The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 9, 2019, 08:32 AM   #51
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
This is the kind of thinking that causes failure. When we give up on the idea of multi-party government, we give up on representative government.

30% of us population at mínimum are gun owners. If the nra can deliver our vote with a relatively normal, not orange, candidate, I feel they could deliver a lot of that 30%. Then, being normal could appeal to some Democrats, Independents and whatever is called Republican now!

That is a SOLID win!
Certainly agree with that. YUGE gun owning ‘middle ground’ out there of who could be brought into the fold......poor messaging by the nra, imho, poor messaging in general.....
I’m visiting wife’s relatives in WI...none are gun owners but their impression of a gun owner is really ‘skewed’, until I try to explain this guy(me), who has entered their gigantic family via marriage, isn’t some sort of ‘gun weirdo’...at least I don’t think I am...just a Glock fanboy

BUT Lee’s FB BS just reinforces my desire to stay away from the nra. He’s evidently not smart enough to see he hurts the nra far more than he helps it.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old June 9, 2019, 11:48 AM   #52
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 387
childish replies and post for a board member of any organization. The nra is in deep trouble....corruption, in fighting, siege mentality, diving into the far right deep end of partisan politics
heyjoe is offline  
Old June 9, 2019, 12:31 PM   #53
punkinhead
Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2014
Posts: 23
Any reasonably mature person knows that you don't attach your company or organization's name to a social media page and act snarky and childish. Willis needs to grow up.
punkinhead is offline  
Old June 9, 2019, 01:41 PM   #54
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 8,752
Quote:
KyJim, are you referring to Mr. Willes' post, or the NRA member's post to which Willes was responding?...
It was directed at Mr. Willes' post in particular, but to forum members generally. A lot of people just go off without thinking of ramifications. I've done it and suspect most of us have. Some things you can't take back. I always warned by children (now adults) to be careful about what they post because you have to assume it's online forever.
KyJim is offline  
Old June 9, 2019, 08:10 PM   #55
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,720
A couple of people may notice that your posts have incurred minor edits. It's not stated explicitly in the forum rules, but it's tradition and practice around here that we try not to lower ourselves to the level of the opposition. The office of President deserves respect, and whether you like him or not Donald Trump deserves to be addressed or mentioned with the respect due any President of the country. Accordingly, with concurrence of the more senior staff, I have edited a few posts to remove references to President Trump that were less than polite, civil plays on his name or person.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old June 10, 2019, 04:57 AM   #56
Prndll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 123
This is rather fascinating to watch.

Even if suppressors were to get banned (and the currently haven't been), that doesn't change the idea of keeping arms or bearing them....at all. Banning bump stocks does not change my ability to keep and bear arms either (however much I might loathe the idea of it happening). I just feel like things need to be kept in perspective. Even though there are many people that have silencers, most don't. In time I will have a few but currently don't. As long as they are not banned anyway. But I understand the perceived threat.

As for Pres. Trump, he so obviously has so much opposition that ANYTHING can and will be used against him in the court of public opinion. I'm amazed he's managed to get this far. Now with that said, this should not be twisted to make me a blind follower. I am not. I do keep in mind though that the left would much rather repeal the 2nd all together. Witch makes this particular discussion so small as to render it just about pointless.

If you want to be THAT much in-tune with Twitter, you are going to be lead down the prim-rose path.

As to the degree of "snark" involved here, well, emotions are running high in all directions. Lots of people are expecting things of the NRA that they either can't or wont actually deliver. People all over the place are talking about America being on the edge of civil war. With this degree of angst, anger, frustration, and insanity....I frankly don't see how people can realistically expect anything else. Particularly across social media.
__________________

Texas State Rifle Association

<====Angels and ministers of grace defend us!====>

Last edited by Tom Servo; June 13, 2019 at 08:46 AM. Reason: Intemperate
Prndll is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 08:34 AM   #57
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,634
I wasn't going to open any of these cans of worms, but this seems like a fine stage of the thread to open them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prndll
Even if suppressors were to get banned (and the currently haven't been), that doesn't change the idea of keeping arms or bearing them....at all. Banning bump stocks does not change my ability to keep and bear arms either (however much I might loathe the idea of it happening). I just feel like things need to be kept in perspective.
Not only has no suppressor ban been instituted, no one I've read about in the exec branch has proposed one. This is unlike the bumpstock episode in that the reactions aren't to a government proposal, but a rational anxiety about how this could pan out.

The bump stock regulation is arguably a greater threat to the central right than would be a suppressor ban. The stock is a necessary element of a rifle, whereas a suppressor isn't. That the specific item re-classified is something most of us consider silly shouldn't obscure the sloppy reasoning invoked in the re-classification itself.

While a suppressor isn't a necessary element of a firearm, it is part of the array of items congress has seem fit to regulate or ban as related to arms. I suppose a detachable magazine isn't a necessary element of a modern rifle either, but a complete ban on magazines should be a 2d Am. violation since those are part of the proper function of the rifle.

Are suppressors common firearm parts, i.e. do they meet a common use test? I would not wield that "in common use" hammer very heavily where the relative rarity may be the direct consequence of government discouragement. If the government were to ban, collect and crush every snub nosed revolver, should it then be permitted to argue the legitimacy of the ban because snub nosed revolvers are no longer in common use? I would resist that argument.

Are suppressors in common use if most people don't have them? If the ATF figures are correct, more than a million of them are registered. While far from a majority use, would we call it a rare use?

I have neither a bumpstock nor a suppressor, but how they are treated is interesting because it bears on what limits the government has.

Last edited by zukiphile; June 10, 2019 at 08:47 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 09:03 AM   #58
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prndll
As to the degree of "snark" involved here, well, emotions are running high in all directions. Lots of people are expecting things of the NRA that they either can't or wont actually deliver.
The current problems with the NRA are only partially over member dissatisfaction with what the NRA can or does deliver politically and legislatively. The more fundamental issue is that the NRA leadership seems to have forgotten that the NRA is a membership organization and that they (the leaders) are supposed to represent the members. Also, as a registered not-for-profit organization, the leadership and the members of the board of directors have certain requirements for exercising fiscal responsibility. In plain English, they are supposed to spend the members' money wisely (or, at least, not blatantly negligently). What is coming out is that the board has not been fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the members' money is not being wasted or used improperly.

IMO, we are now seeing a double-barreled dissatisfaction among NRA members. There have been questions for a long time about how effectively the NRAs "long game" strategy coincides with the members' expectations in regard to 2A rights and legislation. (For example, the NRA initially tried to kill the Heller lawsuit. It is debatable -- I can understand why/how the NRA or any other pro-2A group might have had doubts -- the decision was 5-4, and it could easily have gone 5-4 against the 2A.) Now it comes out that the advertising agency may (note: "may") have been massively overbilling the NRA for many years. And it is coming out that Wayne LaPierre has been feathering his own nest at member expense by getting vacation trips and personal clothing paid for by the members while drawing a million-dollar-a-year salary.

The concern is, IMHO, legitimate. When elected members of the board, who have a collective and individual responsibility to guide and direct the organization and to control and protect the members' money, react to legitimate concerns expressed by a member in such a childish and defensive manner, it does not speak well for the board in general and for that director in particular.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old June 10, 2019, 09:14 AM   #59
Prndll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 123
I completely agree.

I had no intention however in suggesting the the rarity of suppressors weigh in on wether or not they should be considered for banning. Just that keeping things in perspective in important. Everyone going nuts over something that has not happened. The only reason I can see this even making people nervous is the bumpstock ban that actually did.

Banning snub nose revolvers for any reason (including rarity) would be banning firearms. That's akin to banning Garands. That would certainly be a very big issue and would obviously be against the 2nd.

Keeping things in perspective is something I really believe the left has real issues with. They want to ban AR15's when those are so small of a blip on the radar as to be insignificant. Loosing perspective is too easy. Especially when following social media.

If you really want to get down to it though. The thing that defines "firearms", "arms", "weapons", and "guns" are set down by our glorious leaders as we agree to let them regulate and ban in the first place. Perhaps as we subconsciously believe that we (as a whole) can't be trusted enough....or was the power ripped from us as the NFA was born?

If he bans silencers, what are people going to do? Vote him out? Revolt? or accept it?

Where this topic is concerned, what limits does the government actually have? They define the game AND it's Rules.
__________________

Texas State Rifle Association

<====Angels and ministers of grace defend us!====>
Prndll is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 09:28 AM   #60
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prndll
Banning snub nose revolvers for any reason (including rarity) would be banning firearms. That's akin to banning Garands. That would certainly be a very big issue and would obviously be against the 2nd.
I agree that your analysis is sound, but it may not be so obvious that a contrary argument wouldn't be employed in a ban.

When Kavanaugh was being interrogated by Sen. Feinstein, she argued that AR15s aren't in common use, even if many millions of people possess them. The mechanism is to slice parts of "in common use" into such thin slices that each part may be argued to be rare.

If the government banned, collected and crushed every last Garand, they wouldn't be "in common use" any longer, but that would be solely because of a condition the government itself created. My modest point is that the government shouldn't be able to create a condition of scarcity, then rely on that scarcity to undermine a constitutional protection. That more people don't have suppressors is a direct consequence of a history of government dissuasion.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 10:39 AM   #61
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,720
Feinstein's argument was, essentially, that "possession" =/= "use." It's not enough to own an AR-15 (or two, or three, or ten or twenty) -- you have to take each and every one of them out and shoot it on a regular basis or your ownership & possession counts for nothing in terms of "in common use." Never mind that, for many of us, the "use" is standing in the corner of the bedroom, loaded and locked and ready to repel boarders in the dark of the night. Feinstein's definition doesn't include that "purpose" as "use."

Of course, by her definition, the 1911 I wear just about every day isn't in common use because I only carry it -- I haven't shot it for months. So I'm not "using" it -- I'm just carrying it around.

It's all in the spin. Lewis Carroll told us that in Through the Looking Glass (Alice in Wonderland):

Quote:
When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty Senator Feinstein said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old June 10, 2019, 12:15 PM   #62
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,176
I may have missed it, but did the NRA Board Member ever actually the question?
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 12, 2019, 01:54 PM   #63
Jack Ryan
Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2009
Posts: 49
Willis Lee is not the enemy here. Snarky moles and gun banners are the people who would WANT NRA members turning their backs on the people the SHOULD be thanking.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/sto...knm8Yt_oM9J44s


Marion Hammer

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people believe distortions printed by the media -- particularly in their efforts to help the enemies of freedom and the Second Amendment and to try to destroy the NRA. Nor does it cease to amaze me how willing the media are to deliberately distort and mislead.
__________________
Free men own guns. Slaves don't.
Jack Ryan is offline  
Old June 12, 2019, 03:28 PM   #64
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,720
If Willes Lee is not the enemy ... who is?

Do you think his response to the member who expressed a legitimate opinion was appropriate? Do you think it was appropriate for Mr. Lee, when called out on the snarkiness of his response, to play the "My personal account" card when the name of the account absolutely screams out that it's an account relating to his NRA position?

As to Ms. Hammer's contention that the Post article distorted the numbers and that the numbers are available to the members at the annual meetings: the fact is, the vast majority of the members can't attend the annual meetings. And, even if they can, that's not an assurance that the numbers presented are telling the truth. As I often comment, it's all in the spin.

Example: Not too many years ago, when my wife was alive, we got somewhat involved in the activities of the church we were attending. The church's finances were open. At the first annual meeting I attended, the treasurer read the financial statement. One item listed was "Endowment Income." The amount was, IIRC, around $350,000. That sounds very good, doesn't it?

Except that it was a lie. It wasn't a deliberate lie -- the woman who was treasurer had no financial or accounting background, she was just repeating the format that had been used by her predecessor, who had no doubt followed the format used by his or her predecessor. The problem was that what was reported as "endowment income" was NOT income earned from investment of the endowment. The vast bulk of that $350,000 was not earned interest or dividends, it was actually endowment principal that was transferred from endowment to the operating budget and spent. That's not "income."

I believed then and I believe now that this was an error made in good faith by someone who didn't understand the implications of that way of reporting the transfer. It caused people who didn't look deeper than the cover sheet to think that the church's finances were in better shape than they were. It came to a head a few years later, when the long-time pastor (who had been the prime mover in spending down the endowment principal) retired, and the interim pastor who came on board while we searched for a new pastor raised a red flag about the church's financial condition ... which was, at best, "tenuous."

Which is a long-winded way of saying that I am not impressed by a claim that the numbers are there for the members to see, when the numbers don't necessarily reflect the truth. This can be accidental (as I believe was the case with my church), or it can be deliberate (as might be the case with a large organization with paid accountants, and the ability to shift money back and forth between the organization and its captive advertising agency.)
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old June 12, 2019, 04:51 PM   #65
RaySendero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2010
Location: US South
Posts: 722
Quote:
Prndll Wrote:
.....

As for Mr. Morgan: there are things he can kiss.
Trump should have never agreed to that interview with Piers Morgan!!!
Nothing good will ever come of these interviews.
Seems Piers Morgan got Trump talking on anything that would easy to spin and miss-quote.
Believe that was Morgan's very well rehearsed plan from the start.
__________________
Ray

Last edited by Tom Servo; June 13, 2019 at 08:49 AM. Reason: Intemperate
RaySendero is offline  
Old June 13, 2019, 08:54 AM   #66
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,146
Quote:
Example: Not too many years ago, when my wife was alive, we got somewhat involved in the activities of the church we were attending. The church's finances were open. At the first annual meeting I attended, the treasurer read the financial statement. One item listed was "Endowment Income." The amount was, IIRC, around $350,000. That sounds very good, doesn't it?

Except that it was a lie. It wasn't a deliberate lie -- the woman who was treasurer had no financial or accounting background, she was just repeating the format that had been used by her predecessor, who had no doubt followed the format used by his or her predecessor. The problem was that what was reported as "endowment income" was NOT income earned from investment of the endowment. The vast bulk of that $350,000 was not earned interest or dividends, it was actually endowment principal that was transferred from endowment to the operating budget and spent. That's not "income."

I believed then and I believe now that this was an error made in good faith by someone who didn't understand the implications of that way of reporting the transfer. It caused people who didn't look deeper than the cover sheet to think that the church's finances were in better shape than they were. It came to a head a few years later, when the long-time pastor (who had been the prime mover in spending down the endowment principal) retired, and the interim pastor who came on board while we searched for a new pastor raised a red flag about the church's financial condition ... which was, at best, "tenuous."

Which is a long-winded way of saying that I am not impressed by a claim that the numbers are there for the members to see, when the numbers don't necessarily reflect the truth. This can be accidental (as I believe was the case with my church), or it can be deliberate (as might be the case with a large organization with paid accountants, and the ability to shift money back and forth between the organization and its captive advertising agency.
Excellent example of how the books may be "cooked," even inadvertently. I have investigated a few embezzlement and financial crimes. It often is sloppy as someone at a relatively low level in the company just has too easy and unsupervised access to the company's money. Often times the embezzlement has gone on years simply because no audit was performed, and when one was finally done it was identified rather easily.

And then there are the complex ones. Many of these never really come to full light, and often-times they involve non-criminal but unethical acts to muddy the waters. Skilled accountants with poor ethics and morals working for a non-profit that is less than transparent with it's finances can make things look nice and rosy for a very long time. Indefinitely even, unless there's a whistleblower. I looked into one a few years ago that was a scam company providing a scam service, yet convinced local courts to release defendants into their custody for drug rehab and was on the list at the local department of social services as a drug treatment source. When the first whistleblower reported it and I learned that it was a trusted drug rehab by DSS and the courts I didn't believe the whistleblower. For a while. Turned out the whistleblower was telling the truth.

The moral of the story? Just because a few pro-NRA media sources and a few board members come out to say that everything is just fine, and on the surface things maybe look ok, doesn't make it so...
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946

Last edited by 5whiskey; June 13, 2019 at 08:59 AM.
5whiskey is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08760 seconds with 8 queries