|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
The NRA Annoyed Me Into Quitting — But I Get Why Some Gun Owners See It as a ‘Necessary Evil’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This summer, The Trace is talking to current and former NRA members in an attempt to better understand where their personal views are in lockstep with the gun-rights goliath — and where they aren’t. We want to know what the group’s battles look like from the inside, and how belonging to the NRA may affect perspectives toward the issues it takes on.
If you are a current or former NRA member and would like to share your views, please email us at info@thetrace.org.
Up first is Anshel Sag, a 27-year-old tech industry analyst who was an NRA member for two years before quitting the group. He lives in San Diego. |
| Comment by:
JimB
(7/22/2017)
|
| I notice this story is posted "as told to" This would not be the first time a reporter cherry picked comments to support their agenda. As for quitting, It appears Sag may have been brainwashed by one of the many Liberal Colleges in the Socialist Republic of Kalifornia. and he does not understand what is at stake or he does not really care. I suggest he remain a member and become educated and active. I would pay to renew his membership in order for him to do so, as I believe he is misguided in his beliefs and/or misquoted in his comments! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
