Indpendent Firearms Owners of America?

[PDM 91]

Anyone familiar with them? I know that the founder Richard Feldman used to work for the NRA but was considererd too moderate. He left to start this new organization, but I don't think they've gained much traction. After La Pierre's press conference I've concluded that unfortunately I'm done with the NRA and the approach of this organization seems more in line with my views.

[Damjan 73]

Even though the press could have been handled better at the NRA, they are the big boy in the block and this is no time to be Anti-NRA.

 

 

Only heard about this guy from the Glock book.

 

What is his approach that seems to be in line with your views?

[PDM 91]

His willingness to engage in dialogue with the other side and to consider restrictions on who can purchase guns. La Pierre came off as a creepy old man, utterly out of touch with what has become a national dialogue. Armed security in schools is a good idea but his "the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" remark was simplistic and in fact wrong. We can oppose gun bans that violate the 2A while acknowledging that perhaps more can be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I think he did our cause tremendous harm. I feel like a man without a country, threatened by gun ban extremists who won't listen to reason with only the NRA and their absolutist stance to represent me.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

I feel like a man without a country, threatened by gun ban extremists who won't listen to reason with only the NRA and their absolutist stance to represent me.

 

You are aware that the hater's are absolutist in there own way right? Their idea of 'compromise' is us losing something......

[pbkid6974 1]

You do realize if you give the antis an inch they will take a mile? I don't agree with the nra 100% of the time either. I don't think anyone does. But now is not the time to be "holier than thou". The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They are the biggest gun rights organization, they are one of the few with the clout to stand firm. You would be wise to donate to all 2a friendly organizations at this time.

[Damjan 73]

His willingness to engage in dialogue with the other side and to consider restrictions on who can purchase guns. La Pierre came off as a creepy old man, utterly out of touch with what has become a national dialogue. Armed security in schools is a good idea but his "the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" remark was simplistic and in fact wrong. We can oppose gun bans that violate the 2A while acknowledging that perhaps more can be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I think he did our cause tremendous harm. I feel like a man without a country, threatened by gun ban extremists who won't listen to reason with only the NRA and their absolutist stance to represent me.

 

Looks like you are very informed about his stance.

Can you refer us to where we can find all of his positions and how this organization explains all you wrote above,with emphasis on why the good guy with a gun vs bad guy with a gun is in fact wrong. Can you elaborate on this further?

 

 

 

 

[PDM 91]

I completely agree that the "antis" are ultimately not interestetd in compromise. I am under no illusion that they just want to be "reasonable." They want to ban guns, or come as close to that goal as possible. I agree, HOWEVER, there are millions and millions of people -- enough to sway the outcome of the debate -- who don't particularly care about gun control vs gun rights and probably agree that people should be able to own guns of some sort, who will ultimately determine who wins. Those people believe the antis "let's just be reasonable rhetoric." So, are we best served by a person like La Pierre and the NRA's ridiculous "press conference" or someone who comes off as thoughtful and even willing to compromise on some issues? Digging in our heels and saying no compromise is certainly easier, but I don't think its safer for us. Plus, I truly believe that ground can be given on the background check issue without compromising one inch on gun bans. By giving just a little I think we would get a lot.

[matty 810]

Not giving an inch, no way, no how. You plainly are a poor negotiator if you are saying to give anything at all up before the battle starts.

 

 

I completely agree that the "antis" are ultimately not interestetd in compromise. I am under no illusion that they just want to be "reasonable." They want to ban guns, or come as close to that goal as possible. I agree, HOWEVER, there are millions and millions of people -- enough to sway the outcome of the debate -- who don't particularly care about gun control vs gun rights and probably agree that people should be able to own guns of some sort, who will ultimately determine who wins. Those people believe the antis "let's just be reasonable rhetoric." So, are we best served by a person like La Pierre and the NRA's ridiculous "press conference" or someone who comes off as thoughtful and even willing to compromise on some issues? Digging in our heels and saying no compromise is certainly easier, but I don't think its safer for us. Plus, I truly believe that ground can be given on the background check issue without compromising one inch on gun bans. By giving just a little I think we would get a lot.

[PDM 91]

Looks like you are very informed about his stance.

Can you refer us to where we can find all of his positions and how this organization explains all you wrote above,with emphasis on why the good guy with a gun vs bad guy with a gun is in fact wrong. Can you elaborate on this further?

 

I know Feldman came out in favor of background checks at gun shows, for which he was roundly critscized by gun rights groups. I believe he also negotiated some agreement regarding trigger locks with the Clinton administration while he was at the NRA, for which he alsko took flak. If you go to their website and read their views on assault weapons, it seems they are against any ban. That's as much as I know, which is why I was asking about them. Feldman has clearly rubbed some gun rights people the wrong way, but in my view on non-consequential issues that don't infringe on the 2A.

 

As for LaPierre's "good guy with a gun" remark, yes of course a good guy with a gun is not only one of the best answers to criminal threat but also a fundamental right. I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was simplistic. It isn't the only answer. I believe there is more we can do, consistent with the 2A, to keep guns away from criminals and mentally ill people. Life is usually not black and white, and the Second Amendment certainly isn't.

[PDM 91]

Not giving an inch, no way, no how. You plainly are a poor negotiator if you are saying to give anything at all up before the battle starts.

 

This isn't about negotiations. Its about public relations and winning hearts and minds of moderates. The NRA sucks in that area.

[Damjan 73]

 

 

I know Feldman came out in favor of background checks at gun shows, for which he was roundly critscized by gun rights groups. I believe he also negotiated some agreement regarding trigger locks with the Clinton administration while he was at the NRA, for which he alsko took flak. If you go to their website and read their views on assault weapons, it seems they are against any ban. That's as much as I know, which is why I was asking about them. Feldman has clearly rubbed some gun rights people the wrong way, but in my view on non-consequential issues that don't infringe on the 2A.

 

As for LaPierre's "good guy with a gun" remark, yes of course a good guy with a gun is not only one of the best answers to criminal threat but also a fundamental right. I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was simplistic. It isn't the only answer. I believe there is more we can do, consistent with the 2A, to keep guns away from criminals and mentally ill people. Life is usually not black and white, and the Second Amendment certainly isn't.

 

You did refer that it was inf fact wrong ( good guy vs bad guy), but that s not important. I read your posts and have not doubts that you are a gun rights supporter.

 

Just found their facebook page. I m not on Facebook often. If he can sway the complete uninformed sheeple against a ban more power to him. Seems to mix marijuana rights and gun rights in one dimension. Maybe that will appeal to some.

 

https://www.facebook.com/IFoA.org

 

As for feeling that you re losing a country i have some personal experience with that and guns as well.

I did lose a country 20 years ago due to the fact that most of the guns and the army were under a control of a single madman (Milosevic) who led a whole nation into an armed hell that lasted for 5 years.

Ever since the ban talk began after the Sandy Hook Tragedy the same feeling has come back unfortunatelly that i had back then.......it sucks...