Why so many anti-NRA?

[Old krow]

The NRA, for better or for worse is still the NRA. IMO it's still a worthy organization. They fight a political battle against politicians. The NRA is a force to reckoned with, but if you don't like them, at least support somebody. I do not want to be a politician or fight in a political arena so I'll just pay them. I did not say that I didn't intend to fight for my freedoms, just that I would rather not do it in that arena. It's a battle that started before the NRA and will continue until it is won by the opposing side because we (gun owner's) cannot win it. The most that we can do is keep what our Founding Father's gave us. Even if we regain some ground we will not have anything more than we started with. We're guaranteed to CONSTANTLY fight for the Second Amendment as long as it exists.

What the NRA cannot do, is to improve the way that the non-gun owner see the gun owning population. They can fight our political battles all day, but they can't fight a battle of popular opinion or culture. If we make the NRA the Maginot Line that's exactly what they will be. It is however OUR freedom to fight for and to expect the NRA to win it all for us is a losing tactic. Not to say that we don't have some actively involved members.

On average I would say that most everyone here is involved otherwise we wouldn't be here. I certainly don't mean to suggest that we're resting on our laurels, but there's always that guy out there that shoots down Google transmissions lines that makes the rest of us look bad. Even on my own range we have guys that come out and shoot up the range signs when nobody else is out there.

I personally believe this is a flaw of with the NRA, they should be coordinating with other like minded groups - not stabbing them in the back. The only way they are going to change is if the membership complains about it.

I agree. They aren't much different than any other politician, speak up!

 

[Sam1911]

but your dollars go towards an outfit that hasn't pursued an agenda of a more literal 2nd amendment reading.

Really? Haven't pursued an agenda of a more literal 2nd amendment reading?

Considering how far we've come since 1968 ... heck, how far we've come since 1994! ... in so many facets of the RKBA fight, I'd say a strong swing towards a literal 2nd A reading is heavily underway. If you honestly think the NRA has had no role in that, you're welcomed to your opinion, but it is absurd.

Yes, there are some other RKBA organizations on the national scene. Very few of them really accomplish diddly squat in the grand scheme, but they're there. The NRA has been there all along, fighting, pushing, winning, and sometimes losing, but always being the big dog in the fight -- is that not "pursuing an agenda?"

And now we're far better off re: RKBA than most of us believed we'd ever live to see. Is the NRA not to thank for that? The shooting public -- and society in general -- view guns and gun ownership in a vastly different light than they did just a couple of decades back. Has not the NRA played an important role -- no, THE important role -- in driving that social change?

The organization isn't perfect and hasn't always been perfect, and what it was able to do 40 years ago when GCA '68 was hatched is far from where it is today. Hopefully in 2050 we'll be saying similar things about Heller and McDonald. (Which NRA has strongly contributed to, though not owned outright.)

As open minded as I am to some criticisms, some of these are just outrageous and nearly slanderous.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The NRA may be a worthy organization and they certainly do good things and some of the things they did best while I was a member was to hound me for more money by mail and phone, starting with wanting me to renew my membership within weeks of joining for 5 years.

I was supposed to get a baseball cap for joining. It never came. Over the years I did receive stickers, 2 silver bullets made of plastic, 3 VHS copies of "Tales of the Gun" and a couple of NRA medallions. I didn't want any of that garbage, though I did want my baseball cap. Being short on hair, caps are important to me. It never came. Letter after letter from Charleton Heston came telling me how important my contribution was to the NRA. And then more came.

More than once I contacted the NRA about soliciting me for more money and membership. I explained that I joined for as long as I could afford and that I would not be sending them more money or renewing my membership years in advance. That did not stop the mailings and phone calls.

Turns out, whomever I contacted could not actually take my name off of any lists directly because their mailings and such were handled by 3rd party vendors and so my name would be submitted for removal, only it never seemed to get removed.

I did appreciate their emergency newsletters and pending legislation about which I needed to contact my congressmen immediately. These mailings often came several weeks after the news was made public and discussed extensively on places like THR and on a few occasions came after the votes had already been cast. Timeliness was not the NRA's strong attribute.

I know I know. I have heard it all before. Putting up with such shennanigans is a small price to pay for freedom. Wait a minute. Why am I paying to have some company hassle me when I have asked them not to hassle me? I wanted to be supportive, but instead they seemed to be wasting my money on sending me "gifts" I never wanted. To be quite honest, I don't know how cost effective it was for me to join. I know they get special mail rates and all, but figured they were spending about 1/3 or more of my membership money to solicit more money from me and to try to get me to renew a membership that was years from expiring.

I understand that the NRA is better now about not hassling people who ask not to be hassled. I want to believe it it true, but their refusal to make it happen when I wanted them to is enough to keep me from giving them my name contact information again.

Three years after my five year membership ended, during another dinnertime phone call, I painfully broke the news to the nice man on the phone that I had died. I explained that I had died three months prior and that I was my son and was currently in the process of cleaning out belongings from the house as part of settling the estate. Being dead seemed to work and the mailings have mostly stopped and the phone calls have stopped. I still get one or two mailings a year, to me or current resident. They know I am dead, but want an excuse to mail to this address in hopes of drumming up business.

I support other pro gun groups who are more responsive to my wishes.

 

[jcwit]

All that over a baseball cap and mailings one can easily throw away.

Oh well, I guess we all have our priorities.

 

[Sam1911]

but your dollars go towards an outfit that hasn't pursued an agenda of a more literal 2nd amendment reading.

One more shot at this one:

My dollars have gone to an organization that has used political tactics (i.e.: compromise) to, successfully, demonstrably, move us closer to the goal.

My dollars COULD have gone to "no compromise" organizations who DON'T use political tactics (i.e.: compromise) and we'd still be sitting at the starting line.

Rights considered "inalienable" (for some people, to one degree or another) at the end of the 18th century were lost over the course of the next 175 years while society changed dramatically generation after generation. For reasons far too numerous to mention here, by the 1960s we were in a pretty sorry state. Gun rights were all but lost and seemed destined to evaporate for ever -- as they in fact have almost every where else in the world.

"Standing our ground" and shouting "NO Compromise!" in 1968 would have been about as effective as a write-in vote for Mickey Mouse. Slowly, and pretty steadily since then we've nibbled back our rights little bit by little bit.

FOPA in '86 was a huge win ... with one nasty compromise (that the NRA DIDN'T invent, by the way).

Concealed carry laws in many states were introduced. Most of them sucked a bit, at first. Compromises, you know? But most have been greatly improved. ("May Issue" becomes "Shall Issue." Restrictions fall away as folks become more used to the idea of armed citizens NOT killing anyone. Some states have even stripped almost any restrictions from the carrying of weapons. How's that for a "literal reading" of the 2nd?)

The AWB sunset ... whose fault was that? Heller? McDonald? Did these things happen in spite of NRA's "compromising" ways? (Yes, I know the controversy surrounding the NRA's thoughts on timing and risks with Heller ... and the oral argument complaint. Those are strategy issues above my pay grade.)

The easy road is to die on the battlefield yelling "No Compromise." It doesn't require planning, long-term thinking, patience, perseverance, or decades of hard work.

 

[harmon rabb]

Regardless if you agree with everything the NRA does, if you're a gun owner, and like having the 2A, you absolutely need to be a NRA member. They do more for your 2A rights than any other organization, and have more influence than any other organization.

 

[fireside44]

My dollars COULD have gone to "no compromise" organizations who DON'T use political tactics (i.e.: compromise) and we'd still be sitting at the starting line.

Speculation.

"Standing our ground" and shouting "NO Compromise!" in 1968 would have been about as effective as a write-in vote for Mickey Mouse. Slowly, and pretty steadily since then we've nibbled back our rights little bit by little bit.

Nibbled back our rights? You mean like NICS checks, additions to the 1968 GCA, "licensing" for carry of weapons, tighter leashes for FFL's, machine gun manufacturing bans, stricter regulations on importing rifles and kits and the like?

Sorry, but gun rights have steadily declined since 1968.

 

[jcwit]

Sorry, but gun rights have steadily declined since 1968.

Sure, thats why Indiana now has a lifetime permit available.

Just one example!

Quote:
My dollars COULD have gone to "no compromise" organizations who DON'T use political tactics (i.e.: compromise) and we'd still be sitting at the starting line.

Speculation.

Show us a link where "no compromise" actually has worked. Then give us the percentages of working "no compromise" versus "compromise".

 

[WNTFW]

From the last line of post #103 by Double Naught Spy:
"I support other pro gun groups who are more responsive to my wishes."

Could you share with us the names of the groups.

 

[Weevil]

Well this thread has shown me that the "no-compromisers" are idiots that don't have a clue as to how national politics actually work.


How in the world are you going to be "no compromise" when the other side has more votes than you do?

"No compromise" is a great thing if you hold all the cards and can dictate whats done.

However it's sheer suicide for your cause when you are in the minority fighting to hang on to whatever you can.


Bullying tactics and throwing tantrums don't work in politics, it requires working with others and building coalitions with other groups and special interests and that quite often requires the dreaded "compromises" that are needed to get their help and suppport.


The NRA is not God they can't get whatever they want with the wave of a hand.


Grow up already and get a clue as to how things work in the arena of politics.


Throwing yourself on the floor and stomping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue when you don't get what you want doesn't work in Congress.

Or perhaps the "no-compromisers" think we should just take our ball home and not play anymore, yeah that'll really save the RKBA.


Being an idealist looks great on paper and is great for pumping up the old ego but being a part of the NRA is what will give us the clout to stop "compromising"!


Stop being a crybaby and thinking up BS excuses for not joining us, then maybe someday the NRA can wave it's hand and strike down those unconstitutional laws.


It'll never happen as long as we remain just a bunch of squabbling, bickering, ego-maniacs who piss and moan because an organization of 4 million members doesn't do things exactly the way you want them to.

 

[JohnBT]

"Sorry, but gun rights have steadily declined since 1968."

1968?

Have you forgotten about 1934 and NFA?

How about the 1865 black codes? Do you blame the NRA?

How about state laws. Maryland passed their first gun law in 1715. Sure, blame that one on the NRA too.

www.secondamendment.net/2amd8.html

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

 

[fireside44]

However it's sheer suicide for your cause when you are in the minority fighting to hang on to whatever you can.

If you are "attempting to hang on to whatever you can" then you don't compromise, as it's compromise that brought you to that state.

Well this thread has shown me that the "no-compromisers" are idiots

Wow, heck of an argument. I'm converted.

Grow up already and get a clue as to how things work in the arena of politics.

I don't want to play politics, I just want my Constitutional gun rights. And no, I won't settle on an organization who consistently plays politics and makes detrimental compromises that negatively effect gun owners. Maybe you are more easily charmed and swindled by the "NRA is all we got" propaganda, I'm not.

Being an idealist looks great on paper and is great for pumping up the old ego but being a part of the NRA is what will give us the clout to stop "compromising"!

They've had 40 years to stop compromising. Hasn't happened yet.

Stop being a crybaby and thinking up BS excuses for not joining us, then maybe someday the NRA can wave it's hand and strike down those unconstitutional laws.

Yeah, someday.

 

[JohnKSa]

Sorry, but gun rights have steadily declined since 1968.

Not.

This list is incomplete.

Gun rights expansion since 1968

• 1986 FOPA
• In 1974 4 states had shall-issue concealed carry. Now 37 states have shall issue.
• At least one state has gone from shall issue to no permit required.
• Heller
• McDonald
• Carry in National parks is now legal

 

[jcwit]

Quote:
However it's sheer suicide for your cause when you are in the minority fighting to hang on to whatever you can.

If you are "attempting to hang on to whatever you can" then you don't compromise, as it's compromise that brought you to that state.


Quote:
Well this thread has shown me that the "no-compromisers" are idiots

Wow, heck of an argument. I'm converted.


Quote:
Grow up already and get a clue as to how things work in the arena of politics.

I don't want to play politics, I just want my Constitutional gun rights. And no, I won't settle on an organization who consistently plays politics and makes detrimental compromises that negatively effect gun owners. Maybe you are more easily charmed and swindled by the "NRA is all we got" propaganda, I'm not.


Quote:
Being an idealist looks great on paper and is great for pumping up the old ego but being a part of the NRA is what will give us the clout to stop "compromising"!

They've had 40 years to stop compromising. Hasn't happened yet.


Quote:
Stop being a crybaby and thinking up BS excuses for not joining us, then maybe someday the NRA can wave it's hand and strike down those unconstitutional laws.

Yeah, someday.

I guess this proves the fact that some people just don't get it, and probably never will from lack of foresightness.

Anyway they save a cool $35.00 bucks a year. Gosh thats a little over a WHOLE tank of gas.

 

[COMPNOR]

I'd say the attitudes displayed in this thread is why many are "Anti-NRA". The whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality isn't very attractive.

 

[jcwit]

I'd say the attitudes displayed in this thread is why many are "Anti-NRA". The whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality isn't very attractive.

Yes, but then to divide us is to conquer us also. United we stand strong.

 

[ohsevenflhx]

I am a NRA member that will lets the membership run out. I enjoy firearms, but not the GOP. I also got my "free" DVD in the mail this summer, and was genuinely pleased and excited to watch it. I thought, how cool that they sent me a DVD to watch. THEN I read the fine print about paying for it if I keep it and more would be sent. WHAT? I didnt realize that joining the NRA piggybacked me to a "pick out one cassette free, buy 12 in the next twelve months" club. Nope, that one mailer ended NRA for me.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Nope, that one mailer ended NRA for me.

Easy to see just how deeply your commitment runs.

 

[Sam1911]

Speculation.

O.k. I suppose. It has to be speculative as the "No Compromise" organizations haven't managed to develop the membership numbers to fill your average fast-food joint, let alone impress federal representatives -- nor have any really managed to gain any attention nor credit for doing ... well anything really except put out press releases sniping at the big dogs. So my claim that my support would have been wasted has to be speculative. Maybe if I'd sent them more money they'd have miraculously developed the ability to make the gun grabbers cry for their mommies. Too bad it didn't happen.

Sorry, but gun rights have steadily declined since 1968.

Utter, unmitigated, hogwash.

As others have shown, you're ignoring pretty much everything that's been gained in the last two decades -- and that's really disingenuous of you.

As an example, you bemoan the expansion of "'licensing' for carry of weapons." This is just obtuse. Prior to the expansion of CCW licensing in the last 20 years (pushed ever forward with the help of the NRA, among others) it was generally ILLEGAL to carry a concealed defensive weapon in a great majority of states.

Do we want "constitutional carry" laws such as VT, AK, and AZ have adopted? SURE. Are the "shall-issue" permit systems the NRA (and others) have compromised to get LIGHT YEARS better than the way things were before? INCONTESTABLY.

tighter leashes for FFL's

In 1968 the FFL system came down hard on gun dealers and owners. Since that time we have seen some serious reforms demanded of the BATFE.

Yes, the FOPA '86 had a nastly little tumor stuck into it by the detestable Mr. Hughes, but it also did some FABULOUS things -- including freeing our FFLs from some of the death grip the ATF held on them. Compromises, compromises.

How in the world are you going to be "no compromise" when the other side has more votes than you do?
"No compromise" is a great thing if you hold all the cards and can dictate whats done.
However it's sheer suicide for your cause when you are in the minority fighting to hang on to whatever you can.

There is MUCH wisdom in this statement. When your opponents have you surrounded, outnumbered, and dead in the water (as they really did back then), refusing to enter into negotiations simply leaves you bypassed and ignored.

"I WON'T give an INCH."
"Well, you see, we're taking a mile -- nothing you can do about it. We just wanted to know if you had a preference about which three yards we left for you. If you won't talk to us, fine, we'll just take it all."

They've had 40 years to stop compromising. Hasn't happened yet.

They've had 40 years to move slowly, steadily closer to the big goals. A lot of those goals have been reached. Many are still on the horizon. It's politics. You don't get to decide you've just had enough and demand all the marbles. You fight for every inch -- working to change society's opinions while you're battling for the votes you need. One issue, one vote, one bad law knocked down (compromised away) at a time.

I don't want to play politics, I just want my Constitutional gun rights.

Fortunately for you -- and for "US" -- guys like Wayne and Chris are there in Washington and you AREN'T!

 

[fireside44]

It has to be speculative as the "No Compromise" organizations haven't managed to develop the membership numbers to fill your average fast-food joint

That is a derisive criticism of those no compromise organizations whose movements are gaining more steam. For example, when I hit this page the "public service announcement" is for "Oregon Firearms Federation-Oregon's no compromise gun lobby".

The NRA has dissension even within it's own ranks (pretty clear from this thread) and so dissatisfaction with the "cut our losses" strategy is growing.

You can choose to downplay the validity of the no compromise movement, but it's clear at some point a line has to be drawn in the sand. I think that also applies to politics in general these days.

As others have shown, you're ignoring pretty much everything that's been gained in the last two decades -- and that's really disingenuous of you.

The severe decline of FFL holders and the end of kitchen table dealers over the last twenty years or so would tell a different tale. A driver's license equating to a privilege to carry a gun doesn't offset other factors you choose to downplay.

In 1968 the FFL system came down hard on gun dealers and owners. Since that time we have seen some serious reforms demanded of the BATFE.

Yeah, demand away.

 

[stickhauler]

It has to be speculative as the "No Compromise" organizations haven't managed to develop the membership numbers to fill your average fast-food joint.

That is a derisive criticism of those no compromise organizations whose movements are gaining more steam.

And how's that working out for you? I'll offer a challenge to you. Try going into the office of a legislator and telling them you represent one of these wonderful no compromise organizations and see if you get past the receptionist. Then try another legislators office and say you represent the NRA, and actually get face time with the legislator.

The net effect the national "no compromise" groups are adding to preserving our RKBA is, in my opinion, playing straight into the anti-gun movement's hands. They flat hate the NRA, because they have learned it is effective in stopping their agenda. They're loving all the NRA haters bashing the NRA, as they know full well the no compromise group ain't getting past the door guard.

They also know dividing the RKBA movement plays into their hands in spades. They've seen it for years, pitting hunters against sport shooters, to the point many hunters actually do agree with what Carter said, that there is no possible reason to own an evil black rifle. They've hunted for years with bolt action rifles, and they worked perfectly for their purpose. Ever hear the phrase "divide and conquer?" That's what your ideal group is doing, whether you choose to see it or not.

Myself, the groups that use the recruiting strategy of bashing one group to gain members for their group will never see a dime from me. See, I followed one of the groups effort to use the imprisonment of a gun owner for letting a guy borrow a rifle to go to the range that fired multiple shots for one trigger pull. They claimed the rifle was totally legal, and had malfunctioned. The fact is, this guy built this rifle with a selector switch that moved to a third position, and when placed in that position, did fire full auto. He tried to argue basically a loophole in the law in his defense, not that the rifle was legal as built. He lost on that argument, and is now serving time in a Federal facility. Yet this "no compromise" group failed to let their members know this fact, they insisted they were raising money to support his family as he had been jailed wrongly. A simple reading of the filings in the case debunked their claim.

 

[fireside44]

Try going into the office of a legislator and telling them you represent one of these wonderful no compromise organizations and see if you get past the receptionist. Then try another legislators office and say you represent the NRA, and actually get face time with the legislator.

GOA lawyers spoke on behalf of gun owners during Kagan confirmations. Where was the NRA? Now what about that receptionist? Deny away chief, times are changing.

The net effect the national "no compromise" groups are adding to preserving our RKBA is, in my opinion, playing straight into the anti-gun movement's hands. They flat hate the NRA, because they have learned it is effective in stopping their agenda.

In your opinion. On the one hand you say "they can't get past the receptionist" then you follow with "they play right into the hands of the anti gunner". Which is it? Either they effect change in a positive or negative manner, or they effect nothing. You seem to be suggesting both.

Ever hear the phrase "divide and conquer?" That's what your ideal group is doing, whether you choose to see it or not.

And now you claim divide and conquer? Wait, I thought other gun rights organizations didn't have much in the line of membership and no keys to the halls of power? Now they are dividing and conquering? Get your story straight.

Myself, the groups that use the recruiting strategy of bashing one group to gain members for their group will never see a dime from me.

You mean kind of like NRA members are doing to other gun rights organizations here?

A simple reading of the filings in the case debunked their claim.

Yes, we all know how honorable and legitimate the ATF is when it comes to prosecuting gun owners.

 

[Sam1911]

That is a derisive criticism of those no compromise organizations whose movements are gaining more steam.

O.k. So they're gaining -- a little -- steam, NOW. Where were they in 1968, 1986, 1994, etc. What good did they do? It's easy to criticize the NRA for decades of hard and productive work when the organizations you'd rather support were non-existent, or were, and largely still are, wholly ineffective.

Yes, now that the goals seem MUCH closer, there's growing talk about strict Constitutionalist interpretations and "No Compromise." And how did we get so much closer to those goals? As a sailor would say, we've tacked into the wind -- trading a little to get something better, parleying a bad position into a better one. When you work up a bill with a whole lot of positive, and your enemies toss in some negative element, sometimes you throw out the whole thing and start again (S-1805). Sometimes you proceed and make the best of the gains you did win (FOPA '86).

The NRA has dissension even within it's own ranks (pretty clear from this thread) and so dissatisfaction with the "cut our losses" strategy is growing.

Sure. The goals appear a lot closer. Some folks are waking up and saying, "Why don't we just take back all of our rights?" Not comprehending that that process has been going on for decades.

And there is ALWAYS dissention in the ranks of such a huge organization. Remember, there are a lot of Ducks Unlimited type members (not to paint anyone with a broad brush) who write letters COMPLAINING that the NRA is too strident about military style weapons and handgun carry laws, and arguing that we should accept "reasonable" restrictions to keep guns out of "the wrong hands."

The severe decline of FFL holders and the end of kitchen table dealers over the last twenty years or so would tell a different tale.

Yup. The BATFE still needs reforms, and some of their rules should be revised or done-away with. But if you look at what the ATF did to dealers before FOPA'86, things have been a lot better since then.

See S.941 in committe at the moment, I believe.

A driver's license equating to a privilege to carry a gun doesn't offset other factors you choose to downplay.

Oh. I see. So being guaranteed the legal ability to carry a weapon in 37 states -- instead of it being completely ILLEGAL in 33 of those states -- is a pretty insignificant change? Yeah. Sure.

I'd like to be able to carry a desfensive side arm at all times, anywhere in the country that I wish to go -- simply because I'm a citizen of this country. It offends me greatly that I can't.
Failing that, I'd like for the license issued to me by my home state be accepted (as my driver's license is) anywhere else in the country I'd like to travel. Again, it is absurd that this isn't so.
As it is, I hold licenses from two states which, combined, allow me to carry in well over half of this country. Perfect? No. A HUGE step up from what would have been legal in the 1980s? You'd better believe it!

It could be better. It WILL be better ... eventually. Standing on a tree stump hollering that you WON'T GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS, hasn't moved us and won't move us another inch. You've got to have strategy, got to have understanding of the system. Got to be smart and savvy enough to work in the system to make real, lasting changes. Fortunately, we employ some who really are.

 

[Sam1911]

You can choose to downplay the validity of the no compromise movement, but it's clear at some point a line has to be drawn in the sand.

How, exactly do you draw a "line in the sand" in a political struggle over rights? Explain to me what this means in literal, exact terms?

1) A popular refereundum vote? On what, exactly -- abolition of gun laws other than the 2nd Amendment? How is that going to happen? Do you think "we" will win? Even the most "No Compromise" of gun rights groups would run in terror from that vote making it to the ballot because we all know that 90% of society is not at all ready to abandon all controls on guns. We'd be kicked firmly in the rear. Overreaching that far and losing that badly would be a black mark it would take the movement decades to recover from.

2) Some kind of grass-roots campaign to vote out anyone who doesn't tattoo the 2nd Amendment onto their forehead? Is that our "line in the sand?" "Vote for gun rights or we'll vote you OUT!" Um...yeah. We already can't vote out the Schumers, Boxers, Pelosis, and their friends who've troubled us for so long as it is. How do you think we'll vote out them and all the middle-of-the-roaders, too?

3) Or are you just saying that all the gun rights organizations should "man up" and refuse to deal with, talk to, or offer any support to any politician who doesn't vote the most universal hard-line RKBA agenda? So stop meeting with them to explainin our position and refute the claims of HCI and IANSA? Stop the endless strategizing and back-scratching required to negotiate to get one more needed vote on a pro-gun bill?

Seriously, what is this vauted "LINE IN THE SAND" so many talk about? Where is it? WHAT is it? And what happens when the other side gleefully steps right over it and says, "now what'cha gonna do about it?"

For all the bluster and bluff of the political "show," politics doesn't work by demands and empty threats.

Most times these "L.I.T.S." calls seem like so much Mad Max fantasy where we'll just grab our guns and DARE those so-and-sos to come take our rights away. Frustration with the slow, halting, and costly way the world really works tempts us towards the most escapist delusions.

 

[JohnBT]

"I don't want to play politics, I just want my Constitutional gun rights."

Call the Easter Bunny or Santa and read them your list of wishes that you don't want to work for.

So you must not belong to any pro-gun organization, because they ALL play politics. Read any good GOA broadcast e-mails recently? It's all politics. If you think differently you're fooling yourself.

You can hold your breath until you turn blue, but it takes work to get things done at both the national and the state levels.

John