SAF-A grave injustice

kcbrown · Feb 25, 2016

robmints said:
I wish it was a universally supported issue. And you can say it is. Obama says he supports the second amendment. That does not make it true. As a conservative, all I have to go on are democrat mayors, delegates, senators, presidents, presidential candidates, councilmen, attorneys general, liberal appointed judges, party leadership and what they support, propose, find, and pass. Your opposition to what they do, if you still vote for them, means nothing but support for what they do. And that is anti-second.

I agree with you that it should be an American issue, but unfortunately, it is a party line issue.

As regards the two major parties, it is most certainly a party line issue, in that the Republicans support it, while the Democrats don't. Individual members of the Democrat party may or may not support it, but as regards party support, that has become irrelevant: the Democrats as a party have decided to attempt to kill the right, and that's that.

As with many other rights and liberties, an individual voter may wind up having to sacrifice support for some in order to achieve others. What is rarely mentioned, however, is how much difference support, or lack thereof, for a given liberty will make to that liberty as things are right now.

The plain fact of the matter is that in comparison with other liberties, the right to arms is immensely vulnerable right now, while the others that Democrat supporters care so much about are not. Democrat supporters who support the right to arms would do well to consider that by temporarily withholding their support for the Democrats while giving it to Republicans, they will be having a much greater positive effect on the right to arms than any negative effect on other liberties that removal of their support for the Democrats might have.

Once the right to arms is secure, the above calculus may change, and it may then make sense for RKBA-supporting Democrats to revert to supporting the Democrat party once again. But as long as the right to arms remains vulnerable, the plain fact is that support of the Democrats is support of extinguishing the right to arms. The reality on the ground allows for no other conclusion.

eruby · Feb 25, 2016

ComeGet said:
The Liberal Gun Club.

Not a freebie, Nix. Bernie Sanders weeps

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/membership/

DanGuy48 · Feb 25, 2016

So, just saw this video. This lifestyle appeals to me in no way, but this is one example of someone on the "other side" who can help our cause. Are there really any here who would dissuade such a person from participating in a protest, joining a gun club, etc? Gun rights, the second amendment, are too important in my mind to toss out people because they don't match my personal views. I really don't have a problem with much of anyone as long as they are not committing fraud or exercising force against another. They might never be a friend but their voice is welcome.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JNvWG...NG31aLMCYOBozBTKga5GZZnCmNKOvibhQebkEq5TTJXGw

beretta_maven · Feb 25, 2016

DanGuy48 said:
So, just saw this video. This lifestyle appeals to me in no way, but this is one example of someone on the "other side" who can help our cause. Are there really any here who would dissuade such a person from participating in a protest, joining a gun club, etc? Gun rights, the second amendment, are too important in my mind to toss out people because they don't match my personal views. I really don't have a problem with much of anyone as long as they are not committing fraud or exercising force against another. They might never be a friend but their voice is welcome.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JNvWG...NG31aLMCYOBozBTKga5GZZnCmNKOvibhQebkEq5TTJXGw

robmints · Feb 25, 2016

beretta_maven said:

Either that guy is conservative, or I'm a gay liberal.

ComeGet · Feb 25, 2016

DanGuy48 said:
So, just saw this video. This lifestyle appeals to me in no way, but this is one example of someone on the "other side" who can help our cause. Are there really any here who would dissuade such a person from participating in a protest, joining a gun club, etc? Gun rights, the second amendment, are too important in my mind to toss out people because they don't match my personal views. I really don't have a problem with much of anyone as long as they are not committing fraud or exercising force against another. They might never be a friend but their voice is welcome.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JNvWG...NG31aLMCYOBozBTKga5GZZnCmNKOvibhQebkEq5TTJXGw

That is great.

I also like his response to the comment based on a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding. Spot on.

Vile Shadow · Feb 25, 2016

ComeGet said:
Actually, there is a Liberal Gun Club. It's nowhere near the size and influence of the NRA, but it does exist.

When they got some press a few years ago, the overwhelming response from every other 2A board I saw--including here--was resounding criticism, skepticism and ridicule.

FWIW

Liberal gun clubs are fine. Liberals who allegedly love firearms, even though I doubt the sincerity of them folks, are fine too.

However, where the rubber meets the road is at election time. It's disingenuous to claim to enjoy shootin' and collectin' guns, while votin' fer those who would ram a confiscation law through at the first chance if they could.

I would love to one day smoke legalized pot in my own livin' room. After a hard day's work I feel I've earned it. But to support those who would be for that means to support those who oppose somethin' that's WAY more important.

That ain't nowhere near a good enough reason to sell out the Constitution. Dammit, the Constitution ain't fer sale!! :cool:

kcbrown · Feb 25, 2016

Sling Blade said:
Liberal gun clubs are fine. Liberals who allegedly love firearms, even though I doubt the sincerity of them folks, are fine too.

However, where the rubber meets the road is at election time. It's disingenuous to claim to enjoy shootin' and collectin' guns, while votin' fer those who would ram a confiscation law through at the first chance if they could.

That's only because the right to arms is in much greater danger than any of the others.

But suppose you had one candidate who swore to bury the right to arms in the ground, and the other candidate swore to bury the right to speech in the ground. Assume that both candidates were capable of doing what they claimed they would, and thus that the danger represented by each was equally real. Which would you vote for?

I'll make it even more interesting. Suppose one swore to bury the right to arms in the ground, while the other swore to bury all the others. Which would you vote for? Again, assume that both candidates were equally capable of acting on their claims.

Would you really vote for someone who you knew would pass laws forbidding you to speak to anyone in a public forum without a "may issue" license? If so, wouldn't someone else be able to legitimately claim that you oppose the right to speech? What about someone you knew would take away every liberty you have save for the right to arms? Wouldn't someone else be able to legitimately claim that you are an enemy of liberty by voting that way? That is essentially what your claim is above, with the only difference being that your claim is applied to the right to arms as opposed to the right to speech (or, in the second case, to everything but the right to arms).

By framing the question the way you are, you are essentially claiming that whomever votes for a candidate who is opposed to a right must likewise be opposed to that right themselves. But because of the fact that there are no viable candidates who truly support liberty, that claim clearly must be false, precisely because people are forced by the nature of the candidates they have to choose from to vote against some liberties.

So it's not a question of whether someone supports a given liberty, it's a question of how much they value that liberty relative to others. And the plain fact is that many fail to place enough value on the right to arms. That is a legitimate complaint, and illuminates a potential means of changing minds.

All you will succeed in doing by improperly framing the question is to alienate those whose support you could otherwise use. No, if you wish to increase support for the right to arms, you must make the case for it being more important to support the right to arms right now than the other rights/liberties.

swinokur · Feb 29, 2016

From SAF

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]NRA, Conservatives Support Norquist in Key Ballot[/FONT]

Dear Friend,

If you are an NRA member you need to know about this story on Newsmax.com .

A group of conspiracy nuts led by a discredited Frank Gaffney is out to destroy an important leader of the gun rights movement. They have filed a recall against NRA Director Grover Norquist that will appear on the NRA election ballot that is just going in the mail. I have known Grover Norquist for many years and have worked side by side with him to protect our gun rights.

I sit on the American Conservative Union board of directors with Grover and the board investigated these allegations by Frank Gaffney and found them to be totally false. This is pure character assassination.

I urge you to vote NO on this stupid and harmful recall.

Please read the below story in Newsmax.com.

Thank you in voting NO with me on this recall.

[FONT=&quot]Sincerely yours,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Alan M. Gottlieb[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Founder[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Second Amendment Foundation

*************************************************************************

[/FONT] http://www.newsmax.com/JohnGizzi/norquist-nra-key-ballot/2016/02/28/id/716533/
February 28, 2016

Veteran conservative activist Grover Norquist has come under fire in his capacity as a board member of the National Rifle Association, with claims made that he is weak on dealing with Islamic terrorism.

But the NRA itself and a "Who's Who" of national conservative leaders have rallied Norquist's defense, saying the allegations are nonsense. Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform but has been a staunch defender of the Second Amendment in Washington for decades.

Norquist has made news lately after a small group has sought to recall him as a board member of the NRA—the first such recall in the NRA's century-old history.

The NRA leadership itself has urged a "no" vote in the balloting that will end May 1st.

For more than fifteen years, Frank Gaffney, president of Center for National Security, has charged that Norquist was promoting radical Muslims within George W. Bush's re-election campaign and the Bush White House. The "conspiracy theory" was denounced by the White House itself in 2003, declaring "there is no there, there."

Gaffney ran a campaign to defeat Norquist in his sixth re-election to the NRA board last April. Norquist won.

Now, Norquist has been hit with a recall effort, which is easily obtainable under NRA rules.

The NRA has examined all the criticisms of Norquist and found them baseless and strongly urged all NRA members to vote "no" on the recall.
"Given the staleness of all allegations [and] the lack of factual support," concluded a special NRA panel, " disagree with the Petitioner in this case and recommend a NO vote."

The NRA was joined in its strong support of Norquist by leading conservatives, gun rights activists and national security experts.
"I have known Grover Norquist for over 25 years," wrote former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, "Grover is a patriot and loyal to the United States, and should continue as a valuable NRA board member."

Meese's view was seconded by David Keene, past national NRA president and former chairman of the American Conservative Union: "I've worked with Grover for twenty years. He has dedicated his life to constitutional principles. NRA members should vote no on the recall."
Another past NRA president, Sandy Froman, wrote: "Please vote ‘No' and tell other NRA members to vote no."

Dov Zakheim, undersecretary of defense during the Reagan presidency, said: "I can only urge you to disregard any scurrilous attacks on Grover originating with Frank Gaffney; they are untrue, baseless, and unfair."

And former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff not only endorsed Norquist as a "natural leader and patriot" but excoriated the accusations against him as "scurrilous and continuing" and advised the NRA that such charges "should not be given any weight."

"This nonsense has now been knocked down for the umpteenth time," Norquist told Newsmax, "I greatly appreciate the strong support of the NRA and the gun rights community and I will focus on electing conservative allies of the Second Amendment in November of 2016."

Norquist has been at the forefront of defending gun rights in Congress. Recently, his tax organization uncovered a 1990s plan authored by Hillary Clinton to place a 25 percent tax on gun purchases. Norquist believes that Hillary's gun tax plan could cost her the 2016 election.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >[/FONT]

Copyright © 2016 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.
[FONT=&quot]Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005[/FONT]

SAF-A grave injustice

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

kcbrown

Super Genius

eruby

Confederate Jew

DanGuy48

Ultimate Member

beretta_maven

Free Thinking Member

robmints

Ultimate Member

ComeGet

Ultimate Member

Vile Shadow

...

kcbrown

Super Genius

swinokur

In a State of Bliss

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page