General Categories > General Firearm Discussion

Open Letter to NFOA Membership

<< < (6/6)

JimP:
Sorry...... getting to the party late, as usual.......


" that I don't believe that totally disarming us is the goal of everyone on "the other side". "

Mayhaps not all of them, but always keep in mind that a significant percentage, possibly even a majority , of "the other side" are "PROGRESSIVES"..... they are some of the most educated, intellignet people on the planet, and are dedicated to the belief that a better life can be had for all through GOVERNMENT.  Maybe not today, or tomorrow, or in this lifetime, but little by little, GINORMOUS GOVERNMENT will make it all BETTER. All YOU hahave to do is surrender your Liberty to the common cause.

Mal Reynolds summed it up for me...... I ain't to the misbehaving part ..........yet:


"They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people....... better.  And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. "

David Hineline:
I prefer the liberals to fear us.

Rich B:

--- Quote from: Mikee Loxxer on July 24, 2009, 02:55:09 PM ---No problem at all with you armed and humorous.  Just felt that you maybe had a false impression of what the first amendment means, after all many don't understand the second either.

--- End quote ---

It's about hunting, right?  ;)

"The right to shoot God's creatures, big and small, shall not be infringed, except by state game & wildlife authorities."

armed and humorous:
If we weren't supposed to eat meat, they wouldn't have made the animals out of it!

wrenrj1:
Welcome to the forums.  Going pro or anti-gun legislatively (i.e. laws that will allow or prohibit gun-owners rights) follows the theory of incrementalism, meaning large policy changes will not occur in government because the electorate will not allow for policy makers to make drastic policy changes, nor will policy makers do so out of protection of their job.  This is how gun owners rights can either be advanced or eroded over time.  Drastic changes won't happen, but the small incremental changes over a longer period by those who have the long-term vision most certainly occur. 

We've seen this on the pro-gun side with CCW both here in Nebraska and nation-wide.  Now 48-states have some form of CCW.  This didn't happen over night.  Even our own CCW legislation started prior to 1991, but in 1991 LB 496 was introduced, and failed.  Again in 2003, LB 265 was introduced, and failed. Finally in 2006 LB 454 was introduced and passed, subsequently this year LB 430 was introduced and passed making CCW uniform across the state (exception Omaha).  If you go and look at the committee statements on these bills you will see the pro and opposition numbers change, as well as the committee senators votes.

My logic extends to the current healthcare dilemma.  It will not pass due to the fact that it's too far a leap from what we currently have to what the administration wants healthcare to be.  We will not accept it.  Therefore an incremental move will occur in my opinion to some sort of compromise way short of the administrations intent, however it will be looked at as a success at healthcare reform.

Finally, saying all that, the anti-gun movement can do the same thing in incrementally advocating change in gun owners laws that may eventually erode gun owners rights.  Therefore, a wise stand is to recognize these efforts as a threat and vigorously oppose them, or the may very well take hold with the right people in power.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page