Gun Owners that Bash Pro-Rights (Pro-Gun) Organizations...

[jakemccoy]

Do they hurt the pro-rights (i.e., pro-gun) cause in any significant way?

 

[Frohickey]

Depends.

Most, if not all of these 'disgruntled pro-rights' activists are mad because of the slow progress (or no progress) of the pro-rights organizations.

Remember, back when DC vs Heller was being thought out, the NRA did not want to touch any type of gun litigation, and even tried to muscle their way into the litigation.

 

[subierex]

And then there's the Fudds.

 

[Rachen]

Do they hurt the pro-rights (i.e., pro-gun) cause in any significant way?

Of course they do.

Please listen to this story, and please heed my call to UNITE, AS ONE BODY, AS ONE HEART, or else, our future would be just as grim.

In 1566, the remnants of the already weakened Ming Dynasty engaged the peasant armies of Li Zhizheng in a ferocious war that resulted in millions of dead on both sides. An advisor to the Ming Emperor told him that if the fighting between Han Chinese continues on, the Dynasty would fall, millions of more people would lose their lives, and China would be dominated by the rule of a foreign tribe again. However, the Emperor did not heed the warnings at all. He sent his best strategist, Commander Wu Sangui, to Xian to fight the approaching armies of Li Zhizheng.

Meanwhile, in the dark, cold northern forests of Shanhaiguan, another new force was approaching. For years, the Manchus lived as an isolated tribe, a group of displaced Mongol settlers of the northern plains who still followed the traditions of their ancestors. However, the Manchus were fearsome warriors, especially on horseback. By 1550, a man named Nurhaci succeeded in uniting almost fifteen Manchu and Mongol tribes, as well as northern Jin nomads.

While the Ming armies and Li Zhizheng fought each other and tore each others' throats apart, Nurhaci's mounted warriors slowly began to descend on the Ming throne in Beijing. By 1570, the Ming court has collapsed. Thousands of soldiers defected, either to LiZhizheng, or to the Manchus, now less than 300 miles away. The soldiers of Commander Wu Sangui were loyal to him, rather than the Ming court, and when Li Zhizheng's army finally entered Beijing, Wu Sangui retreated from the imperial capital and rode eastward. However, Li Zhizheng decided that Wu Sangui was still a danger to his new regime, and had the former Ming general's father executed by beheading, as well as all of Wu Sangui's followers, including his wife and son. As a result, Wu sent his armies back to the capital. In one great battle just outside the city on March 17, 1570, Wu sangui decimated Li Zhizheng's largest army. More than 100,000 of Li Zhizheng's soldiers lay dead.

In the meantime, the Manchu leader noticed the battle was raging, and offered a simple message to Commander Wu. "Join us, and you will receive our greatest rewards". It was only a simple piece of parchment, delivered to Commander Wu by a lone mounted Manchu rider. But with that parchment, history changed forever. By 1578, the combined armies of Wu Sangui and the new Manchu leader Wang Taihong destroyed the remains of Li Zhizheng's failed dynasty.

As the Ming sage once stated: "We will live under the rule of a foreign dynasty once again". The prophecy has become fact. Within days of the last defeat of Li Zhizheng's ragged forces, Wang Taihong ascended the steps of the Dragon Throne, being the monarch of the third and last "foreign conquest dynasty" to rule China. First the Jin, then the Yuan, finally, the Qing.

Domestic feuding, and endless fighting between the Imperial Ming, and the peasant revolutionaries of Li Zhizheng created a devastating power implosion, opening the way for Nurhaci, and the hundreds of thousands of heavily armed Manchu cavalrymen.

 

[Solo Flyer]

Option 2.Debate/or try to educate.
Robert Hairless on this forum attempts to correct or elucidate on misconceptions about the NRA on almost a daily basis.
I admire his stamina and grit.It's a thankless,endless job.

 

[Soybomb]

Well I think many people feel any criticism, no matter how well deserved, is bashing. People need to remain vocal about what they like and dislike about their pro-2a groups if we want them to do what we want and get stronger.

For instance I won't join GOA because I find they try to extend their reach beyond the 2nd amendment and have a religious agenda as well. I know I'm not the only one here who feels the same way. The directors and members of GOA need to know that their organization could be stronger if they stuck to guns only.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I joined the SAF (I think so no mail yet) because:

GOA are a bit to radical for me,

NRA, 922o, (they fix it, I join)

There you have it if you are a member or join one of these groups feel free and more power to you, I am set in my opinions, for now.

 

[jakemccoy]

I started this thread due to recent interactions I had with some gun owners who are opposed to all gun groups. Their opposition extends to the point of getting belligerent. I honestly could not understand the hostility directed toward my direction. I am trying to figure out if I should ignore certain of my fellow gun owners as if they're anti-rights people. The relevant part of the thread is below. My screen is the same, jakemccoy.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/12075-3.html

 

[R.W.Dale]

Most are just OLD people who've became disgruntled with the realization that the NRA and rest of the world DOESN'T revolve around them.

 

[Hk91-762mm]

For instance I won't join GOA because I find they try to extend their reach beyond the 2nd amendment and have a religious agenda as well. I know I'm not the only one here who feels the same way. The directors and members of GOA need to know that their organization could be stronger if they stuck to guns only.z



I agree They have some Radical views on things NOT guns .
Abortion is one and the abortion debate dosent belong In a gun rights org -Religion too-WHY because Not all gun owners and Gun rights supporters Are religous -- I support every orgs Efforts to fight gun laws -I also think the NRA could be a little more Hard core ! But Im still a life member !

 

[FCFC]

Gun Owners that Bash Pro-Rights (Pro-Gun) Organizations...

Do they hurt the pro-rights (i.e., pro-gun) cause in any significant way?

Sure, they do. Especially as a collective. And especially when they are on the extremist end of the gun-owner/rights advocate spectrum. Some of their blatherings are simply juvenile.

Some pro-rights folks can make sharp, cogent criticisms of the NRA. They're OK. But, by far, most NRA-bashers only end up making evident their pettiness, extremeness, bias, and lack of reasoning skills. A confederacy of dunces....

An example of hurtful bashing is the fellow who recently incisively (not) bashed an NRA survey he got in the mail. Another is the guy who dissed an NRA recorded message from LaPierre--that he refused to listen to.

It's embarassing to be in the same group with those guys. More importantly, they do hurt the pro-rights cause because they are so unrealistic in their extremeness. They are very far apart from the logic and positions that have made continuing and substantial gains in the pro-rights movement.

Free country, though. No law says that all pro-gunners have to be competent analysts.

 

[Solo Flyer]

I am trying to figure out if I should ignore certain of my fellow gun owners as if they're anti-rights people

You are certainly not going to change the mind of someone like CA_Libertarian or fresno-open carry-now.I don't believe people with that mindset are reachable.They don't believe in increments.
It might not be worth the time, effort and Pepto-Bismol involved to interact
cyberly with these people.
One forum is all I can emotionally handle.

 

[Zoogster]

people who've became disgruntled with the realization that the NRA and rest of the world DOESN'T revolve around them.

I think that segment is just people that feel none of the groups fight for all of thier beliefs all of the time and succeed.

That is a foolish reason not to support those that fight for some of them though.


It is a complex situation. Some pro gun groups can be worse than the antis on some situations because they will represent the pro gun community in certain litigation and reach compromises.
Those compromises then are given the credibility of the pro gun community and can be even more difficult to remove than some of the anti legislation.

The NRA for example is one of the most mainstream and effective groups. As a result they often are involved in some of the biggest compromises even though they usualy do more for gun rights than any other group.
So they are also partialy responsible for some of the biggest anti gains.

 

[jedwi]

krochus....define "old" for us.....

 

[R.W.Dale]

krochus....define "old" for us.....

I'm no spring chicken any more, my pants are finally as big around as they are long.

Let me say "the gimme" generation, The one that came right after the greatest one.

 

[HK G3]

For instance I won't join GOA because I find they try to extend their reach beyond the 2nd amendment and have a religious agenda as well. I know I'm not the only one here who feels the same way. The directors and members of GOA need to know that their organization could be stronger if they stuck to guns only.z

Agreed. This is the same reason I refuse to participate in the GOA's shenanigans. I am, however, a member of the NRA as I feel they are more focused and narrow in advocating for gun-rights in a sensible fashion than the GOA.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

NRA, 922o, (they fix it, I join)

NRA has already tried to fix 922(o). Maybe your help might be useful on the next attempt? Not to criticize your choice though - I just get tired of the erroneous perception that the NRA hasn't done anything to fight 922(o).

SAF is a good organization as well and for my money is better at litigation strategy than the NRA.

The best though is when groups like SAF and the NRA team up as they did for the San Francisco handgun ban, Katrina, and the recent post-Heller suits.

 

[jedwi]

krochus...guess I miss the gist of your point. I may not agree with all that they do but I support NRA, SFA, GOA, an TSRA...Old and feeble as I may be......

 

[skinewmexico]

Let me say "the gimme" generation, The one that came right after the greatest one.

I have to use that. It describes us so well. The generation that led to the downfall.

It drives me nuts when people badmouth the NRA. At least they're trying something. If you don't like the NRA, find a gun group that you do like, and support them with money!

It really drives me insane when I see Texans who aren't members of TSRA. They have done amazing things in Texas, like the study with the ACLU that showed DAs weren't following traveling laws, leading to a new traveling law.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

NRA hasn't done anything to fight 922(o).

Recently, in the same court as Heller, it could fly, on FOPA, yes I know they tried to fix they, they "rode a check their bank could not cash", I would donate to the NRA and be the test case if they wanted, but I have not heard any quite musings from them about it, (they are busy with Chicago, thats cool).

Tell everybody what, I will email the NRA tomorrow and then get their position on how this should work. Who knows you guys might have another life member heading your way.

 

[Samuel Adams]

As odd and distasteful as their opinions may be, they still have a right to speak freely. Therefore, I chose to ignore them.

 

[cracked butt]

I mostly ignore them. I do like anti-NRA-rant-threads just to read Robert Hairless' eloquent retorts.

 

[texas bulldog]

no choice for unable to stop following such threads like a rubber-necker checking out a car wreck, though i don't typically participate in the debate myself.

'cause that would be me.






and i also really like robert hairless' responses.

 

[SCKimberFan]

United we win.

Divided we lose.

 

[jaak]

i oppose the NRA because they do not support black rifles, or "assault weapons". a gun is a gun. your fudd rifle is no different than my ak47. both can kill and have the potential to be dangerous.

so no, i will NEVER support the nra. i told the last bunch of idiots at the gun show trying to get me to sign up for the nra, to... well, stick it where the sun dont shine.

its like saying, well i support free speech. but only for me and my friends that speak the same kind of language. no dice. screw the nra.

if they support ALL types of firearms(not just fudd rifles) then i would support them. not until then though. either you support the right to its entirety, or dont support it at all. anything else is hypocritical.