NRA screwing us again!

[Rufus Pisanus]

Originally posted by 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?

I see... I guess the devious NRA guys knew that John Kerry was true friend of the gun-owners and hunters and that's why they supported the gun grabbing Bush. :banghead:

The same type of conspiracy-prone thinking would lead us to argue that it is the cops who secretely arm and support crime and encourage speeding as most would not have a job if not for criminals and traffic tickets. Same for firemen and fires I guess, or medical doctors and deseases...

 

[Tory]

Disingenuous drivel

"The lawsuits are getting nowhere in the courts. It's a red herring."

Only the obtuse or trolls say things like that. Anyone who has followed the issue, even in the most cursory manner, knows that product liability lawsuits are a SERIOUS threat.

Using the same tactics that obtained huge judgments against the tobacco industry, liability lawsuits brought against the MUCH smaller, MUCH less affluent gun makers are intended to BANKRUPT the industry. A win is not even needed; the cost of DEFENDING against those numerous suits, however groundless, bleeds manufacturers white.

THIS is the real strategy, aided and abetted by every liberal city mayor who'd like to ride to re-election by railing against the "Merchants of Death" while ignoring the criminals in his/her own city. Anyone who tells you these suits are a "red herring," like people who claim Heston was "racist," is certainly a fool and quite possibly a liar.

"This has been Reality Check and we are THROUGH!"

 

[Skofnung]

If there wern't nasty GC bills always coming down the pipe, what would be the NRA's rasion de etre'?

Any advocacy organization, once up and running, treats self preservation as more important than "the cause" it was formed to advance. It's true for the American Cancer Society, The US Government, and MADD.

To think otherwise is naive.

ETA: I am aN NRA member, and believe that they can do much good. We as members though must remain ever vigilant and "watch the watchdog" as it were.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

I know I've come in late in the game. However, NRA is the big dog. GOA is a smaller, meaner dog.

I suggest supporting both if possible. It's the most effective (legal) route.
Feed the smaller dog, so he gets bigger.
Do what you can to get the bigger dog riled up.
Also if you don't like the way the NRA protects your rights.......Join the NRA, and raise Hell!! If you're in the NRA become a rep, participate in meetings etc.

Also if you see a yellow vw bug with a flower in the holder...run it over with your truck!!!! J/K

 

[Tom Servo]

As far as Heston, I know this'll make people cringe, but watch Bowling for Columbine. You have to know what propaganda the other side is getting, no matter how distorted.

The whole movie is a load of crap; on that we can all agree. However, the segment at the very end with the Charlton Heston interview is pretty clear-cut, when Moore asks Heston why there's such an atmosphere of fear in this country. Heston's response: "because of the...um...ethnic...types." Oops.

Like it or not, he made the statement, and all this does is help cement the notion of the gun-lobby as a bunch of rich old white hicks arming themselves against the "undesirables." Believe me, this is a notion the left pushes hard. We have virtually no black voice, or any other minority voices on our side, at least not any major ones (I do wish we'd hear more from Terence Blanchard).

 

[JohnBT]

"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?"

Major gun controls? No. Maybe to your NO COMPROMISE way of thinking, but not major. Nice site you have there BTW.

Twice as far? Nope. Doesn't equate. I'd bet you're the kind of person who tries to add percentage points instead of refiguring from scratch using the raw data. It doesn't add up.

BTW, welcome. What kind of guns do you like?

Looks like I'm going to have to join GOA to fit in around here.

John

P.S. -

"Because it's not a gun control movie - this is a movie which says that something is more seriously and deeply wrong with the USA and our gun problem is a symptom of the larger illness that exists. Charlton Heston said in this interview with me, with no prompting from me, that the problem with America is "our mixed ethnicity". " - Michael Moore

Well, we've been known as "a melting pot" for a long, long time. Here we have Michael Moore himself saying the gun problem is a symtom of a larger illness. Sounds to me like they're talking around the same topic.

 

[rick_reno]

As far as Heston, I know this'll make people cringe, but watch Bowling for Columbine.

I recently watched that movie - my neighbor and I rented it for a buck. Heston was an embarrassment - he shouldn't have been allowed to talk without a script.

Granted, he wasn't as much of an embarrassment as when he said issued his famous AK-47 blunder.

Source - since I'm sure someone will ask

Heston: AK-47's are inappropriate for private
ownership, of course.

Wygant: Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire
power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a
homeowner would need. Why is it necessary to have
those guns available anyway?

Heston: I just got through telling you. The
possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely
inappropriate.

 

[JohnBT]

Why not post the ENTIRE quote? Your agenda is showing.

"the problem, of course, is not guns held by private citizens, but guns held by criminals."

John

 

[FPrice]

Chris Knox wrote this in the Sept 10, 2005 edition of SGN:

"S. 397 improves gun owners' net position. The risks and pitfalls that exist in the bill are modest, or already exist in current legislation. These amendments are clutter-a minor mess. S. 397 is a net win for gun owners. Let's pass it and get to work cleaning up the larger mess."

People might want to visit his entire column at:

http://www.firearmscoalition.org

 

[FPrice]

Tory...

"The lawsuits are getting nowhere in the courts. It's a red herring."

Only the obtuse or trolls say things like that. Anyone who has followed the issue, even in the most cursory manner, knows that product liability lawsuits are a SERIOUS threat."

Well put.

 

[rick_reno]

JohnBT - Heston only said that after he engaged mouth with his brain. My point is simply that the guy should never have been allowed to speak without a script. He was an excellent public speaker, when he knew what he was supposed to say - when he didn't anything could come out.

 

[Sewerman]

Eric F just exactly what is wrong with rich old hicks or anyone else for that matter, arming themselves to protect themselves from undesirables? I am a rich old hick.I used to be a paramedic in downtown Atlanta, I kept myself armed against undesirables then, and I do now that I live in the country.

 

[bogie]

Why do you think that so many folks from Democratic Underground, etc., are trolling firearms discussion boards? Because the more fragmented we become, the less of a political force we are.

 

[ebd10]

My major problem with the NRA is that they are always on the defensive, always making compromises, and in the end, always losing just a little more of our right to bear arms.

They get lauded for the AWB sunset. That is a totally disingenuous, all they had to do was nothing. Bush and his cronies already knew that to re-enact the AWB would doom them for the next election. Gun owners don't need to rely on the NRA, GOA, or any other organization for information anymore. The internet has brought about an information revolution. The confiscations in New Orleans were reported across the country in a matter of hours. The actions of Congresscritters can be across the country in a matter of minutes.

The NRA adheres to the old model of "We need to be the channel through which information flows" Like everything else they've been up to for 15 years, they are behind the times. Never in our history could a Grass Roots movement be created faster, more organized, and better informed. It doesn't take a lobbyist with the NRA to get the word out, it only takes someone to watch C-SPAN with his/her laptop nearby.

And what has the NRA done to utilize this asset? Nothing. For the first time in 15 years, the NRA's precious Republicans have a solid majority, the President is (supposedly) pro second amendment, which should give the NRA a blank check with which to regain some lost ground. Instead, we get a half-hearted effort to protect firearms manufacturers, and a bunch of mail asking for money.

The NRA sold Neal Knox out when it became obvious that he was making too many waves among the GOP, they have since been the GOP's favorite lap dog. Don't look to them for any kind of radical legislation, they're too busy making nice. Remember, an 800lb gorilla isn't very dangerous when it has no teeth or balls.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If there wern't nasty GC bills always coming down the pipe, what would be the NRA's rasion de etre'?

The same one that it had for over 100 years before it ever got involved in politics?

They get lauded for the AWB sunset. That is a totally disingenuous, all they had to do was nothing.

Talk about disingenuous... everybody who was here for the run-up to the sunset remembers the Senate trying on three separate occasions to pass a renewal of the bill. They were shut down every single time. When the NRA called for its own bill to die, 60 Senators flipped their vote. What would have happened if the NRA had done nothing. Would 60 Senators have voted for gun owners because they thought it was the right thing to do?

I'm always amazed that people seem to think that the way to make the NRA more fierce in its defense of gun rights is to quit the organization and leave the voting and money in the hands of those who don't really care about handguns or evil black rifles. The NRA is an 800lb gorilla. The only question is who you want feeding and training it?

 

[Al Norris]

Here we go again!

More disinformation in this thread than I've seen in quite a while. Did THR get hit with a bunch of DU Trolls when I wasn't looking?

 

[ebd10]

When the NRA called for its own bill to die, 60 Senators flipped their vote. What would have happened if the NRA had done nothing.

And why do you suppose the NRA did that? Because The leadership is so principled and stalwart? They did it because other gun organizations, and some of the hardline members made it clear that what was happening was counter-productive. Then the membership turned around and pressured the leadership into killing their own bill.

Look, when it comes to sponsoring Hunter's Ed, shooting competitions, and firearms education, the NRA is unrivaled in its ability to do those things. Those are the reasons that I remain a member. But when it comes to Political lobbying and legislation, they're not nearly as committed to the 2A as they would like us to believe.

Here in Oregon, The Oregon Firearms Federation has done a better job, and made more inroads and held more gun control at bay through Grass Roots efforts than the NRA ever thought about. OFF has taken up battles that the NRA abandoned as hopeless, and won. OFF isn't, by any means, a large organization, but they get the word out, and they do not compromise. The guy that runs it, Kevin Starrett, is a warrior foir the Second Amendment, and has proven to me that the only things that Politicians understand is Fear and Pain: The Fear of losing an election, and the pain of having to live under the laws that THEY made. In that vein, he makes allies, not friends. Alliances shift, friends demand uncompromising loyalty. Those politicians that stand up for liberty get the support of OFF. Those that refuse to do so get OFF-ed

The real power lies in the hands of the average gun owner, not in some office building in Virginia or in the halls of Congress.

 

[FPrice]

More disinformation in this thread than I've seen in quite a while. Did THR get hit with a bunch of DU Trolls when I wasn't looking?

If you notice, most of these anti-NRA threads concentrate on bad-mouthing the NRA but are strangely lacking in documenting what other pro-gun groups have done. And they seem to like to "suggest" that you must leave the NRA and join someone else. To me it seems that more NRA members are willing to suggest joining other gun rights groups as well.

 

[FPrice]

From the OFF website:

http://www.oregonfirearms.org

"Welcome to CHL Central. If you're planning on obtaining a concealed handgun license in Oregon, the following information should be useful, and troubling.

Some Sheriff's are very accommodating, others treat tax-paying applicants like criminals. (Note, if you have had a CHL revoked, please see this link.)

Please note, O.F.F.'s position is that there is no legitimate basis for a "license" to exercise a God-given, Constitutionally protected right. But, since we're saddled with this law for the time being, we felt this info might be helpful."

Gee, sounds like a "compromise' to me.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The real power lies in the hands of the average gun owner, not in some office building in Virginia or in the halls of Congress.

This is absolutely true; but consider the implications of that. At a national level, how many activists do you need to have a political impact that can be felt?

The NRA is essentially an activist group for gun owners who aren't particularly active. They send in their money and maybe call when the NRA puts out an alert; but many aren't as committed as some are.

This has good points and bad points. One good point is that people are by and large not that active politically. A group like OFF will never grow past a certain point because there are just not that many people out there willing to devote their time, money and energy.

The positive thing about the NRA is that by appealing to a broader and less activist membership, I get the clout of those added members. When the NRA stands up to protect my right to own an evil black rifle, I get the clout of all those skeet shooters who really don't care about that and may even think I don't need one.

So let's say I have my 10,000 hardcore, activist gun owners? Can they get a lot done? Sure they can; but their political impact on the national stage will always be limited because they are still just 10,000 people out of 200 million eligible voters. They aren't even a fraction of a percent.

If I take those same 10,000 gun owners and put them in the NRA, they will make a much bigger impact because the total population there is 4 million people. These same 10,000 can now speak with the voice of 4 million voters (actuallly more like 3.5M right now I believe).

 

[ebd10]

Gee, sounds like a "compromise' to me.

Taken on its own, you would be right. The difference between OFF and the NRA is that OFF only works to ADVANCE the Second Amendment. Before the CPL law went into effect, there were no provisions for the average person getting a CPL. You either had to be a cop or have political clout. Compromise as a way to move forward is a good thing. Compromising to assist in the incremental loss of our rights is a bad thing. I'd think that being from Massachusetts, you'd understand that...

 

[Al Norris]

FPrice wrote:
If you notice, most of these anti-NRA threads concentrate on bad-mouthing the NRA but are strangely lacking in documenting what other pro-gun groups have done.

Oh I noticed all right. We had this very same conversation at the end of July when S.397 passed the Senate. The names have changed, somewhat, but the same message is out: "Dhey done backstabbed us'ns agin!"

What's so funny is that folks would rather hear something from some third source and rally to that flag, instead of reading the actual bill and getting their info straight. What's so sad is that it's not like this stuff is written in another language. It's basic American English. They did away with the lawyer-speak years ago.

 

[ebd10]

Bart:

The NRA is essentially an activist group for gun owners who aren't particularly active. They send in their money and maybe call when the NRA puts out an alert; but many aren't as committed as some are.

An example of obsolete thinking. You're stuck in the '80s. This is the elctronic age. A simple cut-n-paste message emailed to a congresscritter counts as activism, and isn't even as labor intensive as writing a letter. The content doesn't matter, it's the opinion that counts. Politicians live and die by numbers.

The positive thing about the NRA is that by appealing to a broader and less activist membership, I get the clout of those added members.

Really? You don't think that having all of those skeet and trap shooters that are against people owning .50 caliber rifles within the ranks is counterproductive? It's hard to focus on the problem at hand when you're dodging the daggers from behind.

When the NRA stands up to protect my right to own an evil black rifle, I get the clout of all those skeet shooters who really don't care about that and may even think I don't need one.

Like Charlton Heston? I can do very well without his kind of "support" thank you. He did more damage to us with his one comment about private ownership of AK-47's than Feinstein ever did. It exposed the NRA as being weak and unfocused.

So let's say I have my 10,000 hardcore, activist gun owners? Can they get a lot done? Sure they can; but their political impact on the national stage will always be limited because they are still just 10,000 people out of 200 million eligible voters. They aren't even a fraction of a percent.

History has shown that a small number of true believers can have an effect that far outweighs their numbers. 10,000 people that are committed to liberty can get far more done than 4 million squishy gun owners. Especially now that it's so easy to get the word out.

 

[rock jock]

My major problem with the NRA is that they are always on the defensive, always making compromises, and in the end, always losing just a little more of our right to bear arms.

You mean like getting the AWB shot down? Actively working over the past ten years to get shall-issue CCW legislation approved?

You have no idea what you are talking about. Your original post contained 99% fear-mongering emotional drivel.

 

[pharmer]

The trigger lock requirement will not be a problem if it specifically says to include a lock without a requirement to use it. AP ammo is different because we all know most centerfire ammo will defeat most vests. SS-109 will go away along with many bullets constructed of alloys specifically to penetrate (on heavy game). Then there is the "Brady Orgasmic" FN 5.7 and on and on. Joe