My letter to the NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have to realize that the people who want to ban assault weapons also want to ban hunting shotguns.
Click to expand...

Right. The "scary" guns go first. Then they come for the rest.

It's worth repeating. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or having fun. It's a buddy system between We The People and the government to safe guard our rights together. And doing that means having access to the best tools for the job. Bolt actions ain't gonna cut it. Sadly, some very loud and powerful forces have big issues with an armed society.
 
running this article in the flagship publication of the nation's best known gun rights organization might not be helping the 2A cause.
Click to expand...

Say WHAT? :what:

Who better to feature a professional, factual, anti-hype, article that presents a gun (ANY gun) in the most upstanding and positive light possible? 20 years ago folks said the same horse***** about AR-15 rifles. "The flagship publication of the nation's best known gun rights organization" and a lot of other mainstream gun press were a big part of the growth of the "acceptability" of black rifles for civilian use -- and the Zumbo fiasco of a few months ago was the exception that "proofs" that progress.

Who the he!! do you expect to present a positive view of firearms in all their variety if NOT /American Rifleman/?

Look at your own statements for a moment. You've actually proposed that "the flagship publication of the nation's best known gun rights organization" should act as though WE'RE ALL AFRAID OF THEM, TOO!

I do not mean to disrespect you, but this is an ABOMINABLE load of CRAP.

Sincerely,

-Sam
 
And the person who posted the picture of the Glock with the 30 round magazine and silencer, yes, that scares me.
Click to expand...

Look at the expanding proliferation of positive articles about suppressors. The mainstream gun media is starting to show the truth about them, too.

1) That they are a great means of reducing noise pollution -- which makes for friendlier range neighbors.
2) That they make training a new shooter easier due to the reduced blast (and often recoil).
3) That they greatly reduce cumulative hearing loss (even when using muffs or plugs). Etc., etc.

And yet, when someone posts a picture of one of the most common handguns in the world sporting a "can", you guys shudder like you just stepped on a copperhead?

How can we expect "society" to accept something so benevolent as a noise suppressor when those in our own ranks shriek and hide like schoolgirls at the sight of one?

Sad. Again, meaning no disrespect, but there is something just ... sad about it.

-Sam
 
It just occured to me...

Mdog... You claim that you are upset because the NRA magazine might scare off people who are fence sitters, etc....

How many of them read the NRA magazines?

Im pretty sure, the VAST majority of the people reading the mags are gun people in the first place....

So, who are you worried about?
 
Have you seen the magazine called "Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement"? Every month they have either a AR, Tactical sniper rifle or a Fifty cal on the cover, oh wait they did have one of those 10 pound semi auto pistols, How are you supposed to holster a pistol with a silencer, flashlight, laser, scope, 30 round mag and tripod attached?

Ok I made the tripod part up, it was a under barrel pepper spray device :D

If that magazine doesn’t scare off a fence sitter the NRA magazine has nothing to worry about.
 
mdog, you said, "And the person who posted the picture of the Glock with the 30 round magazine and silencer, yes, that scares me. I am not questioning your right to own it, more power to you. However, when the general public sees such a weapon, they are shocked and this is exactly what the anti-gunners wants."

This statement makes me lump you in with all the other self loathing gun owners I have met online and in person. A self loathing gun owner is one of those people who own guns, but only certain guns they consider to be politically correct. People like the ones who run the Brady campaign and the Violence Policy Center. You are the perfect target for those who will eventually support a ban on all civilian firearms ownership.

Silencers on guns are used by people for the same reasons that mufflers are used on cars. The make them safer to use, for shooters and bystanders alike. That you claim silencers scare you is just more of the same propaganda that people like Joe Biden use when he says that gun owners who call their guns baby are mentally ill.

The general public used to be against mixed race marriages and birth control. Education is an amazing thing. You should be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Believe me when I say that uneducated people and prejudiced person like yourself are a problem.

Just so you know, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. I do not think you are a troll, you are just emotionally immature and hoplophobic (afraid of guns).

Ranb
 
mdog,

Your posts have been well written and structured in a grammatical sense. However your viewpoint is not at all a help to those of us who are working to preserve the 2nd amendment for its intended purpose: to help all Americans fend off oppression and tyranny. I know that Mr. La Pierre will give your letter the treatment it deserves.
BTW no semi automatic should ever be banned, shunned or feared, and if it weren't for a few gangsters in the 30's the 2nd amendment would still be as it was meant to be.
I am on the other side of current gun control trends. I think every American male between 18 and 65 should be required to keep either an M16 or a semi auto shotgun in their home,and be required to produce such weapon for annual training and inspection, and to make himself and such weapon available in the event of national emergency, with whatever legitimate exceptions may exist.
 
No, I can see what he's saying. There may not be anything wrong with the gun, or supporting the gun, or whatever, but it takes tact to work toward a larger goal, namely beating back the bias of "GUN BAD, PEOPLE GOOD". There are strategic times where it may be wiser to be quiet, especially now when Obama hasn't taken a firm stance on whether he wants to ban handguns now that's he's in or not.
 
Apparently since you have a problem understanding ' the right of The People to keep and bear Arms ' , you would likewise have trouble understanding ' shall not be infringed ' as well .

No where , in there , does it describe arms , as , for sporting purposes .

Rather it makes clear in ' being necessary for a free state ' , that military arms , are , what are referred to .

Letting Anti-Gun , Anti-Free State , Shills of the UN , describe what is acceptable and what is not is absolute folly .

The Men who signed that Declaration of Independence , and The Constitution of the United States would say Treasonous .

The Constitution of The United States " ...it's only keepers , the people . " George Washington
 
You can not appease the antis by being "reasonable."

That's the mistake the RINOs are constantly making, trying to gain the approval of their political opponants.

The antis love to hold up the NRA as their favorite bogeyman, with absolutely no regard for any facts about the NRA. They are not picking through copies of American Rifleman looking for individual items to which they can object.



They object to EVERYTHING.

They object to the Evil Sniper Rifle on the cover.

They object to the Semiautomatic Assault Pistol on the back cover.

They object to the Breechloading Flintlock Assault Rifle on page 51.

The magazine could contain nothing but YOUR Skeet gun, and they would object to that also.



They will vilify the NRA because it suits their agenda to do so. Nothing the NRA does can placate them. Nothing. The antis simply don't care about any facts whatsoever. They don't believe their own arguments: they only care about their agenda, and their agenda is NOT gun control. It is Control.



I don't think you're a troll. I don't think you WANT to ban anything.

But we are NOT going to make a positive impression by leaving funny looking guns out of American Rifleman. And we WILL NOT hurt the cause by INCLUDING scary guns in A.R. It makes no difference.



Edited to add:

... but it takes tact to work toward a larger goal, namely beating back the bias ...
Click to expand...


(Sigh!)

While you are tactfully being reasonable, the antis are smirking at your naivete. It's not about cherrypicking articles in American Rifleman to demonstrate how reasonable we are, or to avoid offending someone. You are offending them just by your existence, and guns have little to do with it.

Their bias is not against guns. Banning your single-barrel trap gun is just one more step on the Long March...

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates24.html)


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


--------------------------
 
Last edited:
mdog, I had thoughts similar to yours when I read that article in AR. It's a fairly ridiculous gun - ugly, oversized, overpriced and impractical. And yes, as a derivative of an automatic combat pistol, it's the kind of firearm that anti-gun folks describe as "a gun that's only meant to kill people". But I've been called a troll here, too.
Click to expand...
No, I can see what he's saying. There may not be anything wrong with the gun, or supporting the gun, or whatever, but it takes tact to work toward a larger goal, namely beating back the bias of "GUN BAD, PEOPLE GOOD". There are strategic times where it may be wiser to be quiet, especially now when Obama hasn't taken a firm stance on whether he wants to ban handguns now that's he's in or not.
Click to expand...
The name of the magazine is not Shotgun World because shotguns do not need defending.......yet. These are exactly the kindas of firearms which we need to be defending. Obama has already made a firm stance years ago. There is no question that he wants a ban. It is up to the rest of America to express their outrage over the very idea that reasonable rational responsible adults can not be trusted with automatic weapons and semiautomatic versions of them. With the exception of states which have never heard of the 2nd Amendment, currently anyone who can legally purchase a single shot 12 gauge can legally purchase a fully automatic machine gun by paying the $200 tax and doing the paperwork. This is one of those out of sight out of mind things for the gun grabbers. They are focusing on firearms which only look scary yet are no more dangerous than the average deer rifle....
 
Last edited:
A few points of clarification:

A "troll" is someone who enters any internet forum with the intent to cause strife by disagreeing with a basic tenant. This need not be gun related. Going to an ElvisFans.com and declaring Elvis was unoriginal would be an example of being a troll.

Troll has a very negative connotation.

Lurker is someone who reads but does not post. Lurking and Lurker do not have a negative connotation. It is the internet equivalent of 'long time listener, first time caller.'



Now, regarding this issue specifically of you seeing no 'good reason' for owning a non-sporting firearm.

I can definately see the wisdom of advising someone who wants an urban rifle to choose a lever action marlin in 30-30 vs a pimped out SKS in a fake dragnov stock, simply because there is a small chance that if it was used in a self defense shooting the prosecution may try and use the gun's appearance against you.

However, the NRA needs to get behind ALL firearms. I am GLAD they are expanding beyond 'walnut and blue' of the sporting clay fields and deer stands.

I wish Charlton Heston had held an AR-15 or FN-FAL over his head when declaring 'from my cold dead hands'

We will never win if we play into the media's hands and the anti's hands and act ashamed of the appearance of certian classes of weapons we believe should be legal.

Why is there shame in a legal firearm? Shame should only come from immoral or illegal actions.

Saying it should be shameful to display that gun is also saying it is shameful to own...and shameful to own is saying that while it isn't currently illegal, it should be.
 
I had an Enfield rifle in 303 that was made back in 1918. It was worn out and kept on breaking the brass when loaded at any level more than the minimum in the loading manual, even when neck sizing only. It had no collector's value. It gathered dust in the safe for ten years until I re-barreled it to 45 ACP.

Not wanting to just leave it alone, I profiled the barrel to accept a large silencer that I made for another rifle, and attached a AK under folding stock. I have been told it better shoot well as it is the ugliest rifle around. While it is quiet, it only shoots fair.

enfieldfolded.jpg

So, all you hoplophobes, RINO's and self loathing gun owners; will you fight for my right to own this rifle? If you do not, why should I not be ashamed to call you fellow Americans? I'm talking to you mdog, and your pal Blast.

Ranb
 
I think most of us here support the 2A as written and our senses are offended anytime a politician or organization speaks of 'hunting' or 'sporting' in the same breath as supporting the 2nd Amendment.
 
However, guns like the Mac 10, Tec 9 and now this B&T MP9 maybe fantastic tactical weapons for special ops, but I fail to see the civilian use of a semi-automatic version of any of these guns.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what they would be used for, but I doubt they are really more dangerous than, say, an AR.
For those who have not read the article, DS Arms has taken the B&T MP9 and made a semiautomatic version called the TP9. In my opinion these guns are more likely to be used in a bank robbery or gang violence than target practice or hunting.
Click to expand...
They cost $1250. I doubt they'd make a good crime weapon. Even weapons like the MAC 10 are not usually used in crime. (You have to figure out how many of them were sold, and how many were used in a crime. Chances are most of them weren't used in a crime.)

I also believe there are more defensive uses of firearms than criminal uses each year, so most guns would follow that rule.


No, I can see what he's saying. There may not be anything wrong with the gun, or supporting the gun, or whatever, but it takes tact to work toward a larger goal, namely beating back the bias of "GUN BAD, PEOPLE GOOD". There are strategic times where it may be wiser to be quiet, especially now when Obama hasn't taken a firm stance on whether he wants to ban handguns now that's he's in or not.
Click to expand...
Since most readers of American rifleman are already pro-gun, I think it makes sense to defend that gun in there. If the politicians are fighting over whether or not to ban guns like this, they can't ban other guns. Also, it shows the pro-gun crowd that this gun isn't exceptionally dangerous.

Also, if someone's undecided, let them shoot something like this. It will show them they aren't exceptionally dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Javelin,

That is not an SBR, they are contraband in WA, except those registered before 1994. It has a 16" barrel. The pic shown is with a silencer shaped shroud I use when shooting it in WA, as silencer use is prohibited here. The real silencer is 4 inches longer. I replaced the large scope shown with a smaller shotgun scope. It is good for a 6 inch group at 100 yards.

Ranb
 
I don't think it's fair that we are ganging up on this poor fellow. Afterall, he is not saying that all guns are bad, only that certain ones that have no sporting purpose are bad.

In an attempt to even the playing field I submit the following so that he won't be alone in this discussion.

To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.
Sarah Brady
Jackson, Keeping the Battle Alive, Tampa Tribune
1993-10-21

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."
Barbara Fass
ABC News Special, Peter Jennings: Guns
Stockton, CA Mayor
1991-04-11

And nobody is talking about taking guns away from hunters or sportsmen or banning all guns. Nobody is talking about that.
Al Gore
Larry King Live
U.S. Vice President
1999-09-17

Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose.
Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General

..the only people who use them [so-called assault weapons] are mass murderers...
Charles Schumer
PBS debate with Bill McCollum
U.S. Senator (D-NY)
1996

Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Josh Sugarmann
"Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation"
1989-03-00
Click to expand...
 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin.
 
Last edited:
Back in the 60's when they debated gun control and finally passed the GCA of 1968 the argument that the antis used was against SPORTING ARMS and they said "civilians should only own military style weapons because that is what the 2nd amendment really was meant to protect". See how their argument has changed over the years. Back then pro gun people said that all firearms were protected and managed to save both types. There weren't as many nutty antis in those days as now and they also didn't have so much support in the media. Times have changed. But the reality is that whatever we give them will never be enough it will always be a "good first step" to put it in their words. Let's not give them anything. Let's make them have to come take them.
 
I can understand where the OP is coming from but unfortunately I am one of those all or nothing types. If the government can have it the people should be able to have it otherwise the 2nd amendment is worthless as there would be prominent firearm technology disparity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rockrivr1
  • Locked
NRA-PVF Emergency Letter - Good idea or does it give fuel to the antis?
Replies
2
Views
418
Standing Wolf
S
D
  • Locked
My Letter to Wayne LaPierre on the AWB sunset
Replies
3
Views
559
Monkeyleg
M
D
  • Locked
Got a letter from the NRA that made me very angry today
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
4K
45Cal
4
T
  • Locked
U.S. Senate Stands with NRA in Strongly Opposing U.N Gun Control Efforts
Replies
5
Views
594
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
Blanco invites NRA convention to Louisiana
Replies
1
Views
331
Hawk
H
Back
Top