fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
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.
Wait, now you admit "they are gaining a little steam" but then go on to say they are "wholly ineffective"? More gun owners the better. More gun rights organizations the better. More members the better. More constitutional reading the better. I don't know how you manage to view this as bad.
Yes, now that the goals seem MUCH closer, there's growing talk about strict Constitutionalist interpretations and "No Compromise."
Some of us have always been of that viewpoint or came to to the conclusion after we read the 2nd. I'd say we are the fastest growing minority among gun owners. The profile of groups less willing to compromise, such as GOA and Jews for preservation of firearms ownership, is rising whether you think it's a good thing or not.
And there is ALWAYS dissention in the ranks of such a huge organization.
That's the great thing about the no compromise movement, there is very little dissension if any coming from within.
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.
No disagreement on reforming or disbanding the ATF. As for it being better for dealers nowadays than before 86, I would disagree. Same if not worse. If it was easier now to sell guns and deal with the ATF there would be more FFL holders. The fact is there are far fewer FFLs now than in 1985-1986.
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.
Whether you like it or not, the no compromise movement will play an important part of the future of the gun rights movement. If we don't have a group defending a literal 2nd amendment reading we have lost our footing as gun owners and wind up with a bunch of ducks unlimited black rifle haters dividing and conquering from within.
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?
Ask a Canadian who didn't register his weapons in accordance with current Canadian law.
Seriously, what is this vauted "LINE IN THE SAND" so many talk about?
Something the British, the Australians, law abiding Canadians, and most every country that once had some form of gun "rights" didn't bother to lay out. They were more worried about compromising just to hang on to what they had. Look where it got them.
And what happens when the other side gleefully steps right over it and says, "now what'cha gonna do about it?"
The same thing that happens when they step over the NRA and say "now what'cha gonna do about it?"
Do you think the NRA is impervious to that kind of thing simply because they are more willing to compromise? It's pretty clear our friends in Washington and at the UN won't mind your compromises because if they have their way, there won't be anything to compromise anyhow. I must say I feel the same way as they do. No compromise.
Last edited: