NRA

[Gunsnwater]

I've gotten to the point that I understand it's only a matter of time before the mass turn ins are going to be required. The politicians don't abide by the Constitution and neither do the courts. They use weasel words to back their decisions. All I can do at this point is protect myself. Gun owners have shown they won't protect freedom, they don't show up to vote and only a small handful of individuals have been behind the defense of freedom. Trump may or may not get reelected and even if he does the Congress and the courts will have the power to order mass confiscations. That means the left has committed to civil war. It's pretty evident that is what they are aiming at. The only thing we can do prepare for it.

Doom and gloom. Cheer up. No one knows the hour.

[GunLawyer001]

In what universe is voting for someone who advocates for red flag laws "providing actual help"? Red flag laws are even worse than an assault weapons ban. At least with an AWB you can know how to stay on the right side of the law; with RFLs you have no protection from being randomly searched and having your property taken away on somebody's whim for an indefinite period of time. These would be the absolute end of gun rights in this country, period. So no, I'm not going to send $35 to an organization that promotes them and I'm not voting for a politician who promotes them. And if you're going to condemn me as "self indulgent" for that then you can go to hell.

In this universe.

And watch your mouth.

First, if the real options are "Hillary" and "Trump", but you vote for Dweezil Wackjob of the "Really Truly Patriotic Party" (200 members), then you've helped Hillary.

Second, "red flag" laws are what most gun owners are advocating this week, when they say "banning guns is stupid, the cops should have done something about these specific lunatics before they shot up the mall or the festival or the bar, because everybody knew they were nuts."

Those are your real choices here, (a) the govt takes away 30 million "semi-auto assault rifles" from you and me and everyone else, laying the ground work for taking your Glock and your revolvers next, or (b) the cops intervene when everybody knows a guy is prepping to kill some folks.

The British banned all semi-auto rifles and pump guns in 1988. Within 8 years, by 1996, they took all the other guns. And started banning knives.

Banning semi-autos is the line in the sand. You can either vote for the best of the real choices in 2020, or you can help the enemy. You're telling us you're going to sit this one out with the disabled and REMFs while the adults choose the next President and Congress. You will be historically remembered during these struggles as "also present in the room but not participating". But when President Warren takes office, I bet you get a trophy.

[Mr_Gixxer]

First, if the real options are "Hillary" and "Trump", but you vote for Dweezil Wackjob of the "Really Truly Patriotic Party" (200 members), then you've helped Hillary.

Oh puhLEASE!

By using your argument, YOUR vote for anyone but the 3rd candidate was a vote for Hillary. The argument still doesn't hold water no matter how many times you people repeat it. But keep on pushing the 2 party narrative, the D's and R's depend on it!

The funny part about it is if you listen closely, the other "side" has these same shitty arguments that "Hillary lost" because you all voted for someone else!

[icp4life162005]

Count me in your boat please.

I've voted pro gun. Given my hard earned money to the NRA , taken newbies shooting, argued passionately with antis and leftists. So don't blame me, blame the rinos and rich executives who do nothing but beg for votes and money year after year while doing nothing to protect my rights and often working against my rights.
If the NRA is the best that we have, then we have been doomed since '68 at least.

I see we agree wholeheartedly again Paco

[icp4life162005]

Oh puhLEASE!

By using your argument, YOUR vote for anyone but the 3rd candidate was a vote for Hillary. The argument still doesn't hold water no matter how many times you people repeat it. But keep on pushing the 2 party narrative, the D's and R's depend on it!

The funny part about it is if you listen closely, the other "side" has these same shitty arguments that "Hillary lost" because you all voted for someone else!

Yup, exactly.
Just more left vs right bullshit. When reality is they are both fucked.
Different wings same bird, you cant pet half your dog and punish the other half. It doesnt work that way.

[GunLawyer001]

The NRA is the best defense we currently have against losing our gun rights.

The Dems work hard to destroy the NRA. I choose not to help them do that.

[Fujisawa-sensai]

In this universe.

And watch your mouth.

Watch my mouth? After the barrage of insults you laid out against gun owners who have worked for years to do what they can to protect our rights, but now aren't doing as you say, you're going to try to claim the moral high ground? LOL

First, if the real options are "Hillary" and "Trump", but you vote for Dweezil Wackjob of the "Really Truly Patriotic Party" (200 members), then you've helped Hillary.

If Trump supports red flag laws, it makes no difference to my gun rights whether Hillary or Trump wins.

Second, "red flag" laws are what most gun owners are advocating this week, when they say "banning guns is stupid, the cops should have done something about these specific lunatics before they shot up the mall or the festival or the bar, because everybody knew they were nuts."

Really, you've done a poll of all gun owners? You've been monitoring their communications to know that they have made that statement or something equivalent? In many cases (Parkland for example) the shooter had posted violent threats online before committing the crime. They could have been arrested and put under a restraining order under existing law, but either the threat wasn't detected (which would be a problem with any law) or the authorities ignored it. That's what some of the calls for "cops should have done something" presumably are referring to.

Those are your real choices here, (a) the govt takes away 30 million "semi-auto assault rifles" from you and me and everyone else, laying the ground work for taking your Glock and your revolvers next, or (b) the cops intervene when everybody knows a guy is prepping to kill some folks.

First off, that's a false dichotomy. Neither of those is inevitable if we stand up for our rights. GOP pols and their water carriers are framing it that way because they want to get the leftists off their backs so they can enjoy a meal at a nice DC restaurant, without worrying about resistance from the little people on the right whose votes they need every couple of years to maintain their lifestyle and power.

Second, it's the height of foolishness to think the red flag laws won't be abused. There is no objective standard that the judge is required to use in such a case. Judges will be very aware of what will happen to the judge who refused to sign the order to confiscate someone's guns, or allowed such an order to expire, if that person later goes on a shooting rampage. So judges are going to lean heavily toward confiscating guns and subsequently extending the period of confiscation, regardless of the evidentiary standard in the statute. All it will take is a whiff of a penumbra of a hint that the person is "dangerous" and poof, their guns are gone forever. And that's an ordinary judge, to say nothing of anti-gun judges, of which there are many, and remember the accuser is the one who picks the judge under these laws.

There's also no credible accountability for the accuser if they lie. Sure, some of the RFLs require an affidavit in which it is illegal to make false statements, but holding a false accuser accountable would require both a prosecutor willing to prosecute, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which will be extremely difficult if the accusation is crafted in the Blasey-Ford style of being detailed about how horrible what the person did or said was, but utterly vague about where and when it happened, or who was there.

The British banned all semi-auto rifles and pump guns in 1988. Within 8 years, by 1996, they took all the other guns. And started banning knives.

Banning semi-autos is the line in the sand. You can either vote for the best of the real choices in 2020, or you can help the enemy.

Banning semiautos might be crossing a line in the sand, but red flag laws would be taking over the whole desert. If red flag laws get passed, the gun grabbers will never have to pass another gun law again to implement their agenda. I would politically fight against a ban on semiautos because it's stupid, ineffective, and infringes my rights, but must reiterate that at least with a specific ban there is some clear legal space left for gun ownership. With red flag laws that evaporates entirely. There is no way to be safe from confiscation.

You're telling us you're going to sit this one out with the disabled and REMFs while the adults choose the next President and Congress. You will be historically remembered during these struggles as "also present in the room but not participating". But when President Warren takes office, I bet you get a trophy.

I never said that I'm going to sit this one out. But even if I did, I'd rather be known for sitting it out than collaborating with the oppressors, which is what your course of action leads to, whether you see it or not.

[john9001]

Listen to the gunlawyer, he speaks the truth.

You fight a war with the army you have, not with the army you wish you had.

One more thing, just because someone posts on here does not mean they are in favor of gun ownership or even be a gun owner.

[Fujisawa-sensai]

The NRA is the best defense we currently have against losing our gun rights.

The Dems work hard to destroy the NRA. I choose not to help them do that.

That has been true in the past; the NRA was very astute to keep a foothold in both parties, by endorsing Democrats so long as they supported gun rights. In this way, anti-gun legislation didn't automatically get passed when the Democrats got a majority. So I'm not criticizing them for not going full GOA and fighting to repeal the NFA and GCA, etc.

However, that strategy doesn't work anymore because there are no moderate Democrats left in Congress, let alone the conservative Democrats that the strategy depended on. So there's nothing gained from supporting the NRA when they support terrible laws like red flag laws. They are now politically toothless outside the GOP and thus their fortunes rise and fall with that party.

[GunLawyer001]

. . .
You fight a war with the army you have, not with the army you wish you had.

One more thing, just because someone posts on here does not mean they are in favor of gun ownership or even be a gun owner.

Absolutely true. I can tell you from many years of moderating this and other sites, in election years you WILL have false flag ops show up on mostly right-wing boards, and the operatives are pretty easy to spot. They generally do nothing but badmouth our assets, without providing some viable alternative. They'll demand the death of the NRA but fail to provide some powerful alternative other than "we just need to quote the 2nd Amendment and magic will happen". Or "we should kill the NRA and start up several new groups that do exactly what we want".

They came here in 2016 and ridiculed Trump but didn't offer any alternative candidate who would get enough votes to win dog catcher in Allentown.

They know they won't get gun owners to join Ceasefire, so they settle for discouraging NRA membership. They know we won't vote for Hillary or Warren or Bernie, but they'd like us to throw our vote away as a "symbolic gesture" to "send a message" while the Dems are all voting for the Democrat.

We're smarter than they think we are, we're smarter than they are. Just look for the members who either just signed up, or have been here a few years but don't contribute anything of value. Not to say that there aren't some legit members who are just delusional, but the DNC trolls are more active and easier to spot.

If the whining backseat drivers had their way in 2016 and we all voted for some Libertarian or a dead guy (basically the same thing), then Hillary would have won. Hillary would have appointed 3 or more Supreme Court Justices, and that 5-4 Heller majority would flip, and the highest court in the land would hold 7-2 that they were wrong, the 2nd Amendment is just there so Congress can arm the National Guard. So you purists could quote the 2nd Amendment all you want, and it would get you British-style gun laws. But you wouldn't have voted for some "compromise", so you'd be "pure", like a jar of 100% piss is pure.