PDA

View Full Version : Ron Excluded from NRA candidate lineup, why?




SWATH
12-20-2007, 07:11 PM
Is this because Ron did not accept the NRA invitation?

This is in the most recent American Rifleman magazine. I mean they put Bill Richardson in there.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7546/img2852ff6.jpg

Wayne Hammond
12-20-2007, 07:14 PM
It's because the National Rifle Association is an anti-gun organization.

If you want to join a true pro-2nd Amendment organization, go here:

http://www.gunowners.org

Per Ron Paul.... Gun Owners of America is "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

.

nist7
12-20-2007, 07:17 PM
It's because the National Rifle Association is an anti-gun organization.

If you want to join a true pro-2nd Amendment organization, go here:

http://www.gunowners.org

Per Ron Paul.... Gun Owners of America is "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

.

Holy crap......are you serious?

The NRA is an anti-gun association???

Wayne Hammond
12-20-2007, 07:18 PM
Holy crap......are you serious?

The NRA is an anti-gun association???

Totally serious. I used to be a member. Never again.


.

SWATH
12-20-2007, 07:20 PM
It's because the National Rifle Association is an anti-gun organization.

If you want to join a true pro-2nd Amendment organization, go here:

http://www.gunowners.org

Per Ron Paul.... Gun Owners of America is "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

.

I know I am a member of the NRA, GOA, and the JPFO. I am not renewing my NRA membership.

nist7
12-20-2007, 07:25 PM
Totally serious. I used to be a member. Never again.


.


I know I am a member of the NRA, GOA, and the JPFO. I am not renewing my NRA membership.

Dang....good to know!

That is the only explanation for excluding Ron Paul....who is THE strongest warrior defending the 2nd Amendment.

fortilite
12-20-2007, 07:25 PM
The NRA isn't anti-gun, they are just anti-2nd amendment. They are mostly hunters..

Paulitician
12-20-2007, 07:28 PM
They are mostly LAME...

pcosmar
12-20-2007, 07:32 PM
They are in the business of collecting money from gun owners, while soothing their anger at the loss of 2nd Amendment rights.
They are a false front, for the gun grabbers.

Wayne Hammond
12-20-2007, 07:42 PM
The NRA isn't anti-gun, they are just anti-2nd amendment. They are mostly hunters..

Well, sort of. They have always been "pro-hunter". They have never been strongly pro-2nd Amendment - as in we have a right to keep and bear arms.

They have primarily argued that we have "a right to arms" for "sporting purposes". I used to go round and round with Tanya Metaksa (former head of NRA/ILA) on this back in the 90's asking her to take a stronger stand on this - she was replaced by someone even worse - who supported the Brady Bill (Jim Baker).

GOA argues the correct way, stating that we have a right to keep and bear arms, period - for defense of our property, our person and our liberties, and that American gun ownership is one the things that may help prevent government tyranny over the people. NRA never has gone that far.

But lately, they have sided with the gun-control freaks, which put them totally over the edge.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6351.html

.

DealzOnWheelz
12-20-2007, 07:45 PM
This is RIDICULOUS

Wayne Hammond
12-20-2007, 07:47 PM
This is RIDICULOUS

What is ridiculous?

.

Miles Dunn
12-20-2007, 07:48 PM
Here is the response I got...


Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. Regarding your comments, Congressman Ron Paul was invited to the National Rifle Association's Celebration of American Values. The NRA did not receive a response from him. As a result, there is no mention of your candidate in the article. If Congressman Paul had accepted the invitation, or contacted the NRA prior to the event, every effort would have been made to accommodate his appearance. In fact, NRA did work with a number of candidates who did not RSVP and we facilitated their appearance in person or via videotaped message. The same courtesy would have been given to the Ron Paul campaign had they contacted us. If and when the NRA has another candidate forum, we would hope that Congressman Paul would participate - either in person, or via videotaped message.

Best Regards,

Ryan Irsik

NRA-ILA

SWATH
12-20-2007, 07:53 PM
Here is the response I got...

That is why I didn't jump the gun and start railing the NRA over this just yet. This is either:

1. a colossal blunder by the campaign
2. Paul deliberately avoiding the NRA
3. distortion by the NRA

By the way that magazine goes out to almost 4 million people.

Wayne Hammond
12-20-2007, 07:54 PM
Here is the response I got...

Yep, Ron Paul probably refused to go because he knows the NRA is a compromising, so-called "gun-rights" organization that gives in repeatedly to the gun-grabbers, using the dues of honest, 2nd Amendment-loving members who don't know any better.

Ron Paul said that the GOA is "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington" - that right there tells me that our man believes that the NRA has compromised our 2nd Amendment rights.

.

Dave Pedersen
12-20-2007, 07:56 PM
It reminds me of when I saw Bill Clinton (who as president had sworn to uphold our Constitution) approach a table arrayed with various military looking rifles and chuckled in disgust pointing out that these guns are obviously not for hunting.. misleading people about the purpose of the second amendment. Of course the media was happy to show this clip all day long without ever calling him on his deception.

NRA = Neocons Raping America. Almost all of our institutions have been purchased to destroy our ability to fight the NWO. Those with good sounding names command a premium but then what is money when you own the world?

Almost.. wake up before the internet is purchased.

Gun Owners of America is what we should support.

SWATH
12-20-2007, 07:58 PM
Yep, Ron Paul probably refused to go because he knows the NRA is a compromising, so-called "gun-rights" organization that gives in repeatedly to the gun-grabbers, using the dues of honest, 2nd Amendment-loving members who don't know any better.

Ron Paul said that the GOA is "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington" - that right there tells me that our man believes that the NRA has compromised our 2nd Amendment rights.

.

I know but Ron has said he goes wherever he is invited to talk about freedom. He went on the view and talked about abortion. He had a great opportunity to talk about real gun rights. It doesn't make sense. Has anyone heard from the campaign about this?

Wayne Hammond
12-20-2007, 08:00 PM
That is why I didn't jump the gun and start railing the NRA over this just yet.

Feel free to rail against the NRA. They definitely deserve it and have purposely chosen to betray American gun owners.

Read this from GOA on the recent legislation:


Fair use from: http://gunowners.org/a122007.htm

Gun Owners Get Stabbed In The Back

-- Veterans Disarmament Act on its way to the President

"To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive" -- Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), CBS News, December 20, 2007

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Gun Owners of America and its supporters took a knife in the back yesterday, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) out-smarted his congressional opposition into agreeing on a so-called "compromise" on HR 2640 -- a bill which now goes to the President's desk.

The bill -- known as the Veterans Disarmament Act to its opponents -- is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign.

The Brady Bunch crowed "Victory! U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady Background Check System." The NRA stated that last minute changes to the McCarthy bill made a "good bill even better [and that] the end product is a win for American gun owners."

But Gun Owners of America has issued public statements decrying this legislation.

The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a "prohibited person" on the basis of a "medical finding of disability," so long as a veteran had an "opportunity" for some sort of "hearing" before some "lawful authority" (other than a court). Presumably, this "lawful authority" could even be the psychiatrist himself.

Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn't have to occur. The "lawful authority" doesn't have to be unbiased. The veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney -- much less an attorney financed by the government.

So what do the proponents have to say about this?

ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.

ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied the right to own a firearm.

And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.

More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the "right hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST." (Emphasis added.)

Um, doesn't this language sound similar to those state codes (like California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!

Prediction: liberal states -- the same states that took these people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting relief would be "contrary to the public interest."

Let's make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton Presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans -- promoted by the Brady Anti-Gun Campaign -- is illegal and morally reprehensible.

But section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily barred from possessing firearms.

True, they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn't have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.

Language proposed by GOA would have automatically restored a veteran's gun rights if the agency sat on its hands for a year. Unfortunately, the GOA amendment was not included.

The Veterans Disarmament Act passed the Senate and the House yesterday -- both times WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE. That is, the bill passed by Unanimous Consent, and was then transmitted to the White House.

Long-time GOA activists will remember that a similar "compromise" deal helped the original Brady Law get passed. In 1993, there were only two or three senators on the floor of that chamber who used a Unanimous Consent agreement (with no recorded vote) to send the Brady bill to President Clinton -- at a time when most legislators had already left town for their Thanksgiving Break.

Gun owners can go to http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm to read about how this betrayal occurred 14 years ago.

With your help, Gun Owners of America has done a yeoman's job of fighting gun control over the years, considering the limited resources that we have. Together, we were able to buck the Brady Campaign/NRA coalition in 1999 (after the Columbine massacre) and were able to defeat the gun control that was proposed in the wake of that shooting.

Yesterday, we were not so lucky. But we are not going to go away. GOA wants to repeal the gun-free zones that disarm law-abiding Americans and repeal the other gun restrictions that are on the books. That is the answer to Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, the House and Senate chose the path of imposing more gun control.

So our appeal to you is this -- please help us to grow this coming year. Please help us to get more members and activists. If you add $10 to your membership renewal this year, we can reach new gun owners in the mail and tell them about GOA.

Please urge your friends to join GOA... and, at the very least, make sure they sign up for our free e-mail alerts so that we can mobilize more gun owners than ever before!

Wayne Hammond
12-20-2007, 08:01 PM
I know but Ron has said he goes wherever he is invited to talk about freedom. He went on the view and talked about abortion. He had a great opportunity to talk about real gun rights. It doesn't make sense. Has anyone heard from the campaign about this?

Yeah, if he wants to talk at their event, I say great. It would be pretty cool to hear Dr. Paul rail against these gun grabbers at their own event.

.

user
12-20-2007, 08:02 PM
There was already a thread about this, a bunch of people emailed them, and we got the same response.

davidkachel
12-20-2007, 08:15 PM
Another EX - NRA member.
They've gotten their last dollar to vote against my gun rights.

xd9fan
12-20-2007, 08:54 PM
people take your tinfoil hat off please!!!!!

The NRA is a lobby group.

Ron doesnt do lobby groups, only "we the people"

God calm down, take a crap already.