Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/5/2001 9:00:02 AM EDT
Libertyof76's post above regarding the fund to challenge US gun laws, has raised an interesting point, actually it was hielo that opened my eyes to this. do organizations develop a "survival instinct"?? meaning, will the NRA participate to overthrow Miller with the full knowledge that it might render their organization useless? along the same lines: do police departments have, at the center of their mission, the hope that someday they won't need to be so large? or do they want to grow? are they in league with prison designers? meaning, why do prisons punish instead of rehabilitate? do they operate with the hopes of being non-existent someday? these are intriguing questions for which the answers could explain, IMHO, much of Americas problems.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:08:04 AM EDT
do organizations develop a survival instinct? some, yes.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:18:43 AM EDT
if yes, do you believe it is right to support these organizations. i mean, isn't the idea of a PD or a prison to reduce crime? why then, do they all seem to have insatiable appetites for more funding? more importantly, shouldn't we support the NRA if and only if their mission is to ultimately [b]restore[/b] our rights, instead of simply defending the ones we have left?
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:38:12 AM EDT
yes, i believe organizations develop a survival instinct. as for the NRA, you should be glad it has. i believe that it's existence is THE reason that we aren't completely disarmed yet. however, the overthrow of Miller will not "render the NRA useless" as you put it. as i recall, the NRA was around long before this hideous assault on our rights began in earnest. it's existence was not and is not defined solely by it's fight to protect our rights. i can list about a dozen things off the top of my head that the NRA provides, and will continue to provide, should we be lucky enough to win this war. bring it on. i look forward to the day when the NRA's main focus is something other than protecting our rights.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:41:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fattym4: more importantly, shouldn't we support the NRA if and only if their mission is to ultimately [b]restore[/b] our rights, instead of simply defending the ones we have left?
View Quote
personally, i take all the help i can get. and frankly there's a limit to the resources of any one person or any one organization. looking at the bigger picture, it's easy to see that our rights are no where close to being restored while they're still being eroded away. the NRA can either spend it's money on the one or the other, not both. given that at this point in US history one is practically impossible, does it not make sense to back the other?
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:45:57 AM EDT
All organizations develops survival instincts. The instincts may be reflected by deliberate choices made. Or they may manifest themselves almost subconsciously. Organizations are made of people, and people crave power, wealth and prestige. They never willingly give it up, but fight blindly to keep it. It explains a lot, doesn't it? Failure of the justice system. Failure of the educational system. Failure of war on drugs. The size of government. Our national debt. Taxes The attacks against our liberties. No grand conspiracy, just millions of bureaucrats working to protect there jobs. The founding fathers knew this. to paraphrase: "Every several generations, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants".
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:46:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2001 9:46:40 AM EDT by fattym4]
ARLady, i agree 100%. hielo and i were discussing this above, and we agreed that the NRA will not fund an activity that will restore our rights, which brings us to the relevant issue, which is to support Libertyof76's cause, because nobody else will. but this raises another issue on the same lines: will the NRA be for or against us, it seems they cannot be both.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:49:38 AM EDT
BillofRights, yes, exactly! at what point does the wide-eyed, pro 2nd guy who wants a job at the NRA to make a difference become the shifty-eyed, power-monger that won't give up his desk, even if it benefits all of society? sad if you think about it...
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 10:17:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fattym4: ARLady, i agree 100%. hielo and i were discussing this above, and we agreed that the NRA will not fund an activity that will restore our rights, which brings us to the relevant issue, which is to support Libertyof76's cause, because nobody else will. but this raises another issue on the same lines: will the NRA be for or against us, it seems they cannot be both.
View Quote
oops. i don't think we agree 100%. the point i was making is that the fight right now is to stop the loss of rights. only when that is stopped can the focus return to restoring them. it's not the NRA won't support it because no one else will. period. it's that because no one else will, the battle is already lost. it's (unfortunately) a non-issue at this point in time. no one would listen if they were focusing their support on rights restoration. the battle is not there. [url]www.nrahq.org/history.asp[/url] the NRA was not founded to protect our rights, nor to preserve them. as an organization with a particular focus it does spend resources for our benefit to those purposes. however, as citizens we are stupid if we rely on the NRA to do what it is [b]OUR[/b] obligation to do. the NRA is not a citizen, therefore, it is not obligated to do anything regarding the laws of this nation. as a citizen, you are. it is our duty, and our duty alone. any help we get from the NRA in the form of logisitcs, lobbying (people power), whatever, is merely icing on the cake, it is still our responsibility to write letters, walk the streets, door-to-door if we must, and most importantly VOTE FOR OUR RIGHTS!!!!!! the NRA can't do this. why should we expect them too. i think that many gunowners foolishly believe that the existence of the NRA and its willingness to help us fight these battles means that their obligations are met by becoming members of it (or whatever other pro-2nd amendment organization you want to name, it's all the same.) some aspects of the NRA have become politicized. but that's the language our lawmakers speak. if we want to get a message to them, we have to speak THEIR language. stop or don't support the NRA if you must. but remember that it does more than just fight for our rights. if you don't like what it's doing, go out and do it yourself (bravo Libertyof76). it's your responsibility anyway. regarding whether the NRA supports us or doesn't. of course they can't do both. they are mutually exclusive. but who defines the standards? you? i believe that the NRA will always be supporting the 2nd amendment. it just may not do so to your satisfaction. this does not mean that it is against us.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 10:39:42 AM EDT
no, we still agree. i know that the NRA was founded in 1871, i know that they have many duties, one of which is to protect the second. my question was for those who think, like me, that the ultimate goal of organizatins who proclaim to "protect" or "preserve" anything, should be to ultimately become LESS busy and smaller, instead of MORE busy and bigger. and that both can not exist in reality. so, what are these institutions really about? making the streets safer? to protect the citizenry? to protect the constitution? or are they NOW just about getting and keeping jobs/funding? meaning that the original reasons to exist are simply cast aside or re-labelled and attacked half-heartedly. think about it, if prisons re-habillitated, and PDs really protected, then eventually, there would be no need for PDs or prisons. hielo's point above was that if the NRA accomplished its primary mission, as defined today, there would be no need for it at all. this leads us to agree, again, that all these things must be considered and acted upon on an individual basis first, and that dependence on organizations must be lowered.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 2:26:51 PM EDT
fattym4: thanks, the clarification helped. but i have to disagree with something you said about prison rehabilitationa and PD protection. you said if they did their jobs 100% effectively, there would be no need for them. they'd work themselves right out of a job. not true. there are always people that are going to be criminals. even if you completely rehabilitated every last person in every last jail cell, there would still be people who haven't yet committed crimes that will. thus, prisons will always "have a job". for the same reason, so will PDs. and i have to say that even if this 2nd amendment issue was decided once and for all in OUR favor, the NRA would still have multiple purposes. 1)Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church. 2) The NRA's interest in promoting the shooting sports among America's youth began in 1903 when NRA Secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies. 3) After the war, the NRA concentrated its efforts on another much-needed arena for education and training: the hunting community. In 1949, the NRA, in conjunction with the state of New York, established the first hunter education program. 4) [i]The Guardian[/i] was created to cater to a more mainstream audience, with less emphasis on the technicalities of firearms and a more general focus on self-defense and recreational use of firearms. [i]even though[/i] The Guardian [i]is no longer in publication, the spirit of its cause is still a mainstay of the NRA.[/i]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 2:28:18 PM EDT
continued.... 5) Law enforcement training was next on the priority list for program development. Although a special police school had been reinstated at Camp Perry in 1956, NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors. Additionally, top law enforcement shooters compete each year in eight different pistol and shotgun matches at the National Police Shooting Championships held in Jackson, Mississippi. 6) In civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 50,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year. Courses are available in basic rifle, pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading firearms, personal protection, and even ammunition reloading. Additionally, nearly 1,000 Certified Coaches are specially trained to work with young competitive shooters. 7) Since the establishment of the lifesaving Eddie Eagle® Gun Safety Program in 1988, more than 12 million pre-kindergarten to sixth grade children have learned that if they see a firearm in an unsupervised situation, they should "STOP. DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT." 8) Over the past seven years, Refuse To Be A Victim™ seminars have helped more than 15,000 men and women develop their own personal safety plan using common sense strategies. 9) In 1990, NRA made a dramatic move to ensure that the financial support for firearms-related activities would be available now and for future generations. Establishing the NRA Foundation, a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt organization, provided a means to raise millions of dollars to fund gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public. the NRA fulfills roles beyond helping to protect our 2nd amendment. the need for these services won't go away or become unnecessary just because we protect and/or restore full 2nd amendment rights. as to less busy and smaller v. more busy and bigger. the more on your plate, the busier you are. and the more help you should have. i don't have a problem with the size of the NRA as long as it's accomplishing something. if it's growing (not members, but staff people who make it run) just to be growing, then there's a problem. but if it's growing because it's increasing the services made available to members like me, more power to 'em. Go NRA!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 2:36:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 3:05:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 3:18:59 PM EDT
ARLady, you wrote: "but i have to disagree with something you said about prison rehabilitationa and PD protection. you said if they did their jobs 100% effectively, there would be no need for them. they'd work themselves right out of a job. not true. there are always people that are going to be criminals. even if you completely rehabilitated every last person in every last jail cell, there would still be people who haven't yet committed crimes that will. thus, prisons will always "have a job". for the same reason, so will PDs." yes, but then, there will be yet another category of institutions/organizations, that all of these "future perps" will fall into. for instance, if every criminal was caught, and rehabilitated right now, then there are still people of every age group who want to commit crimes, for whatever reasons. enter the psychiatrists/psychologists/parenting experts, etc., to "head off" crime in advance. do these orgs. have a reason to perpetuate the system also?? what if they all do their jobs properly and overnight, would they clammer for more funding? would they all go home, clapping the dust off of their hands, proudly seeking new careers? BTW, i'm glad you pointed out the MANY reasons that i have been an NRA member all these years! [beer]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 7:05:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2001 7:06:37 PM EDT by ARlady]
Originally Posted By fattym4: ARLady, you wrote: "but i have to disagree with something you said about prison rehabilitationa and PD protection. you said if they did their jobs 100% effectively, there would be no need for them. they'd work themselves right out of a job. not true. there are always people that are going to be criminals. even if you completely rehabilitated every last person in every last jail cell, there would still be people who haven't yet committed crimes that will. thus, prisons will always "have a job". for the same reason, so will PDs." yes, but then, there will be yet another category of institutions/organizations, that all of these "future perps" will fall into. for instance, if every criminal was caught, and rehabilitated right now, then there are still people of every age group who want to commit crimes, for whatever reasons. enter the psychiatrists/psychologists/parenting experts, etc., to "head off" crime in advance. do these orgs. have a reason to perpetuate the system also?? what if they all do their jobs properly and overnight, would they clammer for more funding? would they all go home, clapping the dust off of their hands, proudly seeking new careers?
View Quote
to that i would have to respond, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." the only interaction needed for these potentially future perps is some good loving parents with (omigod, i'm gonna say it) family values who teach respect, consideration, and love to their children. if we as a nation actually raised our children (instead of the psuedo-parents libs like to become), i would think our list of potential future perps is greatly shortened. furthermore, psychiatrists and psychologists should be left alone to deal with real problems: OCD, anorexia/bulemia, severe depression and/or PTSD. the only problem with kids today is their parents...or lack of them. no shrink in the world is gonna fix that. but yeah, i do think they are perpetuating their own jobs by "creating" a problem where it doesn't necessarily exist. the difference between prisons/PDs and shrinks is that the latter only pretend to want to help in the big picture because they would be out of a job if everybody were well-adjusted.
BTW, i'm glad you pointed out the MANY reasons that i have been an NRA member all these years! [beer]
View Quote
how 'bout another round, eh? [beer]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 7:14:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: That is our current problem: We now have an electorate that is too apathetic/ignorant to oppose the growth of the government.
View Quote
I humbly disagree. (Yes, I'm splitting hairs here) Everybody wants smaller Gov't until they think that they might possibly be losing (now or in a remote future) some benefit, usually monetary.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 7:14:53 PM EDT
When my brother was placed in charge of the budget for his department in the Army, his primary job was to spend every dime and then some. If they demonstrated their allowed budget was not sufficient they stood a good chance of getting it increased. The one thing that would get him fired without question was to come in under budget. I think this sort of thing is now universal. I would love to see gun laws overturned and the NRA go back to being primarily an organization devoted to gun safety and markmanship. I would love for local and federal law enforcement to return to being preventative in their approach and reduce crime as a result.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 7:44:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2001 7:45:35 PM EDT by MelonPopper-M1A]
What the hell is this crap? A discussion on a civilized level?! On this board?! I see a lot of proper spelling & grammar, too. This could be the start of a depressing trend, methinks. Somebody better start bashing LEOs, LEO haters, or something, before this thread gets locked! And throw in some bad spelling and/or grammar, too. GEEZ.....................(Sorry, I really couldn't help it. I get like this sometimes)[:E]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 8:08:00 PM EDT
I think ARLady covered all of the points I would have made and then some with the exception of one. Fatty, you say that with proper "education" we could head off future criminals before they commit crime. To do so we would have to, as a society, violate the rights of all young people at an early age and assume they needed "training". To do this would require that we institutionalize them and then "program" them to think in a prescribed manner. Bad, bad Mo Jo that one.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:18:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunslinger: I think ARLady covered all of the points I would have made and then some with the exception of one. Fatty, you say that with proper "education" we could head off future criminals before they commit crime. To do so we would have to, as a society, violate the rights of all young people at an early age and assume they needed "training". To do this would require that we institutionalize them and then "program" them to think in a prescribed manner. Bad, bad Mo Jo that one.
View Quote
thats an interesting point. if they are to be "educated" it should be on an academic level only. no social sciences. leave that to family, friends, church, temples or so on. i read someplace that criminals that receive an education are less likely to return to prison than those who do not. learned skill are like tools. the more of them you have, the more you can use in life. the lack of "tools" causes criminal people to do "simple" things, like take what someone else has worked for. but of course there are those who do have an education and violate other peoples rights simply because it is fun. prison populations could greatly be reduced if drug users were released. pot smokers are not violating peopls rights. heroin, cocain, crack and LSD users need professional help of course to go cold turkey and turn their lives around. education "tools" really would help in this end as a lot of these people find it difficult to cope with life. somebody who cant stand on their own legs will always fall unless propped up by someone or something else. free your mind and your ass will follow
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:35:28 PM EDT
Ya know, it's not too often you find a woman that can debate 2nd amendment issues to well. I am reminded why I love this lady sooo much even though I'm in the doghouse!
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 10:05:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Matt_S: Ya know, it's not too often you find a woman that can debate 2nd amendment issues to well. I am reminded why I love this lady sooo much even though I'm in the doghouse!
View Quote
yeah, you are. where the heck have you been? what the heck happened to "10 or 11"? "lucy,you'vegotsomesplainingtodo!" [BD] that's you if you don't straighten up! [:D]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 11:50:03 PM EDT
Well lets use this as an example if we won the war on drugs then there would be no more need for the DEA so why would the DEA really want to win the war. And if gun laws were eliminated most of the BATF agents would be without jobs. It was stated that there would always be crime so there would always be a need for law enforcement, the truth is while there would still be police etc there would not be the need for as many officers. Now lets say that drugs were legalized and no one needed to steal to get drugs, that would reduce crime by over 50% and maybe even 75 to 80%. So with the reduction in crime would come the reduction in the number of officers in the police departments. So this is what would happen, the officers would be told that they had done a great job so great in fact that there was no longer a need for every police officer and some of them would have to be let go. The officers are not going to like that very much when they thought they had a job for life. Plus the departments will not need all that fancy equipment they like to play around with, maybe even no more SWAT team. So less crime equals the need for fewer cops. No more drug laws equals no more DEA. No more Federal income tax equals no more IRS, I can at least dream. No more gun laws equals the BATF becoming the BAT with a resulting loss of jobs for all those BATF auditors and the storm troopers who love to do what they did in Waco to the Dividians. Would anyone here actually do their job deliberately so good that it would put them on the unemployment line.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:59:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sniper_762x51: Would anyone here actually do their job deliberately so good that it would put them on the unemployment line.
View Quote
yes, that is exactly my point, who would put their own job in jeapardy for the common good? nobody! and there it is. funny how fate works, on the front page of todays Wall Street Journal, is a very long story about Mississippi prisons, and how some are being paid for "ghost" inmates, those that don't exist. well, now we have private prisons clamoring for more inmates, to get the funding they need, you've got the state prisons, cheaper, and therefore more crouded, who won't share the inmates. and you have sheriffs who keep prisoners in local jails for labor and funding, they also won't share the wealth (inmates = wealth). the governor's office doesn't know what to do - in the past they have, get this, ALTERED LEGISLATION TO CREATE MORE PRISONERS!!! think about that phrase for a minute, "to create more prisoners". scared? i am! the next time blame is begging for a home, we know where to look, budgets, baby, budgets! and just a note on education, yes, i agree that the system in place is not the best, but if johnny can't read, johnny must steal his food!
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 6:04:37 AM EDT
Why are these concepts so difficult for the majority of voters? [:(]
Top Top