed out... we are doing the compromising, while the liberals are giving up nothing; and the liberals are gaining ground at break neck speed on their Marxist Utopia and subsequent dictatorship...

“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy” - Charles de Montesquieu

I truly believe "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is not subject to interpretation, which is consistent with framers view...
Not the following view ... "Just Because You Have A Right, Does Not Mean The Government Cannot Constrain That Right" - Barack H. Obama Jr.

At the most basic level I am trying to drive home the point that through our own ignorance and neglect of the tenets the framers put in place to prevent our current sad state of a clearly infringed Second Amendment to say the least... DOES NOT MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL, NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT WE KEEP HAVING TO COMPROMISE NOR KEEP TRYING TO RESTORE THE FRAMERS UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT...

The Framers clearly intended for the Second Amendment to be timeless as is consistent with the Constitutional Republic we were founded as... not the mob rule Democracy we have been led to believe was founded...

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience” - Albert Camus

The three of you are putting forth the same arguments of the anti's... what if?, but?... do you think our generation is the first in history to have to deal with terrorism & nut-cases?
http://hnn.us/articles/19085.html
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm

Are we so A.D.D. on the History of the World that we have forgotten; that the very compromises you advocate has always ended in total confiscation, disarmament, anarchy and dictatorship...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

The Mother of All Stats

The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas
The Genocide Chart
Government Dates Targets Civilians Killed "Gun Control" Laws Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

Once again, apparently it needs repeating...

Under this (your self-proclaimed) view, which flips the Declaration of Independence on its head, on what grounds can you ever rebel? Since your rights are “gifts” from government, and merely whatever the government courts say, with no higher power or law, it is never legitimate for a people to rebel, no matter how ridiculous the government’s “interpretation” of its own powers or how arbitrary and murderous it becomes once its servants in black robes “make it legal” by interpreting your so-called rights out of existence. Without natural rights there is no right to revolt, which is precisely why these elites think it totally illegitimate for you to have effective means of resistance...
The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government - Stewart Rhodes, U.S. Army Ranger, Yale Educated Attorney and Noted Constitutional Authority and Founder of OathKeepers...
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

IF they can ban one type or class of weapon they can ban them all...

Without our Liberties, we have NOTHING...

WE SIMPLY CANNOT, NO MUST NOT ALLOW ANY MORE TO BE READ INTO "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...

deathgc250x386.jpg


Link Removed

co2.jpg


article-1081152-024568DA000005DC-783_468x286.jpg


r308209_1350825.jpg


fisk-lebanon_109569s.jpg


3332074786_c7ff80e60b.jpg


“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” - James Madison
 

Midnight

New member
Well said. Saying no compromise on any right to keep and bear arms puts us in the "nut-case" category and endangers all of our rights. Should I be allowed to have a surface to air missle or a weapon of mass destruction? Our constitutional rights have to be balanced with common sense and sanity. I do not believe there should be restrictions on handguns and long guns of any type, including machine guns, but beyond that, one may be getting into the area of the rediculous. :wacko:

Lol, most people wouldn't be able to afford WMD's. And the ones who would are enjoying their lives so much that wouldn't dream of doing anything that would take that away from them.

But that's decide the point. You've made the conscious decision to appease. I recommend you go back and read the 2nd Amendment a few dozen times before you respond to this thread anymore. Tell us what you read.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,678
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top