Like some of you have said, too many gun owners are either too cheap, too stupid or too lazy to support any of the pro gun organizations, and I find it amazing how many shooters bad mouth the NRA. We are in a war with the likes of Michael Bloomberg, who is willing to spend millions, maybe billions, to strip us of our Second Amendment rights. Yet 95% of the gun owners in the USA won't join the fight and contribute a few bucks now and then to help pay the cost of this fight. If I had my way, guns and ammo buyers would have to show their NRA or Gun Owners of America membership card to even set foot in a gun shop or gun show. It gets tiresome carrying the moochers on my back!
Gun control/registration goes into effect
- Thread starter Ryanxia
- Start date
- Status
I mentioned the solution in another thread here on THR and it bears repeating.
Solution
Start a new organization whose only goal is to help elect pro-gun candidates in anti-gun states and areas. The money will only go directly to pro-gun candidates. That is it.
Anyone in any state could contribute $1.00 or $100. Thus someone in Idaho can help a pro-gun candidate in New York State. Money could be collected by adding on an extra $1 or $2 (if you wanted) when you buy a firearm or ammo at a participating local gun store. Or money can be donated directly.
This organization would be totally separate from the NRA, GOA and other pro-gun groups. It is a single mission political action group.
If we do that we might stop having these reoccurring threads about new anti-gun legislation that just went in effect.
Solution
Start a new organization whose only goal is to help elect pro-gun candidates in anti-gun states and areas. The money will only go directly to pro-gun candidates. That is it.
Anyone in any state could contribute $1.00 or $100. Thus someone in Idaho can help a pro-gun candidate in New York State. Money could be collected by adding on an extra $1 or $2 (if you wanted) when you buy a firearm or ammo at a participating local gun store. Or money can be donated directly.
This organization would be totally separate from the NRA, GOA and other pro-gun groups. It is a single mission political action group.
If we do that we might stop having these reoccurring threads about new anti-gun legislation that just went in effect.
SC Shooter
Member
Death by 1,000 cuts. The loss of the "minor battles" reminds me of the analogy of the boiling frog. If you attempt to drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will instantly jump out. However, if you put him in a pot of cool water and turn on the heat, he will sit there until he boils.
We all need to be tuned into the "minor" battles
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
Did anybody read the links in the OP? Much of this is old news. While I am not in favor of what the registration laws do, the law in the second link is only renewing a law in the D. of C. that has been in effect since 1976. Those Korneyforney laws in the first link are also 1-3 years old and just now being enforced. The time to be upset was when the bills were being proposed not years after they passed. The time to get gas is when the tank is half empty and you go by a gas station....not after you run out. If you read the second Korneyforney bill as shown, there is also legislation for gun owners to keep their weapons where they could not before. Instead of loosing firearms by a court order, one has the option to store granpa's 1897 instead of selling it or giving it away. If you have someone living with you that cannot posses firearms, you no longer have to get rid of them, but can keep them in your own home as long as you are responsible for them. Seems we gained a little there.
I'm sorry, but folks in Korneyforney have made their own bed. I cannot feel sorry for them. Instead of crying for them, and whining we are next, we need to learn from them. Their state government consists of folks that got the majority of the votes. The people of Korneyforney voluntarily gave up those rights the rest of us cherish all on their own. The state was not taken over by a military coup or dictator. Korneyfornrians, by their choices for legislators supported these new regs. Don't want it to happen to the rest of us? I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the answer seems simple to me.
I'm sorry, but folks in Korneyforney have made their own bed. I cannot feel sorry for them. Instead of crying for them, and whining we are next, we need to learn from them. Their state government consists of folks that got the majority of the votes. The people of Korneyforney voluntarily gave up those rights the rest of us cherish all on their own. The state was not taken over by a military coup or dictator. Korneyfornrians, by their choices for legislators supported these new regs. Don't want it to happen to the rest of us? I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the answer seems simple to me.
buck460XVR said:
These are very popular sentiments on THR. That makes them no less asinine. Like many "Korneyfornrians"
I work against these sorts of laws with my time, money, and vote. I'm not asking for, nor do I want, your sympathy. The only small favor I would ask is that you please stuff a sock in it every time you feel like telling me I support these laws and I'm just getting what I deserve.
The problem with this is the effort/resources it would take if it were going to political campaigns. During the Colorado recalls I was informed that they need to record people's information who contribute to political campaigns as some kind of freedom of information act. Many people won't want to do that.
And we shouldn't turn this into a 'they made their bed let them lay in it' discussion. That's why America is a Republic, the majority are not supposed to be able to infringe on the Rights of the minority which is happening in some of those states. But we still have many fellow Americans that shouldn't be shunned.
talldragon
Member
Well said, +1 for me
. It's not easy living here, knowing that our votes rarely count and the officials elected do not represent our ideals. That does not alter the fact that we have not given up and will continue to support our rights in any way possible.
Midwest said, "Start a new organization whose only goal is to help elect pro-gun candidates in anti-gun states and areas. The money will only go directly to pro-gun candidates. That is it."
_______________________________________________________________________________
The problem is that pro- gun candidates don't get elected in states like California, New York, New Jersey and etc. because they are out voted by the anti-gun electorate in the anti-gun populated states. To me, however, the real problem is that too many gun owners don't support the pro-gun organizations. They would rather somebody else did it, because like I said earlier, there are too many shooters who are too dumb or too cheap, and many who prefer to attack the NRA for all sorts of phony reasons for not getting in the fight. I even know some who are too stupid to get off their butt and go vote. There are over 100 million gun owners in the USA. How many belong to the NRA and support NRA-ILA with the money it will take to win this war? About 5%. People whine that they can't find any ammo to buy. Take that money and join the NRA and support them with an occasional Fifty dollar bill. (the price of two boxes of 9MM ammo) If we all did that, the anti-gunners would run like the rats they are!
_______________________________________________________________________________
The problem is that pro- gun candidates don't get elected in states like California, New York, New Jersey and etc. because they are out voted by the anti-gun electorate in the anti-gun populated states. To me, however, the real problem is that too many gun owners don't support the pro-gun organizations. They would rather somebody else did it, because like I said earlier, there are too many shooters who are too dumb or too cheap, and many who prefer to attack the NRA for all sorts of phony reasons for not getting in the fight. I even know some who are too stupid to get off their butt and go vote. There are over 100 million gun owners in the USA. How many belong to the NRA and support NRA-ILA with the money it will take to win this war? About 5%. People whine that they can't find any ammo to buy. Take that money and join the NRA and support them with an occasional Fifty dollar bill. (the price of two boxes of 9MM ammo) If we all did that, the anti-gunners would run like the rats they are!
AABEN
Member
YES you are right on that!! I would about bet that half on here does not belong!!! I would jest about bet that half voted for BHO!!The biggest problem isn't money, it's membership.
If even 40% of the gun owners in the country joined the NRA, a single issue voting block that large would scare the heck out of the politicians. They would be too scared to say "gun control".
But, as I've seen all my life, most gun owners are just too cheap to pay for NRA membership.
.
danez71
Member
These are very popular sentiments on THR. That makes them no less asinine. Like many "Korneyfornrians"
Bravo!
+1 from me also and I must say the stupid name calling is not only very low road, its also divisive. United We Stand, Divide We Fall.
The Constitution is there, in part, to protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by a majority.
To say that the Pro 2A people in anti 2A states 'get what they deserve' is like saying 'the constitution only applies to me'.
buck-
There is nothing in the water in California that makes an otherwise reasonable person anti-freedom. The fact is that California state politics are completely dominated by a couple very large, intensely liberal urban areas. This is true in other states and in light of demographic trends it will probably become more common. What is frustrating to me is that even as we pro-freedom Californians are opposing a state government that miserably fails to represent us, we come on The High Road only to be kicked in the jimmies by folks who wonder how we could have "allowed" this to happen. We've "allowed" this to happen in much the same way you personally "allowed" our President to be elected. Twice. What were you thinking!?
There is nothing in the water in California that makes an otherwise reasonable person anti-freedom. The fact is that California state politics are completely dominated by a couple very large, intensely liberal urban areas. This is true in other states and in light of demographic trends it will probably become more common. What is frustrating to me is that even as we pro-freedom Californians are opposing a state government that miserably fails to represent us, we come on The High Road only to be kicked in the jimmies by folks who wonder how we could have "allowed" this to happen. We've "allowed" this to happen in much the same way you personally "allowed" our President to be elected. Twice. What were you thinking!?
SharpsDressedMan
member
Can we say that registration is for those who trust their government, or believe that government can "fix" problems, and that government knows what is best for the people (and always acts in their best interests)? I cannot say registration is for me, for those are not by beliefs. Had the government had all weapons registered during Katrina, they would have busied themselves with confiscation and disarming everyone rather than protecting or helping anyone.
SharpsDressedMan said:
No, I don't think we can. That would imply that there is an upside benefit or public good that registration could serve.
Registration is for those laying the groundwork for future confiscation, and their useful idiots.
Edit: Admittedly, there may be some overlap between those you describe and the useful idiots.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
