Pro-gun ownership but not pro-NRA?

[Deanimator]

A gun, or any weapon, isn't necessary for defense.

A famous Italian-American once said, "You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

You apparently believe that only strong, young men are entitled to be safe in their persons and possessions. Women, the handicapped, the weak, the old, and those who couldn't go three rounds with Wong Fei Hung just don't matter, I guess.

 

[HardShell]

.. You apparently believe that only strong, young men are entitled to be safe in their persons and possessions. Women, the handicapped, the weak, the old, and those who couldn't go three rounds with Wong Fei Hung just don't matter, I guess.

Not surprising IMHO from someone who would support banning certain categories of firearms based on cosmetic features, doesn't understand 2A to address an individual right, etc...

 

[tramp116]

I am a supporter & member of AHSA, which seems to have a more reasoned attitude and a lot less of the "us or them" mindset about RKBA.

I support the 2nd Amendment. Just not as broad, unassailable blanket to allow any & all gun activity in any or all situations. Heller does not support this either. There were a lot of limitations mentioned within the ruling. It meant the Federal government cannot impose restrictions in Federally controlled areas. Washington is, after all a federal reserve. The rights of the states and localities to impose limitations will be decided by the upcoming Chicago case. And, I suspect, there will be exceptions contained in that ruling too.

I also support the 1st Amendment. A point many in the RKBA movement seem too willing to forget. And for that reason, I will hang around rather than "seeking Red Rock". I've lived in "uncomfortable homes" before. There is, undoubtedly, something worth knowing that I can learn.

And Fiddletown?
Yeah, I am that good. Unfortunately I have been forced to demonstrate that a couple of times. And with a bit of training you & just about anyone else can be too. It's really not that difficult. My guns are indeed tools. But just one in a whole roll-around toolbox full. Does your toolbox only contain a tire iron?

 

[tramp116]

Well, I am sorry if many here find my comments insufficiently "pro-gun" (pinko??). But I don't live in an "us or them" world. As to the defense of the elderly or disabled, I can't spoke to their defensive needs. I can only speak to my own. I do know that my own grandmother, at the age of 76, took down a pistol armed purse snatcher with nothing but her own cane. Grandma didn't like guns but tolerated the rifles & shotguns kept around the farm. But neither did she like law breakers.

 

[Deanimator]

I am a supporter & member of AHSA, which seems to have a more reasoned attitude and a lot less of the "us or them" mindset about RKBA.

That about says it all.

AHSA is the equivalent of "Blacks for Jim Crow", "Jews for the Nuremberg Laws" or "Gays for Anti-Sodomy Laws".

AHSA is nothing more than a false flag Quisling operation for VPC and the Bradys.

As I predicted elsewhere, AHSA has started yet another feeble "talking points" campaign. Just like EVERY other one, this will fail miserably.

 

[Eliot Smith]

tramp116 said:

But I don't live in an "us or them" world.

Oh really?Then what do you say about the following comments of yours?

I also support the 1st Amendment. A point many in the RKBA movement seem too willing to forget.

As to the defense of the elderly or disabled, I can't spoke to their defensive needs. I can only speak to my own.

I am sorry if many here find my comments insufficiently "pro-gun" (pinko??).

Also, if you depend on a gun for self defense, it becomes a crutch...

...Yeah, I am that good. Unfortunately I have been forced to demonstrate that a couple of times. And with a bit of training you & just about anyone else can be too.

I do believe that if our government turned to being a danger to it's citizens, it will come from the right, not the left.

I am a supporter & member of AHSA

I think that most of these quotes speak for themselves, so I will only comment on the final one. You support the AHSA, which is an organization that does no condone the actions of other organizations like the NRA. Isn't all this obviously an "us versus them" mentality. Can it be any other way? For clarification, when you say "I can only speak to my own," I take you to mean "us" by "my own". I, and all those who agree with or support my opinions, that is "US", think you are ignorant of your own bias and partisanship. I also think the "post-partisan" world mentioned in the last election is one of the greatest fictions ever spawned by a human mind. A post-partisan world is one without humans in it.

 

[Deanimator]

As to the defense of the elderly or disabled, I can't spoke to their defensive needs. I can only speak to my own.

You've obviously missed my point that that IS the point. You couldn't care less whether a 110lb. woman faced with a 210lb. rapist could defend herself or not. Of course like its puppet masters in the Brady Center and VPC, AHSA doesn't really believe in self-defense in the first place.

 

[Eliot Smith]

I have one separate comment to make to tramp116:

You said:

And no, Larry, I do not consider the 2nd Amendment to be cast in stone. There's that little bit about "a well regulated militia...". It does not give an individual an absolute right to own any firearm he or she desires. By that logic, I have the right to buy, own & shoot a 155mm field gun. Or a fully armed Sherman tank. Or a B-52 with M-62 nukes

Consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

It is not primarily about self defense. It is about revolution against a government that has become tyrannical (which by the way if you consider tyranny throughout history, you can see more than just faint beginnings in our government). So if you are going to overthrow a government that has become oppressive, which Jefferson knew first hand, you might want a good amount of weapons on the side of the people (rebels). And if you think that some rebels or regular citizens has no chance against our government with its complete arsenal and army, think of the American Revolution or the rebels we are currently dealing with in Afghanistan. We should have cleaned that up in no time with our BIG army, right? And can you afford a fully armed Sherman tank? If you think handgun rounds are expensive...

The beauty of our Second Amendment right and those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is the avoidance of specifics. The first amendment says nothing about wearing buttons or carrying signs to show disapproval, but those are protected by freedom of speech, right? So why not the fully autos and the Sherman Tank. You still can't drive over your neighbors property, kill his dog or his wife, etc. Those would violate other reasonable rights he retains.

As a conclusion, I find that those who are continually returning to the statement that they like to be "reasonable" about this, are the ones holding the most complex arguments. Simplicity is beauty. The amount of words required to back up just one of your opinions, i.e. the mind is better that the gun, shows us that it may be more complex than you can handle.

 

[Fremmer]

To quote Mr. Ashcroft:

Tramp116; please explain exactly where the 2nd amendment refers to "hunting".

Do it now. I'm as serious as a heart attack...

No answer yet.

 

[Deanimator]

To quote Mr. Ashcroft:

Tramp116; please explain exactly where the 2nd amendment refers to "hunting".

Do it now. I'm as serious as a heart attack...

No answer yet.

And if people should only be allowed to have firearms for "hunting", what should a woman carry for self-defense against a violent rapist? A Remington 700? A 10ga. goose gun? But I thought that the AHSA types didn't LIKE open carry.

Maybe they're just against self-defense... ESPECIALLY by women against rapists.

 

[TexasBill]

Whoa, everyone! There's a big difference between a forum and preaching to the choir. Or, at least that's what I thought. I don't agree with all of Tramp116's positions, but I don't agree with all of anybody's positions. Some members of this group express philosophies or viewpoints with which I do not agree, but they also have knowledge and ideas I can agree with and use, so I accept the the one as their right and benefit from the other.

If we truly want to be The High Road, we need to accept those with differing opinions on more than whether one caliber is superior to another or the optimum CCW piece. That doesn't mean we need to agree with them or that we shouldn't present an opposing point of view. Debate is positive; attack is negative.

 

[Deanimator]

If we truly want to be The High Road, we need to accept those with differing opinions on more than whether one caliber is superior to another or the optimum CCW piece.

This isn't "differing opinions". It's part of a recurring pattern of propaganda and disinformation on the part of AHSA and its operatives.

AHSA doesn't support the rights of gun owners. It doesn't think that gun owners HAVE rights. It's merely the puppet of the Brady Center and VPC. It's SOLE goal is to attempt to trick ignorant and gullible gun owners into supporting the prohibitionist agenda of the militantly anti-gun organizations with which it is inextricably intertwined.

 

[2nd 41]

You might not like every detail about the NRA, but if you like gun rights, you'd better learn to get along... NRA is the only thing that is standing between Obama and your rights.

Totally agree .
I feel that without the NRA our guns go down the drain. Support them.
If you do like certain things about them...try to over look that because no one else is fighting for our gun rights.

 

[MT GUNNY]

AHSA = http://www.huntersandshooters.org/action/obamasticker

NRA = http://www.nrastore.com/nra/Product.aspx?productid=CT 279

AHSA = http://www.huntersandshooters.org/issues/gunrights
http://www.huntersandshooters.org/about

NRA = http://www.nra.org/Aboutus.aspx
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108

I don't know about you but there is allot of Double talk in the Publications from AHSA.
The biggest one that stands out is a Free Bumper sticker, supporting BHO!
It is well Known that the NRA IS for the 2nd Amendment, You would be Hard Pressed to find at-most a Hand full of people that would say "the nra is not a gun rights supporting organization". On the other hand, right here on THR almost everyone knows that AHSA is a Front Organization for the Brady Campaign. I bet you can find well more than 4 million people that will say " The Brady Campaign is a Anti Gun Organization" !

Im sorry OP but you are on the Wrong Forum! same for Tramp116 !!

 

[TexasRifleman]

I am a supporter & member of AHSA, which seems to have a more reasoned attitude and a lot less of the "us or them" mindset about RKBA.

Wow. Took them 9 pages to admit it was them.

Guess most of us are not surprised........

If we truly want to be The High Road, we need to accept those with differing opinions on more than whether one caliber is superior to another or the optimum CCW piece. That doesn't mean we need to agree with them or that we shouldn't present an opposing point of view. Debate is positive; attack is negative.

No, sorry. Debate between 2 pro gun groups is positive. Allowing Brady or AHSA to post here is simply giving them a free forum. There is no "debate" with either of those groups.

AHSA and it's activities are well known and well documented. Who they are, where they came from , who funds them, it's all known and well connected to anti gun groups.

These groups realize that a complete ban on all firearms is not likely to happen, so they have created a group that tries to appeal to people who are only interested in the hunting side of gun ownership. They demonize handguns, so called "assault weapons" and any defensive use of firearms with the goal of appeasing hunters when bans on other types of firearms come along... "Don't worry, you can keep your hunting guns, we need to get rid of those bad ones only".

Of course, once that is done the other firearms are next. Problem for them is most gun owners have been smart enough to see through it.

 

[AKElroy]

As to the defense of the elderly or disabled, I can't spoke to their defensive needs. I can only speak to my own.

OK, since you are apparently unwilling, why don't I speak for them. The founders certainly did. Their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[AKElroy]

I do know that my own grandmother, at the age of 76, took down a pistol armed purse snatcher with nothing but her own cane.

Too bad your grandma wasn't eating a Luby's in Killeen when George Hennard started his rampage, claiming 23 lives. I am sure she would have been more than a match.

 

[AKElroy]

I do not consider the 2nd Amendment to be cast in stone. There's that little bit about "a well regulated militia...". It does not give an individual an absolute right to own any firearm

Of course. The first 9 amendements to the constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of rights, CLEARLY guarantee INDIVIDUAL rights. The 1'st,...3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th. All individual. That 2nd, though, any idiot can see that one is reserved as a right granted OUR GOVERNMENT as a defense against the people, lest we become unruly, obviously to protect the truly important & powerful from the uneducated, backwood hicks that might threaten to contradict their will.

God save the King. You go, girlfriend...

 

[Deanimator]

I do know that my own grandmother, at the age of 76, took down a pistol armed purse snatcher with nothing but her own cane.

I wonder how that would have worked against Cho Seung Hui... or the guy who shot six women (killing five) in a Tinley Park, Illinois Lane Bryant clothing store.

But then I imagine a rolled up newspaper is effective against a man with a gun... who's not willing to USE it.

Like most anti-gunners, you're ok with self-defense... just so long as the victim uses a means unlikely to result in victory.

But of course all of the above is premised on what you said actually having been TRUE...

 

[TexasBill]

Guys, I wasn't talking about differences with the AHSA. I was talking about attacks on Tramp116 preferring to support it rather than the NRA.

And so what if AHSA or the Brady Bunch do post here? You think some of us might go to the dark side if we're exposed to them? You don't think we could marshall facts to refute their made-up statistics? I read a release from the Violence Policy Center supposedly showing how much safer states with strong gun controls were. Took me about five minutes to show how they cooked the numbers.

Of all places to encounter those groups, this has to be one of the best. We're not credulous politicians who only want to hear things that support the conclusions they've already drawn. If they want to re-enact the Charge of the Light Brigade, that's up to them; there won't be any Tennyson to make them look good this time.

Besides, a good debate stirs the soul and refreshes the mind. It's the soul of America. None of the great documents that form the structure of our government were arrived at without "spirited" discussion.

 

[TexasRifleman]

And so what if AHSA or the Brady Bunch do post here? You think some of us might go to the dark side if we're exposed to them?

Wouldn't you rather spend the time talking about guns and the enjoyment of them?

And yes, eventually some few WILL be swayed by their dishonest approach if the rest of us are not vigilant in countering their lies.

A "debate" usually infers that both sides are honest.

You can't have a debate with liars, and that's what you have in AHSA.

 

[Deanimator]

And so what if AHSA or the Brady Bunch do post here?

So what if Holocaust deniers post to a history web site? If they're allowed to, it shouldn't be with any illusions that they do so with ANY intent other than to deceive the reader.

Similarly, AHSA exists SOLELY to sow disinformation intended to trick people into WILLINGLY giving up their 2nd Amendment (to start) rights.

In both cases, those seeking to deceive should NOT be allowed to do so without:

1. Potential victims of the deception being warned.
2. The attempts to deceive being THOROUGHLY exposed and debunked.

Subject to laws regarding obstruction of justice, criminal fraud, and slander/libel, anyone is entitled to lie to their heart's content. NOBODY is entitled to lie without public exposure and contradiction.

 

[JohnBT]

AHSA.

Aw jeez, not that bunch of confused souls. I'll pray for them.

"Yeah, I am that good."

Hot damn. Can I kiss your ring?

John

P.S. - Go to the AHSA site and click on the link About Us. Go to the bottom of the page

Our Issues
•Gun Rights
•Conservation
•Land Protection
•Law Enforcement
•NRA

Click on NRA and you get...

"Page not found"


They won't even own up about WHY the NRA is one of "Our Issues"

 

[Deanimator]

Aw jeez, not that bunch of confused souls.

About as "confused" as Lord Haw Haw

They know EXACTLY what they're doing, namely trying through disguise, what Brady and VPC do out in the open. They're puppets on a string, and the strings are in Sarah Brady's fingers.

 

[SuperNaut]

Wow someone new got duped by the AHSA.

Oh wait, maybe it isn't someone new at all, hmmmmmmm...