Why the current Stance of the National Rifle Association(NRA) is wrong (and needs to change)

Hello,

The title got you curious, didn't it?

If you are a liberal who thinks I want the NRA to be dissolved, you are sadly mistaken. If you are a conservative who is hoping to get a critique of the NRA, you are in luck. If you are a moderate that is content with the NRA, stick around, you may learn something.

In the past few years, especially since the 2016 election, the attack on gun ownership, certain guns and accessories, have received the full wrath of liberals, March for our Lives, the anti-gun Parkland survivors, etc. The media and guns rights advocates have been able to spin public opinion and are winning this fight. Their objective is clear: to to ban all guns and reduce our defense against tyranny. Why?  I wish I knew. If I were to guess, to keep Americans from defending themselves...from something much darker.

But that's not what I am here to write to you about, is it? This is about the NRA, a weak NRA at that. Which although its members, such as myself , take the Second Amendment and its purpose  seriously, the NRA does not seem to share the same passion and zeal. A passion for the second amendment and its purpose the NRA no longer has;  nor the spine or veracity for this fight. Why do I say this? and why am I so upset about it?

The NRA for the 20 years  has held that the purpose of the Second Amendment is for self defense. It is a vague  and weak argument, which cannot be easily applied to all guns or all situations.  The NRA therefore, needs to change the argument of the Second Amendment to the meaning of the founders: the Second Amendment is to protect Americans from a tyrannical government. If the the NRA does not do so, it is very likely  it will not survive; and with it's death the Second Amendment.

Now to their credit,  some NRA spokespeople have gone on the offensive. Like Dana Loesch and Colion Noir. Noir who made a tweet  on February 28th 2018 that said: "Because you all keep telling us we won't be able to fight off a tyrannical  government (The 2nd isn't about hunting)  with our little pistols so we also have AR's."  Point being that is  why we have the Second Amendment;  to be armed to defend ourselves as a people against a tyrannical government. So why hasn't the NRA as an organization been stronger in saying the exact same thing?

In a Join the NRA ad, the message is freedom, protect the right to own and purchase firearms, and  right to protect yourself. These are all well and good, so why the hell am I upset with their message? because with the recent assaults on our freedoms, their message doesn't go far enough. How so? because the argument made by the NRA is defensive, and not an offensive one. It fizzles out at protecting  your home and whether you should  have an AR-15...but does  little to back up why you should.

The even bigger issue is that by starting with this argument, it is easy to argue many guns and accessories illegal; because they are not needed for hunting or defense. For example, you truly do not need an AR-15 for self defense or hunting. You do not need a semi-auto AK or "assault weapon" for those purposes either.  You have shotguns, revolvers and bolt actions for self defense and hunting.  That's how it is argued. what it should be is ARs, AKs, etc are the last thing we the people can have to defend against tyranny. Cannot have fully automatic weapons or explosives or cannons, so that's it. If we lose those, we have nothing left.

So let's talk about the NRA shall we? The National Rifle Association along with its Institute Legislative Action , touts itself as the defender  of the Second Amendment. Per their  mission statement: "...[the] NRA continues  to uphold  the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime." From their recent achievements listed on their site; the  NRA  has worked  hard  recently to try and lobby against further federal and state gun laws; they are  pushing for statewide carry reciprocity; and  are the #1 organization in America with promoting firearms safety, training and  competition, respectively.

To understand this  we must start  with the history of the NRA  and review their history to the current day:

According to the NRA's website  in a brief history (NRA.org/about-the-nra), it was started by Union Civil War veterans Col. William C Church and Gen. George Wingate in 1871. Both were dismayed  by the lack of marksmanship of their troops, and founded the NRA with the "primary goal of the association would be to promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." By 1873, NRA sanctioned matches were being held. The NRA moved to promote  shooting  sports  to youth in 1903, and by 1906 NRA's youth program had 200 participants in a boy's rifle match that year. The NRA continued to market itself in its commitment to training, education,and marksmanship. It was not politically  involved until 1934, when it formed the Legislative Affairs Division. This was right after the  1933 national Firearms Act. It was not a direct lobby group, just mailed out facts to members regarding Gun legislation. It was not until the 1970's  that the NRA would become a Second Amendment "defender".

This fundamental shift in the NRA came from an internal revolution, aka the Cincinnati Revolution in 1975. This came at a time the NRA wanted to move their head quarters, ditch the political activism, and be committed to hunting and  competition...much to the begrudgement of many members. So when members at the time revolted, they took over the board of directors and  cleaned house. What was formed consequently was the Institute for legislative action (ILA). According to their website: The Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the lobbying arm of the NRA. Established in 1975, ILA is committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What followed in the 80's and 90's  was  activism through the NRA and ILA to lobby and  try to stop any new  gun laws and restrictions  from being passed. The Modern era of the NRA that most of us are aware of is the Charlton Heston era; who was president and spokesperson of the NRA from 1998-2003. A member since 1941,  Heston was influential in making the NRA-ILA known for  defending the Second Amendment and overall rights to own and posses guns. Most of us think of the NRA in this way. Many of us remember Heston holding that Kentucky Rifle over his head  and proclaiming: "From my cold dead hands!" Likewise we remember the interviews of Heston stating the Second Amendment right was non negotiable on news Shows. This is what we know the NRA for being, it is clearly not this today. Today it is a multi-million organization that compromises  with the ATF and the Federal government.

I started writing  this in August 2018. Since that time the ATF  and NRA supported bump stock ban has gone into effect. I was not sure at the time  how people reading this would react.  With recent developments it has become clear  that the NRA is not a true defender of the Second Amendment. The NRA will not  fight to remove current Federal laws or  try to enforce the original intent of the  Second Amendment.  Furthermore with the history of the NRA presented here, it is no wonder  why the  NRA is not going to push or fight for "assault weapons" or weapons to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. They will protect guns for hunting, collecting and at times self defense; but not support your right  to have weapons to defend yourself when the Army is sent to take you.  Sound extreme? well it wasn't in 1776, and should not be so now.

In closing, the NRA must choose a more aggressive course and correct itself. it must through strong leadership and  a stronger message  be able to start its argument that the Second Amendment  shall not be infringed. That the purpose is not for self-defense of the individual but protect the people and free state from tyranny. if they do not do this I fear they will be nothing more than a national gun club again. That the Second Amendment will be lost, and although there are better groups out there such as Gun owners of America, the loss of the NRA will mean an end to defending the last wall between freedom and oppression.

Author's note: I joined the NRA in 2016 as a 5 year member. As a member I am disheartened by their  lack of interest in defending the second amendment.

A Warning to those causing our second Civil War

Some thoughts: It is one thing, in fact it is one's duty as a citizen to scrutinize their government. To make sure our government officials are held accountable and follow the Constitution; so that we do not live in tyranny...

However, it is quite another to cause insurrection and usurp authority and to call for the death of our President. To stoke the embers of hatred and violence into death and fear is not "protecting democracy" nor is it "fighting fascism", it is making the very thing you are fighting against: a totalitarian state.

I get it, you think you are fighting a just cause...but where were you when Obama betrayed our country to foreign powers? When he told the UN we as Americans needed to accept a one world government? Or bailing out the big banks multiple times? You were SILENT. Which means the your cause is as hypocritical as your timing.

I will be the first to tell you that I cringed when those on the right hoped for Obama to be assassinated...he was voted in by the people, through the electoral college. We did not burn businesses, we did not kill Democrats, and we did not ask our bosses days off to protest; we we protested peacefully and waited for the next election.

Furthermore, I saw this coming. Which is why I didn't vote this election. It would either be revolution with Clinton or civil war with Trump; either one is Americans killing Americans. This cannot be laughed off or thought as a conspiracy theory anymore...this is happening now. And just like with any war, it starts with incidents and mobs...who turn into a movement and then becomes organized into an army. A nation divided against itself cannot stand and we are about to fall apart as a country. It won't be pretty and it saddens me beyond words...

In closing, the left, the liberals, antifa, etc have chosen the path to war. They have chosen this path. If you (the aforementioned) are reading this, understand what you are doing: you are exciting violence, you are playing into the hands of the powers that be and once Martial law is declared from this we all lose our freedoms. Stop while there is still time because once it starts it won't end...

I pray God will have mercy upon us and upon our country. That His judgement that has been stayed for so long can be delayed and he will see that a majority of this country are righteous...but if not...that he spares the righteous from His holy wrath.

The ban and the wall.

I don't normally rant but but with the travel ban of a few Muslim countries and proper vetting even of those who may have green cards... I hope that those who wish to annihilate us are scared.

I was appalled that feminists in the women's March chanted allahu Akbar...That liberal spinsters say Sharia law is just a cultural thing we need to accept....Or that we can trust them....

Friends, acquaintances, co-workers, etc both liberal, conservative or other; I can promise you that under Sharia law we will all take part of it, and the kufars (unbelievers) especially the infidels, blasphemers (Christians), Jews, gays, hippies, and so on... Basically all non Muslims will be either killed, raped, forced to live in poverty, enslaved, etc...All for not being Muslim.

When over 50% of Muslims in American Muslim communities want Sharia law you should be concerned. If you've ever heard of voice of the Martyrs, you should be concerned.

One final thing about the wall, as it has come to be known, is a hot topic. Now I will grant that there is valid debate on how to finance it, who's to build it, etc...But there is no questioning the principal behind it or the enforcement of our immigration laws already on the books...

It's not a race or a rich versus poor debate; but whether we are governed by law.  Mexico has strict immigration laws...In fact they locked up an American soldier who they claimed crossed over illegally for 100+ days.  Canada enforces their laws...Want to move there because you're sad about the election? Good luck on a work visa and trying to make 6 years before you can get Canadian government benefits. Britain enforces their laws, Ukraine enforces their laws, Saudi Arabia enforces their laws, etc why do we have to make an exception? If you want to come here then you come here legally...Heck if Mexico stops enforcement of their laws then by all means come in as you have, until then know that the law, not feelings and usurpations, take precedence in the USA.

Done

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to...

What a presidential candidate should be running on.

A Review and Summary of Dinesh D'Souza's Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party

Last night I watched D'Souza's new movie last night and here is a brief summary and some critiques that I have.

The Summary:

Introduction: D'Souza starts with his conviction of breaking campaign finance laws.  His time in jail and  that his idea of America changed, getting an idea of Hillary through conversations with gangs in jail.

The History of the Democratic party:  Using Andrew Jackson, the civil war and Woodrow Wilson as the main examples of how the Dems have been on the side of racism, using Ida B Wells to show that blacks were Republican until the New Deal was formed.

He then used Margaret Sanger to coincide  Democrats  being not just against blacks but  against women and pro eugenics (making a master race and getting rid of undesirable peoples).

Hillary Clinton: Using her mentor Saul Alinsky to open,  D'Souza makes the case that Hillary and her husband Bill are crooks and criminals, going back to their first meeting (and prior to) through being in Arkansas and the White House and recently the  Clinton Foundation and as Secretary of state.

Ending: Trying to tie it all together,  with the history of the Democratic party and the Clintons; how can one with a conscience vote for them? Ending with a choir singing the complete Star Spangled banner.

Now obviously this movie is to convince people to not vote for Hillary. Will it be successful? Well I offer the pros and cons of the movie's purpose and a couple critiques. Let it also be known that  Dinesh D'Souza is an immigrant from India, is a conservative and had made an earlier movie of the same vein; Obama's America.

The Pros:

• Accurately showed how current Democrats try to distance themselves or outright lie about their party's history.
• Showed why Blacks and women, Hillary's  projected largest blocks of  voters, should not vote for her.
• Showed how Dems have  been involved since the  turn of the century to get involved with immigrants to vote Democrat.
• Showed well that Obama and Hillary had a similar mentor, Saul Alinsky and his ties to the mafia.
• Finally, Hillary's past shows that she doesn't care for the things she allegedly represents.
• Great coverage on the Clinton Foundation.

The Cons:

• There was way too much time spent on racism.
• The movie seemed aimed for an audience of democrat blacks and democrat women; completely missed a Bernie Sanders audience.
• Very little marketing of this movie meant hardly anyone will see it.
• Unlike his movie about Obama, there was no listing of what an America with hillary would look like other than her "stealing" it.  So kind of anti-climatic.

A few critiques:

1. Again, too much time on racism.  when he got to Woodrow Wilson, I was hoping he would show him as helping with making the IRS, the 16th Amendment, and founding the Federal reserve...that democrats empowered the same banks.  

2. He should have made points as to what America will look like with Hillary in office; a better summing up.

3. Finally, the constant focus of the civil war only being about slavery. This only distracts from the message.

Overall, I thought it was good, but did not sum up very well in my opinion.

What ISIS Really is.

This is an article by Graeme Wood from The Atlantic.  I am posting the link to it in its entirety.  Please read and understand.  

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/