Richard Feldman’s New Gun Group

Independent Firearms Owners Association. Feldman was a disgruntled former NRA employee who wrote the book “Ricochet, Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist.” Keeping in mind the book’s point of view, it’s a worthwhile read. But Uncle notes that his issue seems to be guns and weed, as he’s speaking out against the drug war. I was wondering what the purpose of this group could be. Since it’s close to election time, it’s time to watch out for false flags like the now defunct American Hunters and Shooters Association.

But Feldman never struck me as a tool, since he’s remained pretty faithful to gun rights. Looking over the site I have to come to the opinion that the purpose of the group is further employment for Richard Feldman, rather than any false flag campaign, or for any other nefarious purpose related to the 2012 elections. I’d just be rather curious what IFOA’s strategy and goal is, because it’s not easy to discern what they plan to accomplish that other groups are not already doing.

12 thoughts on “Richard Feldman’s New Gun Group”

  1. He come off as a jaded individual who is used to getting his own way! Not impressed. I bet he becomes a Obama supporter before November.

  2. Since Mr. Feldman apparently reads this, I’ll say good luck and best wishes that he is on the level and can stay that way.

    I read your book, but quite awhile ago, and I’m embarrassed to say that I can’t remember too much about it, which suggests that it neither offended me, nor inspired any epiphanies for me.

    If I can offer some very amateur advice, it is to avoid infiltrators who will try to drag your organization to other hidden agendas. Us old-timers will be watching for that. Also, avoid pitching to only one philosophical persuasion (other than gun rights supporters!) because they seem to be the low-hanging fruit in terms of member headcount and donations. Start courting morons and pretty soon you become a moron yourself.

    1. The movie “Guns and Weed” was put together by Michael Dean and Neema Vedadi who also do the podcast “Freedom Feens” (

      For those who are not Libertarian leaning or supporters of individual liberty, the concept of gun rights and freedom of consumption are something that do not logically go together in their minds.

      There are a lot of people in this country who are spending time in jail on our dime, just becasue they owned a plant, a plant that if you are religious our creator placed here. They were charged with and jailed for a victimless crime.

      How can there be a crime without a victim?

      If there is no victim, there is no crime. Just revenue generation through fines and cost to the taxpayers via increration.

      As the Ron Paul followers start taking over state GOP organizations, you will start to see more push for this sort of individual liberty. Specifically the guns and weed issue. So be forewarned.

      It is my feeling that the NRA shys away from the individual liberty issues like: open carry, repeal of the Hughes amendment, support of gun rights for medical marijuana users, etc. due to their ties to law enforcement and law enforcement training.

      Also law enforcment profits from all the siezed assests from the so called war on drugs.

      Keep in mind that the highest murder rates in the U.S. were in the 1920s and 1930s during prohibition, when gangs fought over supply, distribtuion, territory and profits from alchohol.

      Prohibition creates artificial demand due to constraining supply of an product in demand, which causes crime vis the creation of black markts. The same way that drug prohibition does today, if we just legalized drug use, like with alchohol, and dealt with the related social issues the majority of the related crime would go away.

      If someone wants to toke on a bong or snort cocaine in the privacy of their own home, and not infringe on someone elses rights, who cares. On the other hand if they rob someone to pay for their recreational chemistry, I would be the first juror to vote to convict them.

      It is not the government’s job to define the limits of individual’s liberties. It is their job to make sure those liberties are protected and that the government, individuals or groups do not restrict the rights of individuals.

  3. So you want to conflate pot legalization, a highly divisive issue, with firearms rights, a highly divisive issue?

    Thanks for adding another steaming pile of crap to the burden the supporters of gun rights will have to carry around all the time.

    Isn’t it enough we have to put up with the continual lies of the anti-rights groups, the press, the administration and the Democrat Party, without also bearing the burden of being associated with an idea, pot legalization, that a large part of the country feels revulsion and dismay over?

    Go do your pot legalization gig, and please do not associate your movement in any way with the pro-rights, pro-guns groups.

    What’s next, NAMBLA supporting gun rights?

    1. Yea mikee, the responsible use of gun and the responsible use of cannabis should stay separate. There is no need for advocates of freedom and responsibility to band together.. or is there?

    2. Mikee not to worry there is a group taking up the issue of gun rights and marijuana rights.

      They are the Governor, Attorney General and the 2 U.S. Senators from Montana.

      In fact Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer not only signed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (, but he also vetoed a bill to over turn the state’s medical marijuana law (

      Letter from the Montana AG to Eric Holder regarding the gun rights f medical marijuana users:

  4. While I am personally highly supportive of the marijuana legalization cause, I would agree that as an organization that is supposed to be about gun rights, bringing in any other issue is counterproductive. That advice goes out to all of our other organizations in recent years that have proven capable of bending almost any issue into being a gun rights issue, and, everyone who has developed a convoluted logic that “You can’t believe in the RKBA without also believing in [my issue].” The RKBA is de facto becoming conflated with too many other issues that are not related at all, outside a few people’s heads.

    I would also extend that to, if an RKBA organization is going to get into supporting candidates (either directly or tacitly), do so based on totally objective evaluation of their proven support for gun rights, and not because they are well-liked for their positions on other issues (i.e., proving they are “good conservatives”) and have also learned the rap that appeals to gun owners.

Comments are closed.