# NRA has spoken



## Tiffin (Feb 23, 2006)

Hope all you hunters and gun owners are listening to the NRA. It's McCain/Palin for us. We just received our NRA magazine which is not pretty if Obama/Biden gets in. In fact we're thinking of going out to buy what could be our last chance of adding to our collection, just in case.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

I've never given a penny to the NRA and never will; it is most certain that whosoever they recommend for any office, I shall always and without hesitation vote the polar opposite.


----------



## hiswife (May 30, 2008)

I am pro McCain/Palin and assumed Obama/Biden was an immediate anti-gun ticket, but a pro Obama friend said he is not for gun control? Then he sent me this link ...

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

I am hoping that there is a link someone can post that I can send back to refute what he says?


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

Haggis said:


> I've never given a penny to the NRA and never will; it is most certain that whosoever they recommend for any office, I shall always and without hesitation vote the polar opposite.


Of course you would. Like any good socialist liberal, you ride on the backs of others who continue the fight allowing you to have your guns in this country. At least until 2009.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

jross said:


> Of course you would. Like any good socialist liberal, you ride on the backs of others who continue the fight allowing you to have your guns in this country. At least until 2009.



My statement was leveled against the NRA, it was not personal; I am neither a socialist nor a liberal.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

hiswife said:


> I am pro McCain/Palin and assumed Obama/Biden was an immediate anti-gun ticket, but a pro Obama friend said he is not for gun control? Then he sent me this link ...
> 
> http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
> 
> I am hoping that there is a link someone can post that I can send back to refute what he says?




They, Obama/Liberals, wont go after your gun, they will go after the gun/ammunition manufacturers. This was considered in the Clinton administration. It's kind of back door gun control.
If Obama and the Liberals get put in congress, I'd be willing to bet that something along those lines will happen, whereas if McCain/Palin get elected, I think we can work with them. IMHO

.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Another reason for VP Palin:http://www.goapvf.org/palin.htm


----------



## Tiffin (Feb 23, 2006)

Haggis, just out of curiosity, why the anti NRA?


----------



## Tiffin (Feb 23, 2006)

ninny, I agree. Especially with Palin being a life member of the NRA. She is a gun toting hunter and will be hopefully sticking up for all of us who have guns for hunting, target shooting, sport, as well as self defense. I don't want to be defenseless especially out here in the back woods with who knows lurking around for drug money.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Tiffin said:


> Haggis, just out of curiosity, why the anti NRA?


I pretty much anti-extremist and anti-establishment; the NRA represents both. 

I always wanted to go to Friendship, Indiana to the great Rendezvous, but they say it's for NRA members only; fair enough it's their show. 
We have a rifle range and "cowboy" shoot north of town with a small membership fee to cover grounds expenses and taxes; but they say I must join the NRA; fair enough it's their show. 
I could spend the next hour writing down local groups across America I've wanted to visit on occasion but in every instance I was told to join the NRA or keep out; fair enough; I vote anti-NRA and encourage everyone I know to do likewise.


----------



## Tiffin (Feb 23, 2006)

Haggis, thanks for your response. I have never had a problem like that. We used to belong to two hunting/fishing clubs before we bought our farm property. They never even mentioned the NRA. It was not an issue. We have gone to reenactments, again no mention of NRA. What is funny is belonging to the NRA I believe kept me off of a jury duty that involved a gang war. In fact I've never been called since.


----------



## Homesteader at Heart (Aug 11, 2003)

Just friendly conversation, Haggis, but you have me wondering how you can be anti-extremist and anti-establishment at the same time. Can you enlighten me as to what that means?

By the way, I am not a member of the NRA either, but I would definitely choose Mr. McCain over Mr. Obama. I guess I am anti-big government.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I view NRA endorsements with suspicion because I've seen instances where they have backed anti-environment candidates. Their focus seems to be guns, guns and more guns with no regard to protecting habitat. As a hunter/trapper/fisherman/environmentalist this goes in opposition to my priorities. Palin's development at any cost record is anti-hunting/fishing in the long run and the long run is where we need to be focused.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Homesteader at Heart said:


> Just friendly conversation, Haggis, but you have me wondering *how you can be anti-extremist and anti-establishment at the same time*. Can you enlighten me as to what that means?
> 
> By the way, I am not a member of the NRA either, but I would definitely choose Mr. McCain over Mr. Obama. I guess I am anti-big government.


It's not so hard to be both; any long "established" institution is in and of itself "extremist". The established insitution doesn't want to lose its power and slowly begins to pull in more power if it can, and at the same time condemning uninterested voices or opposing voice as "dangerous" when in point of fact it is the long established institution that has become the real danger. The NRA is such a long established "power"

I like the middle ground a few degrees away from center and on the opposing side of any such established power.


----------



## Homesteader at Heart (Aug 11, 2003)

Good explanation. Thanks.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Well if Obama gets in there you might as well kiss your first and second Amendments good by.:flame:

big rockpile


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

fishhead said:


> I view NRA endorsements with suspicion because I've seen instances where they have backed anti-environment candidates. Their focus seems to be guns, guns and more guns with no regard to protecting habitat. As a hunter/trapper/fisherman/environmentalist this goes in opposition to my priorities. Palin's development at any cost record is anti-hunting/fishing in the long run and the long run is where we need to be focused.


I am not an NRA member mainly because I don't like getting something in the mail every other day asking for money.

Having said that, the NRA has one focus, the preservation of the 2nd Amendment. They watch for and lobby against laws that would limit our right to own firearms. They are not an environmentalist group, although a great many of the members are hunters who care a great deal about caring for and protecting the environment.


----------



## Homesteadwi5 (Mar 16, 2008)

I own a gun of most every flavor and am not a member of the nra either.It seems to me if all we worry about is losing our guns and not the 160,000 jobs and countless homes and rising taxes all over the country you gotta wonder who has thier priorities in order and who does'nt.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Homesteadwi5 said:


> I own a gun of most every flavor and am not a member of the nra either.It seems to me if all we worry about is losing our guns and not the 160,000 jobs and countless homes and rising taxes all over the country you gotta wonder who has thier priorities in order and who does'nt.


 I am worried about the jobs gone over seas, and people losing their homes and taxes that have caused older folks to lose their homes because they can't afford higher taxes so they have to sell and find something they can afford.Thats a shame and if I am ever in that position, I want to have my guns as bargaining chips and hopefully they will see things my way. But without those guns, I can't protect me and mine from whatever outside force thats wants to do us harm, wether it is robbers, murderers, or governments that want to take what little I have worked for all my life. Just them knowing that in all probability somewhere in my house is a gun, will change the mind of many that in otherwise would have come on in and do whatever they please. Its just something that maybe only for a short time,will make them question just what they are about to do and is it worth taking that chance. IT MIGHT BE,BUT THEN AGAIN IT MIGHT NOT BE, AS WELL. Its just a small edge,but I sure would hate to lose it,even if it is small,its mine. Eddie


----------



## Homesteadwi5 (Mar 16, 2008)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> I am worried about the jobs gone over seas, and people losing their homes and taxes that have caused older folks to lose their homes because they can't afford higher taxes so they have to sell and find something they can afford.Thats a shame and if I am ever in that position, I want to have my guns as bargaining chips and hopefully they will see things my way. But without those guns, I can't protect me and mine from whatever outside force thats wants to do us harm, wether it is robbers, murderers, or governments that want to take what little I have worked for all my life. Just them knowing that in all probability somewhere in my house is a gun, will change the mind of many that in otherwise would have come on in and do whatever they please. Its just something that maybe only for a short time,will make them question just what they are about to do and is it worth taking that chance. IT MIGHT BE,BUT THEN AGAIN IT MIGHT NOT BE, AS WELL. Its just a small edge,but I sure would hate to lose it,even if it is small,its mine. Eddie


Don't get me wrong nobody's gonna take my guns,but all this business with no jobs, and everything else goin to the crapper I just lost my head for a moment is all.:stars:


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

tyusclan said:


> I am not an NRA member mainly because I don't like getting something in the mail every other day asking for money.


I have been a Life Member of NRA since 1961, 47 years. Other than the monthly "American Hunter" magazine and recent campaign literature, they haven't been filling up my mailbox. 

Martin


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

big rockpile said:


> Well if Obama gets in there you might as well kiss your first and second Amendments good by.:flame:
> 
> big rockpile


I agree. I quote because people need to read this twice.


----------



## Tiffin (Feb 23, 2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by big rockpile 
Well if Obama gets in there you might as well kiss your first and second Amendments good by.

big rockpile 


Read three times. I hope the polls are wrong but right now it sounds very scarey. Unfortunately, NY is democratic and has been forever mostly due to NYC where most of the population is. I'm going to vote for the right person but probably won't count.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Paquebot said:


> I have been a Life Member of NRA since 1961, 47 years. Other than the monthly "American Hunter" magazine and recent campaign literature, they haven't been filling up my mailbox.
> 
> Martin


Perhaps it has changed.

The last time I was a member they nearly wore me out with mailouts. Got'em all the time.


----------



## cowboy joe (Sep 14, 2003)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> I am worried about the jobs gone over seas, and people losing their homes and taxes that have caused older folks to lose their homes because they can't afford higher taxes so they have to sell and find something they can afford.Thats a shame and if I am ever in that position, I want to have my guns as bargaining chips and hopefully they will see things my way. But without those guns, I can't protect me and mine from whatever outside force thats wants to do us harm, wether it is robbers, murderers, or governments that want to take what little I have worked for all my life. Just them knowing that in all probability somewhere in my house is a gun, will change the mind of many that in otherwise would have come on in and do whatever they please. Its just something that maybe only for a short time,will make them question just what they are about to do and is it worth taking that chance. IT MIGHT BE,BUT THEN AGAIN IT MIGHT NOT BE, AS WELL. Its just a small edge,but I sure would hate to lose it,even if it is small,its mine. Eddie


Well said. I can't see my way clear to vote based on a single issue as there is far too much at stake, especially this time around. Yes, my right to bear arms is very important as are all my constitutional rights. Sadly, I'll have to weigh that against the bigger picture. This is wrong...no one has a right to infringe upon these rights...but I'm preaching to the choir as I sense most of us here feel the same way.


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

Evidently history forgotten is history repeated. Will B. Hussein unleash his Attorney General on innocent gun owners as Clinton unleashed Reno and the BATF? What will it take? Another Ruby Ridge or Waco?


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

big rockpile said:


> Well if Obama gets in there you might as well kiss your first and second Amendments good by.:flame:
> 
> big rockpile



I don't believe that for a second. Our first amendment right has been undermined over the past 7 years. Remember the barbwire encircled Free Speech Zones? Remember the people who wanted to hear Bush speak but were refused access because security found a pro-Democrat card in their wallet. It happened in MN.


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

Homesteadwi5 said:


> I own a gun of most every flavor and am not a member of the nra either.It seems to me if all we worry about is losing our guns and not the 160,000 jobs and countless homes and rising taxes all over the country you gotta wonder who has thier priorities in order and who does'nt.



Good, maybe Hussein will unleash the BATF on you first.


----------



## Rondah (Apr 1, 2008)

Tiffin said:


> Hope all you hunters and gun owners are listening to the NRA. It's McCain/Palin for us. We just received our NRA magazine which is not pretty if Obama/Biden gets in. In fact we're thinking of going out to buy what could be our last chance of adding to our collection, just in case.


Tiffin we are spending an outrageous amount of money on guns this month. We heard from two separate gun dealers (big gun dealers) that guns are flying off the shelves, so I know we are not alone. We are purchasing with the assumption that we may never be able to buy guns again, and we are also loading up heavily on ammunition, reloading equipment, and related supplies.


----------



## gunsmithgirl (Sep 28, 2003)

> Well if Obama gets in there you might as well kiss your first and second Amendments good by


That pretty much sums it up.

Remember: The Second Amendment ensures all others.


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

I find it disheartening to find gun owners who don't support the NRA. Yeah, I'm a life member! I stand up for what I believe in by joining forces with others who believe in what is one of our most basic rights and freedoms. Together we represent a strong front!

There will always be some who ride the shirtails of others who give of thier resources to protect freedom(s). It's one way you can actively take a role in preserving your rights by being a member, or you can set on your hands and talk smack!

Without it (NRA) I sincerely doubt if many of you would legally own many of the firearms you love.

Yeah! I get a few mailings! How else does such a broad organization keeps it's members informed of proposed legislation and keeps itself funded? It really ain't that hard to figure out.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I've been a life member since the 80's. Without these guys you would not be able to "legally" own a gun. On the contrary they are not extreme. Listen to the other side for extremism. Can you imagine them making policy? Having said that I won't be voting the "NRA way". I'm voting out the Wall Street bootlickers. Some anti's will be elected if all I vote for win. This in when that big, unified front comes in handy.It would be great if NRA had 50 million members. No politician would take that on. We may even have more areas to hunt. Not having to use so many resources fighting the anti's would free up funds for other things. People forget they are also pro-hunting. If BO gets elected only an imbecile won't be able to see the value of the NRA.


----------



## sugarbush (Jul 15, 2007)

Rondah said:


> Tiffin we are spending an outrageous amount of money on guns this month. We heard from two separate gun dealers (big gun dealers) that guns are flying off the shelves, so I know we are not alone. We are purchasing with the assumption that we may never be able to buy guns again, and we are also loading up heavily on ammunition, reloading equipment, and related supplies.


And you did not see the sales pitch in that? Gun dealers have been struggling for 4-5 years now because it is one of those items that when money gets tight; nobody needs. Of course they are going to exploit the fears of anybody who was listening....it is their livelyhoods at stake.... If you did a little research of the big four you would find that their sales are way down.... So how can they be flying off the shelf if the manufatures say they are not selling?

Here is Rugers stock over the past two years. http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:RGR

Here is S and W http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:SWHC

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/keyDevelopments?symbol=SWHC.O&timestamp=20080925202000&rpc=66


----------



## sugarbush (Jul 15, 2007)

I am also a life member of the NRA....I also do not like their political positions and usually ignore them... They are one of the largest lobby groops in the country and they are scared, not because Obama wants our guns, but because Obama wants to put tighter regulation on lobby groups.... I would not mind one bit if they had to stop all lobby activity....I am anti lobby group no matter what their cause is.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

For the NRA and those who make their living from the manufacture or sale of firearms, it is not the 2nd Amendment they dutifully defend, it is their bottom line.

If these "patriotic" types who so want to defend the 2nd Amendment and ensure that every home has its proper amount of firearms, then let them manufacture and sell their firearms "at cost" and without profit. Let the "gun dealers" who so vehemently thunder from their collective bully pulpits of need for firearm ownership sell their wares at cost to ensure everyone can afford as many firearms as they could ever need. 

No it's not about the 2nd Amendment for these folk, it's about the money.


----------



## poorboy (Apr 15, 2006)

Haggis said:


> For the NRA and those who make their living from the manufacture or sale of firearms, it is not the 2nd Amendment they dutifully defend, it is their bottom line.
> 
> If these "patriotic" types who so want to defend the 2nd Amendment and ensure that every home has its proper amount of firearms, then let them manufacture and sell their firearms "at cost" and without profit. Let the "gun dealers" who so vehemently thunder from their collective bully pulpits of need for firearm ownership sell their wares at cost to ensure everyone can afford as many firearms as they could ever need.
> 
> ...


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

I too am a life member, and disdain all those quest for funds. The anti gun lobby has tons of money and Soros is pouring in a large part of it. And I agree, Obama will attempt to silence us first, then go after our small arms through the U.N. anti small arm policy. I find it amusing that some of our anti establishment friends here are enough pro establishment to us a computer.


----------



## sugarbush (Jul 15, 2007)

poorboy said:


> One persons 35$ doesn't accomplish much, but multiply it by 3,000,000 and it along with those who have gave much more has saved our 2nd amendment for NOW.


I think that most of us are life members....we payed our dues at a huge reduced rate a long time ago and have payed nothing since....so the 3,000,000 number is not as big as you may think.


----------



## poorboy (Apr 15, 2006)

Nice if someone found out how many of us are annual members and how many are life.You up to the task.. Reason I never became a life member can be seen in my forum.."handle".


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

jross said:


> II find it amusing that some of our anti establishment friends here are enough pro establishment to us a computer.


Actually it was anti-establishment "hippies" who developed the PC and the internet so widely used by conservatives.

Time Magazine article;
http://members.aye.net/~hippie/hippie/special_.htm


----------



## sugarbush (Jul 15, 2007)

poorboy said:


> Nice if someone found out how many of us are annual members and how many are life.You up to the task.. Reason I never became a life member can be seen in my forum.."handle".


I am not even sure you could find out how many members there are in general..... I have seen them publish anywhere from 2.5-4.5 million... I think membership rises and falls so they don't really keep a good count.

I think now days with a life membership being as high as it is you are better off to pay the 35.00 a year... 20 years of membership and you will still be under the 1000.00 mark. Pretty much all it is is a exspensive magazine subscription and non-stop solicitation...


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Yeah. Keep worrying about your guns and those dirty Liberals and while you're doing that Wall Street and Haliburton is walking off with $Billions.


----------



## farminghandyman (Mar 4, 2005)

but the way I see it a lot of the wall street mess was basically a liberal doing, Jimmy Carter, first pushed for reducing the requirements so more low income people would qualify for loans, then the great Billy boy was palling around with the CEO's of Fanny may and Freddy mac, and pushed for greater reduction of the requirements, setting up for sub prime loans and interest only loans and to reduce the requirement of loads to basically a signature on a piece of paper, this was great while housing inflation was rampant, as one could always sell when you wanted out, and the bubble keep growing, with more loans people knew they could not repay, but the CEOs were raking in profits by the truck load while, the bubble was growing, many (including McCain tried to restore some of the rules and regulations back on some of the lending but was voted down by the lead of Barney Frank, (of course it is all W's fault), the liberals voted down any type of restoring or new requirements on the lending institutions, 
Now the Haliburton thing, Congress has written the rules, and we are fighting a war, that was approved by congress to fight, all most by overwhelming majority, I think if congress wanted to rain in haliburton, they could, (this is also the reduction of the military by Clinton by wanting to cut military spending many of the Non combat jobs were removed from the military and placed in to private hands, (may be just a slight of hand in spending, as you have to hire private contractors now to build, and cook and even in areas of supply runs, and when you do this in a combat zone, you have to pay civilians extra good money to go and get shot at and bombed), there are hundreds of civilians and civilians contractors do no bid work that at one time was the job of the military, I have a friend who is national Gard currently but has been loaned out to a civilian contractor to train Iraqi police, and is over there now, but not as military but civilian),
and getting back to the GUN issue, what I see is that basically the party of the great messisa belongs to is the party who has a history of causing many of the problems we are now facing, and I can not see them getting better, 

not that I am thrilled with the republican nominee, but of the lesser of two evils, I do think he will be more pro gun, and when you dealing with large companies, they do not pay taxes, they pass the taxes on, you and I pay taxes, either by direct taxation or by it being passed on in the cost of doing business, TAX the oil companies, and who is going to pay, you are at the pump, they basically work off of a percentage of there cost to determine the cost of fuel, (who makes more money per gallon the governments or the oil companies, we have a winner here the GOVERMETNS do, in state and federal taxes per gallon), but who well pay in real dollars if oil companies are taxed more, we do, it is a cost of business. if the cost of business is to great what do business do and there big, an other winner, THEY LEAVE the country and set up in a lower cost place to do business, and what happens to the jobs, they leave too.

When you have Global businesses who in some way as powerful as small countries most are going to walk off with billions, and I doubt there is little we can do about besides to stop using there products,

so to solve the problems we will need to stop using OIL, and Grains, and Energy, If we all stop using those we probably can break the back of BIG business,

Oh one more thing who is big business, Hum how many have any retirement that is invested in the stock market, HEY IT YOU, that is what was making that investment grow was the inflation on the stocks, (now some are saying the stock was over valued, as the dividend would never pay for the base cost of the stock, REALLY it was over valued, amazing), but still who is the owner of oil companies and utilities and GM and FORD and other, It is most any one who has a retirement plan in a 401K I think is the term. so you filthy rich stock holders, shame on you.

Personally I see much of the problem rising from the same side of the isle in congress, not that the other side has done any thing to brag about, but I do believe if they out law guns we will really see our freedoms and country go down the tubes, Hitler thought gun control was good,


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

Haggis said:


> Actually it was anti-establishment "hippies" who developed the PC and the internet so widely used by conservatives.
> 
> Time Magazine article;
> http://members.aye.net/~hippie/hippie/special_.htm


They were anti-establishment until the money started to roll iin. You are wrong. Algore invented the internet because he said he did.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

I am an nra member , no one organization had done more for american shooting sports 
the nra is a bit like the caholic church , yes it has had it's problems , but all in all it has done more for god than ever for bad 

i bugs me that i get almost weekly calls asking for more money to help in the fight against the gun grabbing lefties and for more media campains 

i realy wish the nra would have had the forsight to lobby for a clear and decicive victory a few decades ago spelling out clear legislation clarifying the personal right to own all firarms rather than spending decades always on the defensive and teatering on the edge disaster. but they are a business a lobbying bussiness it now seems first and the rest second and that is what keeps money and enrolment high i would much prefer theat enrollment and money be good because millions of americans where going to ranges and participating in competitive and recreational shooting sanctioned by the nra as an adminstrative boody to continue the fine shooting sports, recreation and training work they are so well known for.

i realy feel that everyone seems to read the second amednemt wrong for it's historial context 

ARTICLE [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

the well regulated militia is defining the both personal and colective right of a free people to regulate the militia (army) meaning the colective body of the people and thier arms should always be greater than the army (and perhaps the the founding fathers never envisioned nuclear powered aircraft carriers or planes that could fly faster than a bullet but i think that they always inteded the people to be the nations keeper not buricrats)

i am in no way suggesting that we rise up against our goverment i never intend to never want to i am mearly stating that i belive it was the intent off out founding fathers that should things become that bad that we the people have the means to correct it by whatever means nescesary.

remember that these words were written at a time were the people were rising up against a goverment that was not of the people or for the people and was deeply corupt from the local level to the king the king may have infact been the least corrupt but blind and could not see the mismanagment by the govoners he had sent to the colonies. 
maybe i am giving him to much credit , it matters not.

as a people , as a country we enjoy lower crime than most anywhere else in the world , switzerland being an exception , but all thier citizens have automatic rifles well at lease the men 18-42 and a fair number of ladies.
kidnaping is not a major bussiness , and the majority of out crime is actualy property related hear in wisconsin we have very low murder rates , in he second most densly populated county in the state about 500,000 people we have between 3 and 8 murders a year with one ouf the highest years being 12 most are actualy domestic disputes gone bad and almost never is there a case were the victom did not know the murderer this is of course in now way justifying any of thier bad deeds merely stating that the news media does tend to blow thing out of proportion.

i am saying that we have these low crime rates in part because of a high rate of legal firearms ownership in addtion to other things , laws have never stopped criminals from breaking them , we can expect that this will not change in the future.

good people , good citizens who follow laws and rules , who own guns are not now , nor have never been part of the problem and have and will continue to be part of the solution.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

sugarbush said:


> And you did not see the sales pitch in that? Gun dealers have been struggling for 4-5 years now because it is one of those items that when money gets tight; nobody needs. Of course they are going to exploit the fears of anybody who was listening....it is their livelyhoods at stake....


I am glad that you can speak for ALL firearms dealers and ALL gunsmiths. Everyone one needs to do something to make ends meet, that you think all of us who repair firearms and sell firearms are just money-grubbers is pretty cheeky. I suppose you think plumbers and mechanics are the same since you generally pay more for their services than those done by a gunsmith.

I think the majority of Liberals and Democrats are just as much a group of fearmongers then, given your view of my industry.

I suppose you would think that someone who is an information technology consultant earning a good fee is also a money grubber too? That is what I mostly do for my work. I enjoy firearms, working on them and helping others find what they want in the way of a firearm. It's no different than any other business save that hoplophobes project their fear that the inanimate objects I repair and sell will go on killing sprees rather than acknowledge is it the nut loose behind the sights that does said killing.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Haggis said:


> For the NRA and those who make their living from the manufacture or sale of firearms, it is not the 2nd Amendment they dutifully defend, it is their bottom line.
> 
> If these "patriotic" types who so want to defend the 2nd Amendment and ensure that every home has its proper amount of firearms, then let them manufacture and sell their firearms "at cost" and without profit. Let the "gun dealers" who so vehemently thunder from their collective bully pulpits of need for firearm ownership sell their wares at cost to ensure everyone can afford as many firearms as they could ever need.
> 
> No it's not about the 2nd Amendment for these folk, it's about the money.


I certainly hope you manufacture everything you need on your homestead and that you always do all of your own work and never hire anything done, as your arguments otherwise are hypocritical and rather lacking in forethought.

I used to think I could tolerate your differences in viewpoint but you continue to push the envelope until you go beyond the pale. I certainly hope you never need the help of a local gunsmith or firearm dealer because I know I would never offer services or sell anything to someone like you.

Oh yes, I forgot, you don't need a firearm because you don't believe in self-defense. You also think that criminals are just misunderstood people. It is people like you who really test my belief in letting others live their lives so long as they don't do harm to me and mine. You and your mindset only exist because others, like myself, are willing to fight for the free thinking and expression of beliefs, even for those we don't agree with. Perhaps I should change my mind about that and become as closed-minded as you are.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

fishhead said:


> Yeah. Keep worrying about your guns and those dirty Liberals and while you're doing that Wall Street and Haliburton is walking off with $Billions.


We were sold out by both major parties, Conservatives and Liberals both. I am concerned about the future and thus I vote for third party options. I also stand firm to the beliefs and ideals in the Constitution as a guide to keep my on the right path.

That being said, some of the members of this site really try my beliefs and my ability to accept or tolerate differences of opinion.

I do care about more than firearms, but seeing as how no one will listen to those who work within the system, using the soap box, the jury box and the ballot box, the last ditch recourse is beginning to look more and more like the last available, workable solution. I hate thinking like that, but trying to work within the bounds of the system that is stacked against the common people is fast becoming a straitjacket.

I agree, guns and Liberals are but two things to be concerned about, however I am surrounded by rabid Liberals in my area which are in turn surrounded by rabid Conservatives. It's like being caught between two opposing forces and you are taking fire from both groups all the time.


----------



## DeerHaven (Oct 20, 2006)

Here is a website that I found that might help people see through the ploys of our feuding candidates and their endorsing lobbies and people. Happy reading! 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_rifle_associations_true_story.html


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Haggis said:


> For the NRA and those who make their living from the manufacture or sale of firearms, it is not the 2nd Amendment they dutifully defend, it is their bottom line.
> 
> If these "patriotic" types who so want to defend the 2nd Amendment and ensure that every home has its proper amount of firearms, then let them manufacture and sell their firearms "at cost" and without profit. Let the "gun dealers" who so vehemently thunder from their collective bully pulpits of need for firearm ownership sell their wares at cost to ensure everyone can afford as many firearms as they could ever need.
> 
> No it's not about the 2nd Amendment for these folk, it's about the money.


I assume that since money and profit are such terrible things that you've always worked for free, or for just enough to cover your basic living expenses.

It certainly would be hypocritical for you to work in a well-paying job and disdain other companies for expecting to make a profit from their products.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Haggis said:


> For the NRA and those who make their living from the manufacture or sale of firearms, it is not the 2nd Amendment they dutifully defend, it is their bottom line.
> 
> If these "patriotic" types who so want to defend the 2nd Amendment and ensure that every home has its proper amount of firearms, then let them manufacture and sell their firearms "at cost" and without profit. Let the "gun dealers" who so vehemently thunder from their collective bully pulpits of need for firearm ownership sell their wares at cost to ensure everyone can afford as many firearms as they could ever need.
> 
> No it's not about the 2nd Amendment for these folk, it's about the money.


Haggis has just stated his true leanings. How similar does his quote sound to this tired old quote?

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Good old Karl Marx, father of commies everywhere. 

Gun companies have the ability to manufacture guns, but some people can't afford them and need them, so gun companies should give them away. Presto, you have Marxism. 

That is sickening to this 24 year life member.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I'm not sure but I think a recent change in the law made it legal to use our troops against US civilians. The idea of taking up arms against our government no matter how much they do to destroy this country sounds like a one way street to me.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

fishhead said:


> I'm not sure but I think a recent change in the law made it legal to use our troops against US civilians. The idea of taking up arms against our government no matter how much they do to destroy this country sounds like a one way street to me.


Then I hope for your sake that you would stay well clear of any altercations and that you would not turn informant against those who might fight against such a government.

Sometimes one way streets are the only way to get past a certain point to a better future. If someone doesn't have the will to fight, no one ought to force them. However, that someone ought not sell out and take the easy path for that is making a choice that reaps bad karma.


----------



## Rondah (Apr 1, 2008)

:: fascinated to see where this is heading :: :sing:


----------



## Space Cowboy (Apr 26, 2008)

Haggis said:


> Actually it was anti-establishment "hippies" who developed the PC and the internet so widely used by conservatives.
> 
> Time Magazine article;
> http://members.aye.net/~hippie/hippie/special_.htm


Whoa! I'm sorry if this is off topic, but I can't let it go. The Internet was started by the defense industry (DARPA NET). It was upgraded and and moved mainstream from entrepreneurs trying to make a buck. Yahoo was started from a couple of kids in a trailer on the Stanford campus. The web browser and server was started from a beer guzzling frat type who did it as a school project and became worth 100's of millions of dollars. It was the young and hungry who made the internet not the stoned and protesting.

SC


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Ever notice how hot button issues never get solved in Congress? There's a reason for that. 

THEY GET VOTES AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS!

The GOP screams that the DFL is going to take away your guns but when they have control of both houses of Congress AND the White House do they resolve the issue once and for all? NO!

Take a look a the hot button campaign issues that never get solved and you'll see what I mean. Both parties do it.

Instead they divert our attention with gay bashing.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

I've no problem with making a profit, none at all, but declaring the "right to keep and bear arms" sacred and then selling guns at a profit while defending the right to sell guns at a profit, could be compared to some preacher selling, at a reasonable profit of course, salvation for one's soul. Maybe we could find a way to sell freedom of speech or freedom of religion, at a reasonable profit of course.


Did anybody actually read the article from the link I posted? There are hundreds like it on the web. 

Back in the "stoner" days the best the anti-establishment types could do was purchase or steal a copy of the "Whole Earth Catalog of Books and Tools", and eventually, "The Last Whole Earth Catalog of Books and Tools", but then one of the guys who put together the Whole Earth books discovered the early form of the internet (DARPA NET). as described above that had been used by the military and others. He figured out a way to hijack the idea for private citizens, and in the early days of the "internet" there was a literal "book" giving addresses to various sites. Eventually "search engines" were developed by other out of the mainsteam but clever folk, making away to "Yahoo" or "Google" our way to most anything.


----------



## Tiffin (Feb 23, 2006)

This thread is out of control. From guns to who started the internet.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Tiffin said:


> This thread is out of control. From guns to who started the internet.


We do, it seems, tend to run off the track fairly quickly.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Is there any truth to the story that the Republican God Ronald Reagan was involved in the assault weapons ban? If so that would take a lot of the wind out of the hysteria that Democratic Obama is going to take our guns away.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Haggis said:


> I've no problem with making a profit, none at all, but declaring the "right to keep and bear arms" sacred and then selling guns at a profit while defending the right to sell guns at a profit, could be compared to some preacher selling, at a reasonable profit of course, salvation for one's soul. Maybe we could find a way to sell freedom of speech or freedom of religion, at a reasonable profit of course.


Isn't that what tithing is about? Giving money, per doctrine, to help others so that you also do good works that will help you get into heaven?


As for other industries, such as food, medicine, clothing and such, what do you think would happen if there were no profit in making those things? Each person would need to do it themselves. Perhaps you would prefer to do your own medical treatments, grow all of your own food and all rather than ever patronize another for what they can produce at a gain for themselves?

The fact that you use a computer and the internet indicates that you wish to use the fruits of a profit based world. Thus your ideology regarding the Second Amendment is hollow.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

fishhead said:


> Is there any truth to the story that the Republican God Ronald Reagan was involved in the assault weapons ban? If so that would take a lot of the wind out of the hysteria that Democratic Obama is going to take our guns away.


What Reagan did has no basis upon what Obama would do. The former had few actions based on gun control and while I am no supporter of what Reagan did in 1986, he did leave a few easter eggs for us with it. Obama has current history of voting against Second Amendment issues and self-defense actions, even if he talks them up in a positive light.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

But wouldn't you say that Reagan put us on the "slippery slope" that the NRA always uses to oppose any gun regulations?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Haggis said:


> I've no problem with making a profit, none at all, but declaring the "right to keep and bear arms" sacred and then selling guns at a profit while defending the right to sell guns at a profit, could be compared to some preacher selling, at a reasonable profit of course, salvation for one's soul. Maybe we could find a way to sell freedom of speech or freedom of religion, at a reasonable profit of course.


Your analogy is flawed as the two have nothing to do with each other.

A better analogy is the news and entertainment industry defending freedom of speech while making a profit from freedom of speech.

I believe very strongly in the freedom of speech, and I have no problem with news or entertainment companies making a profit while defending that right. I may completely disagree with what you say, (and usually do ) but I will always defend your right to say it.


----------



## Homesteader at Heart (Aug 11, 2003)

Actually, according to literal interpretation, the second ammendment has already gone out the window.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

The key word is "infringed." I think that has already been done by the laws and restrictions already on the books. If you do not believe it, try to buy a legal handgun in New York City.


----------



## Homesteader at Heart (Aug 11, 2003)

As far as voting for a third party candidate, I feel like that is throwing a vote away. You know that even though their politics may be closer to your ideals, third party candidates cannot win (on a national level). It is sad but true that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Rondah (Apr 1, 2008)

Homesteader at Heart said:


> Actually, according to literal interpretation, the second ammendment has already gone out the window.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> ...


I have to sadly agree with you. Also, try organizing a militia. They'd claim you were a terrorist and you'd find your rear end in Guantanamo Bay so fast your head would spin.


----------



## Rondah (Apr 1, 2008)

People shouldn't make money on guns sales? HUH? That makes zero sense.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Rondah said:


> People shouldn't make money on guns sales? HUH? That makes zero sense.


To Haggis it makes sense in his own special world. It is not the same world the rest of us live in.


----------



## Homesteader at Heart (Aug 11, 2003)

_Isn't that what tithing is about? Giving money, per doctrine, to help others so that you also do good works that will help you get into heaven?_

In answer to your question, reluctantpatriot, no, that is not what tithing is about!


----------



## Rondah (Apr 1, 2008)

It's a little funny that anyone would think gun sellers shouldn't make a profit. We just ordered some things and the profit margin for the gun seller is TINY. Our dealer has about an 8% mark up. I'd like to see other retail sales with that narrow a profit margin.


----------



## Rondah (Apr 1, 2008)

Homesteader at Heart said:


> _Isn't that what tithing is about? Giving money, per doctrine, to help others so that you also do good works that will help you get into heaven?_
> 
> In answer to your question, reluctantpatriot, no, that is not what tithing is about!


I don't think he was saying that you tithe to get into heaven. I 'think' he is saying that if your heart is in the right place with God, you tithe, and that is part of the path to heaven.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Rondah said:


> I don't think he was saying that you tithe to get into heaven. I 'think' he is saying that if your heart is in the right place with God, you tithe, and that is part of the path to heaven.


My comment was sarcasm toward the view that Haggis has about gun dealers and manufacturers being wrong in selling firearms for a profit. I was being rhetorical in the sense that if one were to assume that gun dealers are trying to gain from the sale of what is a right, then so too would churches who ask for tithes. Or in his case, what seems to be his "church" which seems to be the Marxist or Socialist supporters of the Democratic Party.

I should have been more clear about who I was talking to. I did not mean to infer that all who are Christians are trying to buy their way into heaven or that churches are trying to sell salvation. However, some churches seem to do just that, that is, the much derided televangelists.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Rondah said:


> People shouldn't make money on guns sales? HUH? That makes zero sense.



As do most of his other posts...


.


----------

