|
Post by tomc on Feb 9, 2013 21:00:29 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 9, 2013 21:59:44 GMT -4
Good luck using any of that heavy weaponry against a force that blends in with the indigenous population.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Feb 10, 2013 7:13:05 GMT -4
Exactly RobMoore - maybe they have forgotten Vietnam.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Feb 10, 2013 8:01:51 GMT -4
I would/will go down fighting if it comes to it! I will not walk to the railroad cattle cars freely! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 17:25:01 GMT -4
I would/will go down fighting if it comes to it! I will not walk to the railroad cattle cars freely! ;D Holy crap, you are a moron.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 10, 2013 17:42:17 GMT -4
Pot, you have a horrible memory when it comes to acquaintances.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Feb 11, 2013 7:06:59 GMT -4
I would/will go down fighting if it comes to it! I will not walk to the railroad cattle cars freely! ;D Holy crap, you are a moron. ouch! ;D
|
|
|
Post by markp on Feb 11, 2013 9:48:03 GMT -4
I would/will go down fighting if it comes to it! I will not walk to the railroad cattle cars freely! ;D Holy crap, you are a moron. Because we see from history how well getting into those cattle cars work? Who is the moron in this situation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 11:58:04 GMT -4
The stupid fundies on the left always equated Bush (W) to Nazi Germany and Stalin, etc. 8 years later we were still safe from the Nazis. Now the stupid fundies on the right are equating Obama to Nazi Germany, etc., and after 8 years we will still be free of those darn Nazis. It's funny how stupid people with short memories seem to be the loudest. BTW, nobody is coming for your guns, morons. This will end up having some minor restrictions on military style guns only. Semi-Automatics, etc. Your shotguns and handguns are safe for you to shoot small animals and junk in the woods.
|
|
|
Post by markp on Feb 11, 2013 12:43:50 GMT -4
The military isn't using semi-automatic rifles... they can be set by select fire unlike the civilian versions which are strictly semi-automatic. May want to get your thoughts straight prior to typing in erroneous statements.
I love it when there is nothing better to say name calling is the best option for some. Go back to the playground and bury your head in the sandbox.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Feb 11, 2013 13:19:30 GMT -4
He hasn't been able to argue this without hurling insults and calling names like a temperamental 2nd grader, yet. Of course - - I haven't listened to anything he has had to say once he went there anyway. Hard to make a valid point when your own behavior limits you like that. Nothing to his posts other than politically slanted interwebz links and insults -- lol...he's made a point - - just not the one I think he meant to.
*shrug*
Next?
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 11, 2013 13:20:32 GMT -4
He says nobody is coming for my guns, then tells me which guns of mine they are going to ban.
Who is the moron?
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Feb 11, 2013 13:29:53 GMT -4
The stupid fundies on the left always equated Bush (W) to Nazi Germany and Stalin, etc. 8 years later we were still safe from the Nazis. Now the stupid fundies on the right are equating Obama to Nazi Germany, etc., and after 8 years we will still be free of those darn Nazis. It's funny how stupid people with short memories seem to be the loudest. BTW, nobody is coming for your guns, morons. This will end up having some minor restrictions on military style guns only. Semi-Automatics, etc. Your shotguns and handguns are safe for you to shoot small animals and junk in the woods. Can you make a post without insulting most of the people on here? If not you are welcome to sign off. Most of us can post and have a difference of OPINION without reverting to 4th grade playground rules of bullying. No you can't have my lunch money so go pick on someone smaller than you. If you can't play nice, pack up your toys and go on home. I for one wont miss you.
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Feb 11, 2013 13:42:30 GMT -4
BTW, nobody is coming for your guns, morons. This will end up having some minor restrictions on military style guns only. Semi-Automatics, etc. Your shotguns and handguns are safe for you to shoot small animals and junk in the woods. Can you say, FOOT IN THE DOOR? if this passes??? sbynews.blogspot.com/2013/02/gun-confiscation-bill-proposed-in.html
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Feb 11, 2013 14:55:07 GMT -4
It's funny how stupid people with short memories seem to be the loudest. Said Loudness! Just because your afraid of GUNS doesn't mean everyone is scared of guns. May I suggest some Midol for your cramps you seem to be a little moody.
|
|
|
Post by crabbyjohn on Feb 11, 2013 15:57:12 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by crabbyjohn on Feb 11, 2013 16:04:30 GMT -4
Mr. Brian Frosh and Other Legislators,
I was one of the 1,000 plus Maryland citizens that signed up to testify in opposition to SB281 at the Senate Judiciary Hearings on February 6th. I arrived at 9:15 in the morning. Due to the fact that testimony was cut prematurely short, hundreds, if not 1,000 of opponents, as well as myself, were not given the opportunity to have our voices heard on this ill advised knee jerk politically motivated poorly written legislation. For that, I am extremely disappointed.
I watched the proceedings from one of the overflow rooms and tried to catch all of the details but to be honest the speakers in the room are not very loud and sometimes it was difficult to hear the Senators as they were back away from their microphones. In addition, as I turned on my computer this morning I was greeted by a picture of Senator Raskin playing Chess on his computer during the hearings. Is this really the best way to conduct official State business?
When the Governor made his statement “if we could just save one child’s life, isn’t it worth trying”. At that point I was so disappointed at the political posturing that occurred. If we use that argument to save just one life, we would ban:
• Swimming pools and bath tubs – according to the CDC, 3,533 die each year from drowning, 706 are children. • Cars and other motor vehicles – on average 38,000 people died in auto accidents in the past 5 years. On average 6,000 each year are children. During my observation of the proceedings I was extremely disappointed in the misinformation that was being voiced by the proponents of the bill. The States officials called the guns on the ban “automatic weapons” many times. A couple of the proponents called the guns on the ban list “weapons of mass destruction”. The one woman who was a proponent was sitting not to far from me when her name was called. She rushed to get upstairs to get to the hearing room and was rightly flustered and out of breath. Then she proceeded to tell the Judiciary Committee something along the lines that sitting down there with all those pro 2nd Amendment people was very disturbing and scary. At that point I was highly insulted. There was no one in that room of 450+ people that were disrespectful or tried to intimidate any of the proponents of the bill. This type of misinformation and vilification of 2nd Amendment supporters and gun owners is downright disrespectful to all American’s.
I know many people that support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution and they do not own guns. It is called being an American and they have that right to choose. However, Governor O’Malley and President Obama want to portray those people as unreasonable violent people just because they oppose their political agenda to disarm the people.
I realize that being Pro 2nd Amendment and Pro Constitution is not necessarily popular these days with many liberals. I do believe that the Legislature has been sworn to uphold the Constitution and therefore as such the 2nd Amendment is part of that responsibility. I also realize that being a 2nd Amendment supporter my views may be shaded in the direction of my beliefs as a law abiding gun owner. However, as I attended the Town Hall last week and the Judiciary Hearings this week, it has become clear to me that the Governor’s panel is only interested in feeding bad information and lies to the general public in order to achieve their agenda. I do not believe that their motivation is to save lives.
I am 50 years old and until about 3 years ago, I was like many Americans who are unaware as to what is going on so I decided to get involved. What a very unsettling experience. From what I have observed, truthfulness and honesty are not something that is readily practiced when it comes to politics in many cases.
I am not completely opposed to some of the legislation in SB281.
• The mental health side of the bill is a great place to focus. Most, if not all of the mass killers in the past 40 years have had some type of mental health problem. The focus should be on getting those people the help that they need, not just identifying possible people that could be violent. They are Americans that have rights too. • Strengthening the current laws associated with violence in general, especially gun violence. I believe that they said they that 80% of gun violence is perpetrated by repeat offenders. Those people should definitely be dealt with more strictly the first time.
As you are likely aware, Maryland already has 2 background checks performed for all regulated firearms, one federal via NICS and one by the State police with mandatory minimum 7 day waiting period. Maryland already registers each regulated firearm when it is transferred. We have shell casings on file for each handgun. As far as straw purchasers, all serial numbers are documented when sold and are connected to the purchaser via the back ground check and other paperwork.
Maryland already has the 7th toughest gun laws. Connecticut has the 4th toughest gun laws. It is pretty clear to me that the strength of the gun laws does not correlate into success when it comes to stopping the horrific killings that occurred in Newtown. Chicago has the strongest gun laws for any city in the US, yet it has the highest murder rate. Law abiding citizens are disarmed by their government and the criminals are well aware that they have easy victims. It is so bad there that the Chicago Police Department announced earlier this week that they would no longer answer property crimes as they do not have enough resources to deal with those. Does that really seem to be a good example of how effective gun control is? I think not.
Infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens isn’t going to reduce the crime rates. In addition, making criminals out of law abiding gun owners because they do not navigate the maze that is SB 281 accurately is not going to solve anything at all. Additional licensing fees and training fees will not save one life. If anything, it will cost lives as it becomes a barrier to gun ownership for self defense. One of the speakers or Senators made a point that the guns cost about $500 - $650 and that the fees associated with SB 281 are only $430 (78% of the cost of the gun) and that isn’t so bad. If you use that correlation a driver’s license, which kill more people than guns, the cost of a driver’s license would be $11,700 using and average $15,000 average purchase price.
I did not see anything in SB281 will do stop or prevent criminal / violent behavior. Criminals already don’t abide by the law. Adam Lanza broke 43 laws. Would 44 laws really have stopped him? He was turned down numerous times trying to buy a gun by utilizing the current background check system. The problem is that no one investigated why a prohibited person was trying to buy a gun numerous times over a few weeks time period.
Banning certain guns based on cosmetics won’t help. In England where they have extremely tight gun control laws, they are now trying to ban kitchen knives over 4” long with a point because half of all murderers use them. Where does it stop? We need to fix society.
As a person who has been directly affected by gun violence I adamantly oppose blaming the gun used to kill my Mother. The man that killed her could have used any tool including his hands to kill her once he decided to do that.
I do not intend to be disrespectful with my letter. I do not envy the position that you, as legislators are in. However, I do expect that you will objectively look at this bill as well as all others honestly and evaluate as to whether or not it accomplishes the desired effect.
Let me reiterate in closing that vilifying and criminalizing law abiding citizens does nothing to make our neighborhoods safer. I have owned guns for the past 40 years and not once have I used them to harm anyone. Many of my family and friends are in the same category.
I am not an expert on any issue but I do believe that violence is a multi faceted issue and guns are only one factor but somehow they are where 95% of the focus has been placed. I would love to give you my opinions on these in person if you so desire to hear them. However, I would guess that the way I was treated at the hearing I won’t be hearing from you and more than likely you won’t even read this.
|
|
|
Post by crabbyjohn on Feb 11, 2013 16:23:50 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by cranky64 on Feb 11, 2013 22:33:08 GMT -4
I imagine if this thing passes many Marylanders will have to make a tough decision. He says nobody is coming for my guns, then tells me which guns of mine they are going to ban. Who is the moron?
|
|
|
Post by topfish on Feb 12, 2013 7:28:29 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Feb 12, 2013 8:50:51 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by topfish on Feb 12, 2013 17:31:21 GMT -4
The Law of The Land/Supported Law by the Supreme Court DC vs Heller. This is the law which we all must abide by and if you disagree find a Supreme Court Lawyer:
District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief Summary
Summary of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Facts
Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia (D) law. The law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Furthermore all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.
thingy Heller (P) is a special police officer in the District of Columbia. The District refused Heller’s application to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed this lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on Second Amendment grounds. Heller sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home.
The District Court dismissed Heller’s complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and directed the District Court to enter summary judgment in favor of the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals construed Heller’s complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it in his home only when necessary for self defense, and held that the total ban on handguns violated the individual right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Issue
What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?
Holding and Rule (Scalia)
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Text of the Second Amendment
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. Constitutional Construction
The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the drafting history reveals three proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators from ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s interpretation.
No precedent forecloses this interpretation. United States v. Miller limits the type of weapons to which the right applies to those in common use for lawful purposes, but does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes.
The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. This prohibition would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.
The Court assumes that a license will satisfy Heller’s prayer for relief and therefore does not address the constitutionality of the licensing requirement. Assuming Heller is not otherwise disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District of Columbia must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Disposition
Affirmed. Dissent (Stevens)
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people to maintain a well regulated militia. It was a response to the concern that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to state sovereignty. Neither the text of the Second Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidence the slightest interest by the Framers in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.
There is no indication that the Framers intended to enshrine the common law right of self-defense in the Constitution. The view in Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons, is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. The majority fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Dissent (Breyer)
The Second Amendment protects militia-related interests, not self-defense-related interests. Furthermore, the Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the right to keep and bear arms, including substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, and regulations that imposed limitations on the use of firearms for the protection of the home.
Adoption of a true strict scrutiny standard for evaluating gun control regulations would be impossible and I would adopt an interest-balancing inquiry. In applying this kind of standard the Court normally defers to a legislature’s empirical judgment in matters where a legislature is likely to have greater expertise and greater institutional fact finding capacity.
This case is also cited as DC v. Heller. See United States v. Lopez for a constitutional law case brief addressing the constitutionality of gun control legislation enacted by Congress in exercise of its power under the Commerce Clause.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Feb 13, 2013 2:26:51 GMT -4
Topfish you should of sent out the Town Crier to announce that to us!
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 13, 2013 6:41:21 GMT -4
TL;DR
Although, I did read it when it originally came out.
|
|
|
Post by topfish on Feb 14, 2013 10:03:37 GMT -4
LaPierre Paranoia that he came out with for Valentine's Day. I believe he needs help except for the fact that is doing it for bucks and laughing all the way to Bank with the Gun Manufacturers. The Gun Industry has never made more money then now. LaPierre does not speak for the majority of NRA Members (Universal Gun Sales checks) and I believe he is causing great harm to many who support the 2nd Amendment except those who profit financially. Every one who is a gun owner is not paranoid and fearful that everyone wants to take our guns away. Most of us that belong to the NRA are not survivalists. Much of his OpEd below is absolutely a lie. His mission is to spread fear and paranoia and sell more guns and right now he is accomplishing his mission. I believe his rants will bring down the NRA and be harmful to many of the law abiding members. He is catering to the fringe and making the NRA membership look like a bunch of wackos. I believe 99% of the people in the USA do not agree with LaPierre as well as the vast majority of NRA members. If our buddies in Congress keep embracing LaPierre that will suffer further the demise of the Party.
Stand and Fight
Posted By Wayne LaPierre On 4:32 PM 02/13/2013 @ 4:32 PM In Gun Laws & Legislation,Guns and Gear | No Comments
Tweet 4 inShare
By Wayne LaPierre
Before I tell you how the NRA and our members are going to Stand And Fight politically and in the courts, let’s acknowledge that all over this country, tens of millions of Americans are already preparing to Stand And Fight to protect their families and homes.
These good Americans are prudently getting ready to protect themselves.
It has always been sensible for good citizens to own and carry firearms for lawful protection against violent criminals who prey on decent people.
During the second Obama term, however, additional threats are growing. Latin American drug gangs have invaded every city of significant size in the United States. Phoenix is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world, and though the states on the U.S./Mexico border may be the first places in the nation to suffer from cartel violence, by no means are they the last.
The president flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border. So the border today remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping. Ominously, the border also remains open to agents of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Numerous intelligence sources have confirmed that foreign terrorists have identified the southern U.S. border as their path of entry into the country.
When the next terrorist attack comes, the Obama administration won’t accept responsibility. Instead, it will do what it does every time: blame a scapegoat and count on Obama’s “mainstream” media enablers to go along.
A heinous act of mass murder—either by terrorists or by some psychotic who should have been locked up long ago—will be the pretext to unleash a tsunami of Gun Control.
No wonder Americans are buying guns in record numbers right now, while they still can and before their choice about which firearm is right for their family is taken away forever.
After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all.
Anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg had already done everything he could to prevent law-abiding New Yorkers from owning guns, and he has made sure that no ordinary citizen will ever be allowed to carry a gun. He even refused to allow the National Guard into the city to restore civil order because Guardsmen carry guns!
Meanwhile, President Obama is leading this country to financial ruin, borrowing over a trillion dollars a year for phony “stimulus” spending and other payoffs for his political cronies. Nobody knows if or when the fiscal collapse will come, but if the country is broke, there likely won’t be enough money to pay for police protection. And the American people know it.
Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face—not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that.
Since the election, millions of Americans have been lining up in front of gun stores, Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shops exercising their freedom while they still have it. They are demonstrating they have a mass determination to buy, own and use firearms. Millions of Americans are using market forces like never before to demonstrate their ardent support for our firearm freedoms. That’s one of the very best ways we can Stand And Fight.
Inevitably, the anti-gun media and the gun-ban lobbies are demonizing the purchase of firearms. They call us “extremists” because we wonder whether we will be able to buy a semi-auto in three years or, even in some states, later this year. That’s despite the fact that President Obama long ago made clear that he wants to ban them all!
The media try to make rank-and-file Americans feel guilty about buying a gun. The enemies of freedom demonize gun buyers and portray us as social lepers. But we know the truth. We know that responsible gun ownership exemplifies what is good and right about America.
Responsible Americans realize that the world as we know it has changed. We, the American people, clearly see the daunting forces we will undoubtedly face: terrorists, crime, drug gangs, the possibility of Euro-style debt riots, civil unrest or natural disaster.
Gun owners are not buying firearms because they anticipate a confrontation with the government. Rather, we anticipate confrontations where the government isn’t there—or simply doesn’t show up in time.
To preserve the inalienable, individual human right to keep and bear arms—to withstand the siege that is coming—the NRA is building a four-year communications and resistance movement. The enemies of the Second Amendment will be met with unprecedented defiance, commitment and determination. We will Stand And Fight.
First, we are going to devise legal capability like never before. I fervently hope that President Obama does not get to appoint another anti-gun Supreme Court justice like Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan. But he probably will, and we must meet that challenge. His chances of appointing a replacement for one of the five pro-rights justices in the 5-4 Heller and McDonald majorities are high. And there’s no doubt he is going to appoint a huge number of new judges to lifetime positions in the lower federal courts.
That means the federal courts are going to get worse and worse. So some cases, on which we might have improved our chances of victory by waiting a while, are going to have to be brought now.
Besides bringing affirmative pro-rights cases, we will also have to litigate against the flood of new anti-gun federal regulations that are coming, and against anti-gun laws that are going to be enacted in some of the states.
Second, we must strengthen the NRA like never before. We are, and always have been, a genuine grassroots organization. And never has your membership been more important. Never has the nra been more in need of your support.
The national media, with its slanted and inaccurate “news” coverage of the gun issue, has given the gun-ban groups the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars of free advertising.
Now, the threat is even greater. Michael Bloomberg and George Soros are each, individually, far wealthier than the entire National Rifle Association. When the NRA spends money on political advertising, we have to raise those funds from you—$20, $50, $250, or $1,000 at a time. In the last election, Bloomberg alone spent $16 million and that doesn’t even count the indirect spending by groups funded by Soros and his fellow billionaires.
The hard truth is that due to Bloomberg, Soros, and the rest of their ilk, the dangers require that we increase our presence all across the country—in Congress, the state capitols, and in your city and towns.
As we Stand And Fight, the third, and most important, part of our action plan demands that we organize like never before. That’s the most important part of all.
Every gun owner should be an active member of the NRA. Every gun owner should be sure that every member of his or her family is an active member.
For most of the last hundred years, a strong NRA has been the indispensable shield against the destruction of our nation’s Second Amendment rights. Now, an even stronger nra is the only chance gun owners have to withstand the coming siege.
This begins with remembering to keep your own membership active, or reactivate it if it has lapsed. It means reminding yourself, “I have a son and daughter who aren’t members and should be.” It means reaching out to your hunting and shooting friends and personally telling them why it’s so important that they join the NRA now, during this time of peril.
The NRA is launching a nationwide, full-court initiative to urge every gun owner, and every non-gun-owning lover of freedom, to join the NRA and fight this battle. I will personally be traveling all over America enlisting new members.
We must reach out to the tens of millions of gun owners who are not yet NRA members—to the gun owners who care about their own rights but who have been duped by Obama and the national media into believing that the Obama and Bloomberg gun controls will only affect other people. They are naively sitting on the sidelines, imagining themselves immune from the coming siege.
Yet no matter how much I travel, I can’t be everywhere. NRA members, though, can be everywhere. We already are. The 4 million of us belong to every community in the United States. We are the largest civil rights organization in the world, and we have been part of the fabric of America ever since 1871. So it is you, proud NRA members, who are the key to enlisting new members in the ranks of our army of freedom.
NRA grassroots has always been our Association’s greatest strength. To compete with Bloomberg and his gang, it must be much stronger still. Historically, we have always been able to rely on volunteers, and I’m going to ask you and need you to answer the call to help throughout the next four years.
Every year, shooting is becoming more and more popular, with more people engaging in the shooting sports for fun. More people are buying guns and trying new disciplines, such as 3-gun competitions, sporting clays, practical shooting and so on.
As we Stand And Fight, let’s continue to make the shooting sports one of the fastest-growing recreational activities in America. By doing so, and by telling others about it, we’ll popularize and make gun owning and shooting more mainstream than ever before. That will be even more effective if we remember to invite new people to participate and provide them with the responsible mentorship and guidance that the NRA has exemplified for over 140 years.
We can’t win the political war if we lose the cultural war. One of the great protectors of the Second Amendment is the popular, active, responsible use of firearms for shooting and hunting.
We don’t want America to become like England, where some of that nation’s outstanding rifle competitors keep their hobby a dark secret from their neighbors for fear of social disapproval. We’re not going to let the anti-gunners push us into that zone. As I remind people every day, we are the majority.
We have so much to be proud of as gun owners, shooters and freedom lovers. That pride, especially when it’s not hidden in the closet, is itself a form of protection for the Second Amendment.
We will not surrender. We will not appease. We will buy more guns than ever. We will use them for sport and lawful self-defense more than ever. We will grow the NRA more than ever. And we will be prouder than ever to be freedom-loving NRA patriots. And with your help, we will ensure that the Second Amendment remains America’s First Freedom.
We will Stand And Fight.
|
|