NRA screwing us again!

[ebd10]

NRA says: 'Accept gun control' - ACTION NEEDED

If you're an NRA donor, it appears your pro-gun money may now be
funding an insider deal to push gun control into law. And with gun
owners being dragged from their homes and disarmed in the wake of the
recent natural disaster, this is the worst possible time for such
complicity.

That's why you must call the NRA today (800.392.8683), so we can pass
H.R. 800 -- a clean House version of the gun makers and sellers
protection act.

As you know, the Senate version of this bill (S 397) recently passed
with several anti-gun amendments. But the House version, H.R. 800, is
still a straight forward pro-gun bill with no concessions to the gun
grabbers.

However, right now, NRA staffers are telling gun rights activists that
they "must" accept anti-gun provisions to pass the gun makers
protection bill.

They are also telling activists that the trigger lock amendment is "no
big deal" and the new provision to "study" so called "armor piercing"
ammo is "nothing to worry about."

Don't buy it. Next, you can rest assured, anti-gunners will draft
legislation making it mandatory that you use those trigger locks in
your home, and THAT will be a very big deal. And you can be sure that
all who voted for the mandatory trigger locks, will have no choice but
to vote to mandate their use. What possible excuse could they have not
to?

The excuses used to justify the anti-gun amendments are the same
dishonest tactics that politicians use to appease and buy off
activists. But coming from NRA leadership, one might wonder whether NRA
bosses view themselves as activists representing gun owners, or as
lobbyists working to justify the backroom deals of the politicians.
Why are they making excuses for the people who voted to sell out gun
owners, rather than standing firm for the people who fund them?

This is worse than any politician's flip-flop, because NRA leadership
said they would be sure to strip off any gun control amendments in
conference committee. As you know, we opposed that strategy from the
beginning and now you can see why.

Unless we hold NRA leadership accountable, they will cut a backroom
deal with your freedoms and go against their word.

What's worse, this strategy is doomed to failure. You do the math: If
we "accept" two major gun controls in exchange for one pro-gun bill,
doesn't that equate to the anti-gunners advancing their agenda twice as
far as ours?

We must not allow the anti-freedom radicals to gain ground with the
blessing of those who should be defending gun rights.

The "armor piercing ammunition" study could turn into more restrictions
on almost any round that can be chambered in any firearm, and the
mandatory trigger lock legislation is a totally unacceptable intrusion
into your business that serves no purpose other than to extend the
heavy hand of the government.

What's more, you can bet that the House Leadership will gladly roll
over and ignore the house version of this bill -- H.R. 800 -- which is
a good, clean bill without any gun control if they think they can get
the thumbs up from NRA leadership, who say they speak for you.

Now is the time to pressure your Congress member, and NRA to pass a
clean bill with no attacks on your gun rights.

Action:

1. Call the NRA at 800.392.8683 and tell them to stop supporting S.
397 and support H.R. 800. The NRA always says they don't support gun
control. This is
their chance to PROVE it. Tell them to fight for H.R. 800 -- a gun
control FREE version of S 397. As you know, the NRA often reminds you
that they are among the "most effective" and most "feared" lobbying
organizations on Capitol Hill. Tell them to use that clout to protect
your rights instead of negotiating with them.

2. Call your Congressman and tell him to vote for H.R. 800 and
against S. 397. You can find their number by going to
http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/.

While most NRA members are staunch, no-compromise gun owners, NRA
leadership is willing to support legislation that will hurt gun owners.
They MUST hear from you.

The recent unlawful seizure of civilian firearms in New Orleans has
proven beyond any doubt that government actors are willing to trample
Constitutional Rights, and that many law enforcement and military
personnel are more than willing to obey orders to attack law abiding
America citizens. Now is no time for gun owners to stand for more
attacks on their liberties.

Gun Owners of America has put together a number of links that document
the outrageous behavior of "authorities" in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina. They can be viewed (at least for now) here
<http://www.gunowners.org/notb.htm>

Please contact you Congressman and the NRA today, and tell them NO to
any new laws that attack your rights. And please demand to know what
your Congressman plans to do to prevent another attack on gun owners
such as the one we witnessed in New Orleans,

 

[Standing Wolf]

They are also telling activists that the trigger lock amendment is "no big deal" and the new provision to "study" so called "armor piercing" ammo is "nothing to worry about."

So-called "reasonable compromise" is nothing but a renamed leftist extremist version of the ancient Chinese death of a thousand cuts.

 

[MICHAEL T]

Are these not the same defenders of the 2nd that let the Assualt Weapon bill pass. What makes you think their going to stand this time. They aren't the 800lb gorilla people think they are .Give it a few bananas and it will go, sit and be good.

 

[Rufus Pisanus]

Several? I thought it was just two: one regarding the sale of handguns with a lock (with no implication that it must be used once you get home) and another one on armor piercing ammo that doesn't change things much. The first has the only practical effect of increasing by $10-15 the price of any handgun plus in some states (like MD ) it's already the law. The second didn't seem to be affecting most of us.

Sure I'd rather do without them but if this is what Congress can pass today I'd rather see this approved instead of another round of junk lawsuits.

I found the above info from the NRA-ILA web site:

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1696

 

[thatguy]

As far as I know the only amendment added to the lawsuit protection bill is the one requiring a lock be included with any handgun sold. You don't have to use the lock, just include it. Those cheap cable locks will get passed around a lot.

The NRA isn't thrilled with this amendment (please don't scream that the NRA is selling us down the river, it's not that dramatic and demonizing the NRA won't help us) but they explain, and I agree, that it's very minor and worth accepting to get the lawsuit bill. Believe it or not, they need this amendment to get some mushy Senators on board. They need to be able to tell people they supported "gun safety" even though we know it's a crock.

I agree that any gun control law is bad, even a minor one like this, but the thinking is that, again, it is a very minor concession and the end result will be more than worth it. If the lock amendment gets bagged the whole bill may have died.

Bear in mind that several states already mandate such locks and more are considering it. This is likely one of those things that will come in time no matter what we do, anyway. Including a lock doesn't really infringe on our right to buy, sell or own (at least not compared to the Hell we already suffer in pursuing our hobby). It's a $3 lock thrown into the box with the gun. It's a bunch of hooey to claim it will make a lot of difference on safety, for sure, but the reality is that it's better to take this pill than to lose the lawsuit protection bill. The antis will keep coming no matter what and they are not crowing about this amendment as a great victory for them. They also see it as a very minor thing and are not really inspired or encouraged by its passage.

Like it or not, sometimes it is better to make the deal even if it's not perfect. I know some of you will disagree (some violently) but what we're getting is far more valuable than what we're conceding. These lawsuits are driving gun companies out of business. We need this law.

Please don't accuse me of working with the Brady Bunch or of being a Commie, OK? We are on the same side... really. I don't like the lock bill, either, but I think that in the end it's worth it to get the lawsuit bill.

 

[Taurus 66]

If you're an NRA donor, it appears your pro-gun money may now be funding an insider deal to push gun control into law.

Nawww ... say it isn't so.

That's why you must call the NRA today (800.392.8683), so we can pass

I have to be an NRA member, right? .. I mean to be taken seriously that is.

 

[Tom Servo]

Stuff like this is why I'm no longer a member of the NRA. Sorry, but our dollars are better spent on an organisation that doesn't waffle and hope we don't notice. Give your money to the GOA instead.

The NRA is a dinosaur, and they're just as much a member of the Washington good-ol'-boys club as anyone else. They're willing to trade off lots of our rights incrementally, then trumpet the few small victories as Major Steps Forward. If they want to stay relevant, they need to distance themselves from idiots like Ted Nugent and old senile racists like Charlton Heston. The NRA needs a public voice who's articulate and respectable.

And they need to stop telemarketing me. That's just tacky.

 

[ClarkEMyers]

This just isn't so.

old senile racists like Charlton Heston.

just isn't so.

The National Rifle Association isn't perfect - and I once had Larry Craig in my office to explain to a few local members why the he and the NRA had done some things. He was quite willing to meet and talk with us at length.

Just the same, while the House version is better, the Senate version is much much better than no such bill. This sort of over reaction has already made the rounds once and been in my view quite properly debunked.

Knocking the NRA and reducing their membership and their clout is not going to give us a more powerful national organization.

It is only by supporting the NRA that we will build the power to do better.

 

[Ryder]

it's very minor and worth accepting to get the lawsuit bill

The lawsuits are getting nowhere in the courts. It's a red herring. In return for protection that isn't needed we let them research which bullets are capable of penetrating bulletproof vests? They already know the answer to this, why research it? Because the anti-gunners see this as their foot in the door to ban all rifles. Minor indeed.

 

[cracked butt]

With the exception of CEM's post, I could have sworn that I have accidentally stumbled on a link to the DU by clicking on this thread.

 

[farad]

crackedbutt, that's the most illogical thing I've ever read. Do you often see threads on DU that explain how the NRA is not sticking up for gun owners?

 

[bogie]

I got an idea...

Why don't we just give all the $$ to the nice Handgun Control folks, and all the organizations that grew out of their fine group.

After all, the NRA is evil... Whatever you do, do not support the most effective pro-firearms lobby in Washington. That would be bad.

 

[cracked butt]

crackedbutt, that's the most illogical thing I've ever read. Do you often see threads on DU that explain how the NRA is not sticking up for gun owners?

No, but I've seen many that bash the NRA, but what the heck, its a fun thing to do.

 

[bogie]

Buttman, I suspect that we've got a LOT of members _here_ from the DU... They ain't necessarily on our side tho...

It's easy to divide the shooting community... After all, there's the skeet shooters, then the trap shooters, and the duck hunters, quail hunters, etc., and we ain't even got to the deer hunters, much less the rabbit hunters...

Next election is hosed. We're too fragmented. It worked.

 

[farad]

No, but I've seen many that bash the NRA, but what the heck, its a fun thing to do.

It's ok to bash the NRA for valid reasons. Just like it's ok to bash Republicans for being RINO's. Take a deep breath.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

The REAL Problem With Triggerlocks...

...is that it essentially placates -- or accepts -- the Anti-gunners' current core philosophy that guns are only for "legitimate sporting purposes" and NOT for Self Defense. And that's appeasing the enemy.

It sets us up for FUTURE legislation mandating that home-weapons -- or even, theoretically, concealed-carry guns -- be locked or disabled/neutered. Beyond that, such incrementalism tacked onto the NEXT "reasonable" gun bill could proscribe "penalties" for us **violence-prone gun-nuts** who keep a few guns ready-to-roll [based on street-smarts/having been around the block/not addicted to hallucinogenic mushrooms].

So... pop this little courtroom-drama video into your VCR... as "Kumbaya" plays softly in the background:

Prosecuting Attorney:
So, Mister EeevilWeps, tell me. Was the semi-automatic assault pistol with which you so callously dispatched the late Choir-Boy who accidentally stumbled into your house that dark night [on methamphetamines]... was the gun locked-up and fully secured from the innocent fingers of all the poor little child-run in the village?

You: (simulating slide-cocking a 1911)
Well, actually, all I had to do was...

Prosecuting Attorney: (cutting you off)
No? Why, you must be a Neanderthal vigilante-cretin just cruising for the first opportunity to Take The Law Into Your Own hands and use Dodge City violence instead of modern conflict resolution techniques! Such premeditation [tactical thinking] must be eliminated For The Common Good! That'll be 20 years for manslaughter, you politically incorrect philistine!

(*sigh*)

Let's recall the case of the British farmer who actually went to jail for shooting (Oohh, how dare he?) a burgler -- the third time the farmer was victimized! Does anyone have any doubt that that kind of cultural and legal demonization (of guns/gun owners) is the objective of the American gun-grabbers?

So, what we have here is a plan to take home Half-A-Loaf... while seeding the kitchen with more rats and cockroaches perfectly positioned to begin nibbling away at this remaining half-loaf.

 

[Powderman]

old senile racists like Charlton Heston.

Excuse me?

Charlton Heston was active with the civil rights movement with Dr. M.L. King, and actually participated in several marches, including the one into Washington, DC.

 

[farad]

I agree with what Erik F said, but the slam on Ted Nugent and Chuck Heston doesn't serve any purpose. Nugent is sort of an idiot, but why slam him? Heston was a great President of the organization IMO and a very intelligent guy. The from my cold dead hands speech was great.

 

[GlenJ]

Instead of feeling cheated by the NRA shouldn't we feel cheated by a GOP controlled Senate and House that would think of passing this anyway? Also a Republican president who will sign it?? Funny thing about Ted Nugent at his concert here on Labor Day he spoke a lot of how great America is and how great it is to be a free American which is 100% true. Then I bought one of his shirts for my wife and it was made in Vietnam. So much for supporting American workers.

 

[JohnBT]

"they need to distance themselves from idiots like Ted Nugent and old senile racists like Charlton Heston. The NRA needs a public voice who's articulate and respectable"



Maybe a picture from 1963 would help with your enlightenment...

From left, Charlton Heston, author James Baldwin and Marlon Brando joined Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1963 march on Washington.

 

[David Roberson]

Erik F, maybe you could cite some of the evidence that led you to charge Charlton Heston with being a racist. Everything I've ever read indicates he was one of the principal Hollywood players in the civil rights movement and was a staunch opponent of anti-Semitism as well.

Failing that, perhaps you could apologize and withdraw your comment. That is, if you're someone with any personal integrity.

Cheers,
DR

 

[Silver Bullet]

This whole thread is full of bogus info, starting with the first post. What's the source ?

There have been quite a few anti-NRA threads here lately, too many to be a coincidence.

You're fooling nobody.

 

[Rufus Pisanus]

Originally posted by Erik F.:

The NRA is a dinosaur

Indeed it is, but of the T-Rex variety at least in terms of political lobbying in DC. Should they be faulted for not starting battles that they cannot win? no, this means using their resources at their best.

Let's face it, whether we like it or not, we live in an era were most people in urban areas are scared of guns, are scared of self-defense, want the big nanny to take care of them when they do something stupid.

I have introduced dozens of people to shooting. Some come back say gee, that's fun. Other, unfortunately come up with "ah, it would be so easy to kill a human being, this is terrible". The latter ones tend to drive a yellow Volkswagen with flowers in the special holder and move to California (or NYC) as soon as they can. Most of my colleagues thought that it was a disaster that the "assault weapons ban" expired. When I explained to them that it was mostly a feel good legislation not about full automatic rifles and ineffective even for what the gun-control crowd wants to achieve, very few of them changed their mind. Most said "even in that case it was good because it made a point that firearms need to be restricted."

Guys, these people vote and call their congresspeople too. It will take years to change this attitude, in the meantime let's cut our losses, fight the battles we can win and collect silly trigger locks (I have drawer full of them, anybody interested?).

 

[DelayedReaction]

Again, where's the source of this document?

Frankly I think the compromises the NRA is accepting for this legislation is fine by me. Maryland already has mandatory trigger lock sales, and it hasn't really changed much. It's the mandatory internal locks which have caused problems, as they require a redesign and ban a lot of guns from entering our state.

The study is just that, a study. They'll find the same thing they've always known, and it will make no difference. If those are the concessions required to reduce the legal burden against gun makers, I think it's a fair compromise.

 

[rick_reno]

Keep this in mind - where would the NRA be without anti-gun legislation and anti-gun laws? I remember when the assault weapon ban was passed, a bill they couldn't/wouldn't stop - their membership soared to over 4 million. Ask yourself, was that a good or a bad thing for the NRA?