“Gun nuts” battle “Constitution nuts” at the Supreme Court

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Do you see yourself in any of these categories ?

No. 

I am a member of my State rifle and pistol Assoc.  My state CCW Assoc.  The GOA, Second Amendment Foundation.  To name a few.  I left the NRA due to their actions in the Heller case.  Which by the way is the intent of this thread.  The actions of the NRA in the Incorporation case.

So, happy now.   I believe that there is a right and wrong way of doing things.  And in Heller, and the current case, the NRA is in the wrong.  Dont care how you justify it to the contrary.  Now, since we know what each other does for the 2A, groups we each claim to belong to, what next?  Shooting spitballs at each other?  Water cannons at 10ft?   

[Scout26]

It's wasn't my choice, it's wasn't your choice or any collective choice as to when Heller brought HIS suit. It was Heller's choice.

Ummm, nope.   Levy and Gura went out looking for plaintiffs, not Heller, et al. looking for lawyers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[4] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of age, race, and economic background. They eventually picked Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon, and Dick Heller. Before the case, Levy knew only Tom Palmer, a colleague from the Cato Institute; none of the six knew each other.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Still. Without Heller there would not have been a suit. No matter who vetted who. STILL the issue is the NRA stepping in without an invite.

[Silver Bullet]

Which by the way is the intent of this thread

So why do you keep deviating from the topic with slams about the NRA's productivity ?

The sequence that keeps repeating is that you try and squeeze in gratuitous insults to the NRA, and then as soon as you get called on it you whine about "thread drift".  

My guess is your next strategy will be to try and get the thread closed to try and escape your mess.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Umm, no. You keep crying that some don't like the NRA, like me, for reasons stated. The thread has drifted. I was a part of that. Not trying to get anything locked down so I can escape.

I believe in earlier posts I agreed that some of the stuff the NRA does is good and needed. I also said I wished the NRA would pony up and press real hard for more pro 2A legislation.

Now. I don't like the NRA, again, for how they conducted themselves during Heller. Then OP was about the NRA being given 10 minutes of Gura's time. IMO the NRA should bow out. Again, it's party crashing, and the NRA is not doing themselves any favors by doing this.  I have not insulted the NRA. I have given my opinion on the NRA. Until Heller, I had been an NRA member for almost 2 decades. If you like the NRA, by all means keep sending that check. But set down the kool aid. The NRA is far from being the organization you have claimed it to be. 

[Silver Bullet]

I am a member of my State rifle and pistol Assoc.  My state CCW Assoc.  The GOA, Second Amendment Foundation. 

Is that right ?   

Could you remind me again what pro-RKBA legislation those groups got passed during the eight years of Republicans in control ?  I forgot already.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Actually my state organizations are actively pushing for open carry, and debating on following Montana's lead with firearms made in state. Progress isn't maintaining the status quo. Progress is moving forward.

As far as GOA and SAF, nothing much, except for highlighting good legislation and reporting on critters who support or are against it. And they don't try to butt into other folks lawsuits. You should read up on the history of the NRA, from it's start to the 34 NFA act through to the 68 Gun Control Act. Some interesting reading.

I Believe I never claimed other organizations were better or did better than the NRA.  Just that other Orgs, to my knowledge, haven't tried to derail or shut down lawsuits. 

[Silver Bullet]

But you keep complaining about the NRA's so-called lack of progress in terms of the amount of pro-RKBA legislation pushed through during the Republican control.  Yet, you admit that your organizations have done much less during that time compared to the NRA?  What's the point of bringing up the NRA's performance during the Republican control, when we've already figured out that they're they've been by far the most effective organization during that time frame ?

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

But they have not. The areas that have made progress
have been the states, with state 2A organizations. Do you really think the NRA would get behind a Vermont style of carry?  Hell no. Because to get your permit, most have to go to a class and qualify on the range. Most of those instrctors are "NRA Certified". The NRA does great with hunter safety and firearms safety n general. But don't fool yourself. If a movement ever started to do away with a CCW permit, I can guarantee you that the NRA will not be behind it.

SB. I will be emailing you with some interesting reading about the NRA. 

If you want to continue this, let's keep on or take it to PM. For now. Need to sign off. I'm
hospital bound. Been waitng on my nephew to make an appearance into the world, and he decided it was
tonight.

[Silver Bullet]

But we're talking about progress on a national level.  What progress have your organizations made that compares anywhere near what the NRA has done ?

[Silver Bullet]

Don't send me "reading material".  I've got plenty of my own already.  I don't need another person to tell me, "Gee, if you'd only read everything I've read, and nothing else, and take what I've read as gospel, you'd have the same opinion as me!"  No doubt.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Ok. I won't. And I was talking about a lack of forward progress on a national level with the NRA.

You asked me to email you activities of groups I belong to. No big deal. But you don't want anything about the NRA that could be potentially negatve. Are you afraid you'll learn something.

[Scout26]

You should read up on the history of the NRA, from it's start to the 34 NFA act through to the 68 Gun Control Act. Some interesting reading.

Ah yes, we know.  The NRA did nothing about either and infact when asked by congress about the 34 NFA act, basically said "We don't care".  But then again neither did the GOA, SAF or any of the other Pro-2A organizations.  Oh, that's right, they didn't exist.  In fact until the late 60's early '70's, there was no need or reason to have pro-2A groups as nothing threatened the 2A either in Congress or in the courts.  See that's the problem with that history.  Until that time all the NRA did was education, training and run matches.   There was no political arm or interest.   They weren't involved in politics or legal action, because there was no need or reason to.   So you're looking backwards through history using today's lens.  

Oh, about the "NRA Certified" comment.  Even if every state would get Vermont carry, there's still a need for basic firearms training classes (Handgun, Rifle, Pistol, Reloading, etc) that have nothing to do with CCW.  So yes, the NRA does and would support getting rid of CCW permits.

[MicroBalrog]

The NRA did nothing about either and infact when asked by congress about the [/b]34 NFA act,[/b] basically said "We don't care".  But then again neither did the GOA, SAF or any of the other Pro-2A organizations.  Oh, that's right, they didn't exist.  In fact until the late 60's early '70's, there was no need or reason to have pro-2A groups as nothing threatened the 2A either in Congress or in the courts.

I see a contradiction.

[Scout26]

I see a contradiction.

Other then the 34 NFA, there was no real push for Gun Control either in Congress, the States or the Courts.  The last 2A case to make to the USSC prior to Heller was Miller and there we had a ex-con who happened to be dead, so his lawyer didn't bother to go the USSC to argue his case.  After the 34 NFA there was no other gun control pushes until the late '60's.  Again the NRA wasn't about politics then.  The NRA was about education and running matches.

[Silver Bullet]

Ah yes, we know.  The NRA did nothing about either and infact when asked by congress about the 34 NFA act, basically said "We don't care".  But then again neither did the GOA, SAF or any of the other Pro-2A organizations.  Oh, that's right, they didn't exist.  In fact until the late 60's early '70's, there was no need or reason to have pro-2A groups as nothing threatened the 2A either in Congress or in the courts.  See that's the problem with that history.  Until that time all the NRA did was education, training and run matches.   There was no political arm or interest.   They weren't involved in politics or legal action, because there was no need or reason to.   So you're looking backwards through history using today's lens.  

Oh, about the "NRA Certified" comment.  Even if every state would get Vermont carry, there's still a need for basic firearms training classes (Handgun, Rifle, Pistol, Reloading, etc) that have nothing to do with CCW.  So yes, the NRA does and would support getting rid of CCW permits.

Very good points. And yet, some folks will make all sorts of contrived and nonsense statements about the NRA to try and justify their lack of participation in the fight for RKBA.

$35 pays a years dues:

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

[sanglant]

i have paid for 5 years worth of NRA dues in the last year,(3 years for me and 2 for my dad ) i haven't paid more than 25 a year.