Just do it...

[PALADIN85020]

If you are a firearms owner, your right to keep and bear those firearms has never been in more jeopardy. Anti-gun politicians at the local, state and national level are working very hard to see to it that the Second Amendment is erased from the history books. A UN arms treaty is in the wings, which threatens to override our Constitution. A concerted effort to justify further restrictions on semiauto "assault rifles" has been launched, typified by the botched "Fast and Furious" fiasco that sent thousands of guns to Mexico, aided and abetted by our government. If the next President appoints just one more gun-hating Justice to the Supreme Court, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye, and it will take decades to undo the damage, if ever.

The sky IS falling on your gun rights, and the foremost defender of your rights, and of all the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, is the National Rifle Association of America. They ain't perfect, but they are the thousand-pound gorilla in the room, and they have, with the collective support of people like you, the power to sway politicians and voters - big time. If you are not a member, then SHAME ON YOU. Get YOUR shoulder behind the wheel and become a member now. Today. Do it.

If you are already a member, give generously to the NRA Institute for Legislative action and the NRA Political Victory Fund. I'm just an old retired guy with a limited income now, but this year, instead of adding a number of guns to my collection, I'm investing serious cash in the NRA, so that you, I, and future generations can continue to enjoy our firearms freedoms. I want to look around me and know that I'm not standing alone on this. The NRA is going "all in" this year for you. Will you stand up and be counted? Are you with me?

Thanks on behalf of future generations of Americans.

John

FREEDOM

 

[snowman]

John,

Thanks for the reminder; I've been a member for awhile and will continue to be.

I do have a question which I probably should ask the NRA itself, but I'm not sure whom to talk to, and maybe you can answer it. A year or so ago I received one of Chris Cox's letters, and in the "P.S." section on the last page he said that NONE of our membership dues money goes toward the preservation of our gun rights, only contributions to the Institute for Legislative Action.

That threw me for a loop. The only reason I'm a member is to preserve my gun rights, and all the other NRA material I read up to that time said that my membership helped preserve my gun rights. What am I to make of this?

Andy

 

[PALADIN85020]

John,

Thanks for the reminder; I've been a member for awhile and will continue to be.

I do have a question which I probably should ask the NRA itself, but I'm not sure whom to talk to, and maybe you can answer it. A year or so ago I received one of Chris Cox's letters, and in the "P.S." section on the last page he said that NONE of our membership dues money goes toward the preservation of our gun rights, only contributions to the Institute for Legislative Action.

That threw me for a loop. The only reason I'm a member is to preserve my gun rights, and all the other NRA material I read up to that time said that my membership helped preserve my gun rights. What am I to make of this?

Andy

As I understand it, most of the membership dues money goes to your getting the monthly publication, paying the NRA staff and overhead, sponsoring shooting events, education and financing communications to you. It's kind of like laying the foundation of the house. Without the foundation, the house wouldn't stand or even exist. The money that is actually used to fight for your gun rights is channeled through the NRA-ILA and the NRA-PVF. Your membership dues make you a member of the crew, but the ILA and PVF are the oars that move the ship through the political waters. It's so important to be on board, and then when you're on board, it's doubly important to work those oars.

Hope I didn't get my metaphors all tangled here, but that's the way the system works. The upshot is: join and then work for our mutual goals. By the way, if you choose to just be a member, that adds to the numbers of supporters the NRA can claim and marshal for support when working with politicians. The congresscritters tend to be influenced by the number of active constituents any organization has, and that's why the NRA has so much muscle on Capitol Hill. Just one look at the crowds attending the last NRA convention should make the anti-gunners tremble in their ballet shoes.

John

 

[COL Jagdog]

John,

Very good message - we are members and staunch supporters.

Two thoughts -- notwithstanding several recent US Supreme Court
decisions supporting the Second Amendment (the Chicago case being one of those decisions), Illinois and Chicago politicians and liberal judges are still trying to throw up roadblocks to enjoying true 2nd Amendment freedoms in those areas. Several justices are approaching the age that they they may well be expected to retire and the next 2 appointments to the USSC will be critical. An overly liberal USSC would be a real threat to gun rights.

Regarding the UN's pending treaty/convention on small arms, I believe that that is much less of a threat -- notwithstanding the current administration's attempts to re-write or ignore the Constitution, an
international treaty cannot legally abrogate US constitutional rights.
The proposed treaty might govern international arms sales of small arms but cannot serve as a legal basis to gut our 2nd Amendment rights.

A good first step right now would be for the full Congress to hold the current US Attorney General in contempt as a predicate for the appointment of a special prosecutor -- the "Rule of Law" trumps politics. I have studied "Fast and Furious" from it's first revelation and I am convinced that federal law was broken and that there should be indictments of those responsible for that miserably failed operation --
an operation that I am convinced was going to be used as an excuse to ram "gun control" down our throats using a "pre-ordained" set of "conclusions" from that operation as justification.

Bernie

 

[PALADIN85020]

John,

Very good message - we are members and staunch supporters.

Two thoughts -- notwithstanding several recent US Supreme Court
decisions supporting the Second Amendment (the Chicago case being one of those decisions), Illinois and Chicago politicians and liberal judges are still trying to throw up roadblocks to enjoying true 2nd Amendment freedoms in those areas. Several justices are approaching the age that they they may well be expected to retire and the next 2 appointments to the USSC will be critical. An overly liberal USSC would be a real threat to gun rights.

Regarding the UN's pending treaty/convention on small arms, I believe that that is much less of a threat -- notwithstanding the current administration's attempts to re-write or ignore the Constitution, an
international treaty cannot legally abrogate US constitutional rights.
The proposed treaty might govern international arms sales of small arms but cannot serve as a legal basis to gut our 2nd Amendment rights.

A good first step right now would be for the full Congress to hold the current US Attorney General in contempt as a predicate for the appointment of a special prosecutor -- the "Rule of Law" trumps politics. I have studied "Fast and Furious" from it's first revelation and I am convinced that federal law was broken and that there should be indictments of those responsible for that miserably failed operation --
an operation that I am convinced was going to be used as an excuse to ram "gun control" down our throats using a "pre-ordained" set of "conclusions" from that operation as justification.

Bernie

Bernie, as long as we have a pro-gun majority in the Senate, it would be difficult for the UN arms treaty to be approved. Senate approval is a requirement for any treaty to go into effect. However, there are several schools of thought on whether an approved treaty would trump the Constitution. An anti-gun executive branch could take the wrong path and use a treaty as an excuse to invalidate or just plain ignore/subvert the Second Amendment.

All the more reason to ensure a pro-gun Senate and a pro-gun executive branch. The NRA is working hard to get both in the next election.

John

 

[redlevel]

By the way, if you choose to just be a member, that adds to the numbers of supporters the NRA can claim and marshal for support when working with politicians. The congresscritters tend to be influenced by the number of active constituents any organization has, and that's why the NRA has so much muscle on Capitol Hill.

Ed Zackery. I have been a member, one or two years at the time, for 40+ years now. I have seldom sent any money other than membership dues. I choose to support pro-gun candidates at the state level and congressional level with contributions. I am also a member of a state organization (GCO) that has been very effective.

 

[StatesRightist]

Excellent post Paladin.

 

[crazykg85]

Bernie, as long as we have a pro-gun majority in the Senate, it would be difficult for the UN arms treaty to be approved. Senate approval is a requirement for any treaty to go into effect. However, there are several schools of thought on whether an approved treaty would trump the Constitution. An anti-gun executive branch could take the wrong path and use a treaty as an excuse to invalidate or just plain ignore/subvert the Second Amendment.

All the more reason to ensure a pro-gun Senate and a pro-gun executive branch. The NRA is working hard to get both in the next election.

John

To be quite honest, it doesn't matter the political beliefs of either the House or the Senate. Since President Wilson was elected in 1912 there has been a major war decidedly one sided for the battle of Constitutional rights and the Constitution has been losing. Between the idea of "Progressive Movement" and the battle against Public Religion of all faiths, States Rights and our beloved second amendment, we are already on the losing side. The NRA is a strong organization, but it needs more help and I do not mean money. The entire populace needs to be educated on the Constitution, what it means and why it was written.

Please check out this book written by Cleon Skousen, 5000 year leap, five thousand year leap-NCCS . This link is from the National Center of Constitutional Studies. This is a phenomenal educational document that should be shared with everyone.

 

[Poodle Soup]

When Im able to afford it I will be a member. What Im more worried about is how many people right now wouldn't care if guns were taken away, education is key. Not more lawyers.

 

[McBear]

The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with internal affairs of member countries, which means it has nothing to do with implications to the 2nd Amendment. It only has to do with export of weapons to and from member countries.

From the original resolution [61/89] “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

Fabricating a problem where none exists is one of the things that diminishes the credibility of the firearms community. It gives those who have differing beliefs the impression that "those gun nuts are just paranoid". That is not helpful to the legitimate discussion.

 

[StatesRightist]

The UN Arms Treaty is a threat to our rights, as the UN in general is. We should withdraw from the UN and boot it's corrupt butt off of our soil. Anything coming out if it is at best, suspect.

There are multiple reasons the Arms Treaty is a threat to to our rights.

Here are a few:

1. We should not acknowledge the UN's right to even comment on our gun policies, trade policies or any other policy, let alone have a say in them. This fact alone should be clear to any liberty minded person.

2. SIG's, HK's etc in the US do not need their numbers available and price artificially controlled by UN flunkies.

3. The Treaty authorizes the UN to track all guns sales, purchases etc.

4. The treaty would put the UN smack in the middle of the guns to Mexico farce being perpetuated by Libs to justify more stringent gun control. Yeah, let's put the UN in charge of generating the numbers of illicit arms in play everywhere, they will be a fair and non-agenda driven proposition.

5. I could go on, but there is a wealth of information written by better versed people available on Google.

It amazes me anyone could think the UN Arms Treaty is a neutral document or that we want any part of their tentacles in our business.

 

[StatesRightist]

The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with internal affairs of member countries, which means it has nothing to do with implications to the 2nd Amendment. It only has to do with export of weapons to and from member countries.

From the original resolution [61/89] “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

Fabricating a problem where none exists is one of the things that diminishes the credibility of the firearms community. It gives those who have differing beliefs the impression that "those gun nuts are just paranoid". That is not helpful to the legitimate discussion.

Straight from the UN think tank....

But in spite of its desperate efforts to rebut Second Amendment concerns, the U.N. can’t stop stepping on its own shoelaces. After proclaiming that the ATT “does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons,” the CASA paper goes on to say that “United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been…misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.”

If you can't read between the lines there........

 

[nipster]

I think some of you spend too much time listening to talk radio and reading some pretty biased websites.

This "UN treaty" nonsense is really making the rounds lately on all the gun websites even though the info is like 3 years old and nothing has been discussed in quite some time, plus it would not, nor could not affect our rights as a sovereign nation.

 

[StatesRightist]

You're right, by signing something that opens us up to inspections by foreign bodies and their forcing us to only sell or produce certain quantities of goods, it does not affect our Sovereignty at all..... I gave factual concerns, but I'll be sure to give subjective opinion the value it deserves.

The Conference to finalize the Treaty is next month, maybe you need to find different sources of info
yourself. The NRA, our last UN Ambassador and a host of others oppose it...I guess they are not balanced viewpoints, right?

 

[nipster]

You're right, by signing something that opens us up to inspections by foreign bodies and their forcing us to only sell or produce certain quantities of goods, it does not affect our Sovereignty at all..... I gave factual concerns, but I'll be sure to give subjective opinion the value it deserves.

The Conference to finalize the Treaty is next month, maybe you need to find different sources of info
yourself. The NRA, our last UN Ambassador and a host of others oppose it...I guess they are not balanced viewpoints, right?

There has been no movement on this so called treaty for years (since Jan 2009), so for all intents and purposes, it's all but dead. Where is your info that they are meeting next month to approve it? Plus, there is the fact that all treaties the U.S. is involved in have to be ratified by 2/3'ds a vote of the Senate. That's why the US never entered the league of nations after WW1. You dont honestly believe they would do that do you?

There is so much misinformation out there just designed to scare and mislead people. You obviously have your agenda.

 

[StatesRightist]

There has been no movement on this so called treaty for years (since Jan 2009), so for all intents and purposes, it's all but dead. Plus, there is the fact that all treaties the U.S. is involved in have to be ratified by 2/3'ds a vote of the Senate. That's why the US never entered the league of nations after WW1. You dont honestly believe they would do that do you?

There is so much misinformation out there just designed to scare and mislead people. You obviously have your agenda.

No, I do not believe the Senate will pass it. I also believe one of the primary reasons they will not do it and people like Obama have not tried to pass more gun control is because of groups like the NRA who rally the troops and spend huge dollars exposing the anti-gunners.

The meeting to finalize it is next month, what part of that did you miss? That's about as live as it gets. Seriously, if you don't even know the treaty's timelines, perhaps you really aren't as informed as you think you are. No they will not get it done, THIS time, but we need to make sure everyone is aware of the tricks, methods and people involved in trying to get this thing passed and vote against them and their agents every election.

Yes, I have an agenda. Getting people to support the NRA etc and stand up for their rights....no apologies or denials here.

......and back to the main point...Support the NRA.

 

[nipster]

The meeting to finalize it is next month, what part of that did you miss? That's about as live as it gets.

When news of this was making the rounds on all the internet gun forums, I did some basic research and all I could find were some reuters stories from January 2009, nothing newer. Where did you hear anything was happening next month?

And I do support the NRA.

But I do not support fear mongering.

 

[StatesRightist]

When news of this was making the rounds on all the internet gun forums, I did some basic research and all I could find were some reuters stories from January 2009, nothing newer. Where did you hear anything was happening next month?

And I do support the NRA.

But I do not support fear mongering.

The NRA says it's a threat, you call what the NRA is publishing fear mongering, your last two sentences are a logical impossibility. So which is it, you support the NRA or the UN position? You can't have both.

I personally am not mongering anything, since I am not the originator of the opposition to the Treaty, but a supporter of the opposition merely restating conclusions by experts in the field.

UNODA - Towards an Arms Trade Treaty

Straight from the UN website...

I'm done "discussing" this with you. I'm not going to change your mind and you have zero creditability on this issue with me. We're wasting each others time. I'll leave it at I sincerely hope you have a nice weekend and we don't have to agree, it won't shatter either of our worlds. Have a good one.

 

[nipster]

I think it's fear mongering because it has zero chance of being adopted and affecting U.S. citizens. Therefore, why bring it up.

I dont care what the U.N. tries to do with the rest of the world. I only care what affects our rights here in the U.S. And this will not affect our rights.

In reading this document, the "prepcom", the U.S. wasnt even involved in the committee. That tells me there is no support at all from the U.S. Despite what that 2009 reuters article seems to indicate.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/conva...pCom4 Documents/PrepCom Report_E_20120307.pdf

I find it odd there has been nearly zero news or info out there about this since 2009, but reading the UN website you linked, they have apparently met a few times (without U.S. representation mind you). The "goals" I find fascinating

III. Goals and objectives
This Treaty will seek to:
1. Promote the goals and objectives of the United Nations Charter;
2. Establish the highest possible common international standards for the import,
export and transfer of conventional arms;
3. Prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit transfer, illicit production and illicit
brokering of conventional arms and their diversion into the illicit market, including
for use in transnational organized crime and terrorism;
4. Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability by
preventing international transfers of conventional arms that contribute to or
facilitate: human suffering, serious violations of international human rights law and
international humanitarian law, violations of United Nations Security Council
sanctions and arms embargoes and other international obligations, armed conflict,
the displacement of people, transnational organized crime, and terrorist acts, and
thereby undermine peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable
social and economic development;
A/CONF.217/1
12-25659 13
5. Promote transparency and accountability in import, export, and transfers of
conventional arms;
6. Be universal in its application.
IV. Scope
1. For the purposes of this Treaty, conventional arms shall include any items that
fall within the following categories:
(a) Tanks;
(b) Military vehicles;
(c) Artillery systems;
(d) Military aircraft (manned or unmanned);
(e) Military helicopters (manned or unmanned);
(f) Naval vessels (surface and submarine vessels armed or equipped for
military use);
(g) Missiles and missile systems (guided or unguided);
(h) Small arms;
(i) Light weapons;
(j) Ammunition for use with weapons referred to in paragraphs (a) to (i);
(k) Parts or components specially and exclusively designed for any of the
categories set out in paragraphs (a) to (j);
(l) Technology and equipment specially and exclusively designed and used
to develop, manufacture or maintain any of the items in the categories set out in
paragraphs (a) to (k).
2. The international transactions or activities covered by this Treaty include those
listed below and defined in Annex A:
(a) Import;
(b) Export;
(c) Transfer;
(d) Brokering;
(e) Manufacture under foreign licence;
(f) Technology transfer.


This is so far out there, I think all but the most liberal countries would never vote for this

 

[nipster]

John,
You certainly just got me confused. I am also an old retired guy who has been mailing a check to the NRA for over 30 years.

Now you say that I am paying salaries? To who?

You are paying the salaries of lobbyists for the most part.

It's pretty naive to think that the NRA doesnt have any full time staff.