Where is the NRA?

[vranasaurus]

MLeake Wrote:

I have not forgotten that George HW Bush signed the 1986 ban on full autos.

Would you have thrown out all of the good that the FOPA accomplished over that provision?

The FOPA did the following:

1. Limited BATFE inspection of dealers to once per year

2. Prohibited a firearm registry (other than the NFA)

3. Safe Passage Provision

4. Relaxed record keeping requirements on the sale of ammunition

5. Clarified that pardons, expungements, set asides, etc.. removed any disability under the GCA.

The Hughes Amendment wasn't about so much about banning machine guns as it was an attempt to kill the bill.

Wasn't it Reagan that signed the FOPA?

[MLeake]

FOPA should not have required the ban, in order to pass.

I have issues with LEOSA, as I find it hypocritical to argue that private citizens should have the RKBA, but we will support authorizing the RKBA to retired or former LEOs even while private citizens still have nothing comparable.

Sometimes compromises are a good thing, but sometimes they help cement the status quo and are ultimately not good.

Meanwhile, you'll notice that my point on Bush was that he was not a 100% pro-gun guy, but that did not make him a bad president.

Gun rights are a major issue to me, but they are not the only issue.

Still, they are right up there.

[Battler]

Key points

- In negotiation (with the populace, not Biden), talking first isn't an advantage, if anything it's a disadvantage - "let the other guy talk first, find out what *he* wants".

- We *are* reacting, we'd be just as happy for nothing to get done. This isn't like the debt ceiling stuff or some mutually beneficial exchange.

- Waiting out the clock - delay is good. Every day emotion subsides. CNN keeps trying to crank up guns but attention span on the subject dissipates. Note the silence from the republicans any legislation would need to have approve it.

The NRA will have further opportunity to impress or disappoint over the following few weeks. But so far, they're ramping up to do what they do, and at an appropriate pace.

[vranasaurus]

The FOPA didn't require the Hughes Amendment to pass. The amendment was passed with the intent that it would kill the bill.

Once the amendment was added the options were to scrap the entire thing or accept it as is. We got far more than we gave on the FOPA.

[Pointshoot]

NRA Quits Working With Whitehouse After Meeting . . .

I find this very encouraging. You don't 'work' with those who are coming after you:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nra-q...2nd-amendment/

[MLeake]

The FOPA was also poorly written.

The duration of a protected en route stop was not defined, and this has proven a nightmare for various victims of the NY and NJ anti-gun regimes.

The lesson I would draw from 1986 was that divide and conquer works, and we should be ready to resist it this time around. Gun manufacturers should be held accountable if they promote import bans; hunter groups should realize they will become irrelevant over time if they alienate younger shooters, who do care about evil black rifles; those of us who have all the guns we might want should protect the rights of our younger brethren to eventually obtain the guns they want.

On a related note, I have been an NRA member for a while (Golden Eagle, Life Member, etc). But, while I have morally supported the SAF for quite some time, I had not been a member. I corrected that deficiency a few minutes ago.

The NRA has functions it performs (right now, the NRA ILA being the most on point), but SAF is also worth supporting.

We need to stand together; we also need to put our money where our interests are best guarded.

[vranasaurus]

I'm not saying I think we should compromise on the issues currently being discussed. That being said the FOPA did far more good than bad. Do you want to go back to the pre FOPA days?

You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In our system you will rarely get everything you want. We need to take what we can get when we can get it. The incremental approach works for us as well as it does for the other side.

[BarryLee]

CNN is reporting that the NRA is readying a print and television campaign to begin shortly. They also list the various other things the NRA is up to much of which relies on folks like us getting involved.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-for-a-flight/

[Mike Irwin]

"I think something more nefarious is going on here, like weapons dealers using the run on guns to drive up an artificial premium on firearms and ammunition, knowing that true bans and confiscation will never pass the Supreme Court."

Yes, yes, you're on to the plot. It was actually a gun dealer who killed those 26 people in Connecticut.

And, I have it on the BEST authority that no one actually died -- those kids and adults were spirited away and are being held in the same super secret facility where all of the people from the supposedly hijacked 9-11 jets are being held.

That manufactured a high profile "incident" that the EBRSSSSS (Evil Black Rifle Sellers Super Secret Squirrel Society) used to jam up prices.





"Would you have thrown out all of the good that the FOPA accomplished over that provision?"

Quite a few people would, actually. A lot.

Because it wasn't hard line enough, because it wasn't PURE enough, because if there's ONE IOTA of something with which someone disagrees in that act it means that NRA SOLD OUT AND THEY SHOULD NEVER EVER BE FORGIVEN! TAKE UP ARMS! TAKE UP ARMS!

Yeah.



"The FOPA was also poorly written."

Wow. A piece of legislation that is "poorly written" and has unintended consequences.

That certainly had never happened before in Congress.

Here's a very simple truth that far too many people either can't, or won't, understand...

NO piece of legislation ever passed is free from the ability of some other politician or political entity to bastardize it, twist it, and loophole it in ways that no one could have conceived.

A PERFECT example is the 1994 Assault Weapons law...

By defining an assault weapon in terms of cosmetics, such as a pistol grip and a bayonet lug, it was easy for the firearms industry to obey the letter of the law while continuing to manufacture the exact same firearms, except with out certain cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs.

It took the people who supported that boondoggle a bit to catch on to what was happening, and then it was all crocodile tears about how the gun makers were violating the spirit of the law.

Right.

The salient fact remains that as long as you have politicians quibbling over terminology - I'll remind you of the most famous instance, in which Bill Clinton quibbled over the definition of the word IS - a perfectly clear law CAN NEVER be passed.

[Alabama Shooter]

recommendations from an Obama administration working group on gun violence that are expected to address assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips.

I guess they are trying to cover all the bases now.

The NRA is also sending personnel to gun shows to help to mobilize gun owners to voice their opposition.

Doesn't every gun owner in the country already know?

there's got to be some common ground here, not to solve every problem, but diminish the probability that … these mass shootings will occur and diminish the probability that our children are at risk in our schools."

Funny thing about probability. With 100,000,000 rifles in the country and about 100 of them being used in murders every year the odds are about 1 in a million one will be used in a murder. Strange that.

[Mike Irwin]

" Doesn't every gun owner in the country already know?"

Knowing, and doing, are two COMPLETELY different things.

NRA figures that pretty much every gunowner already knows.

They want gunowners to DO, not just sit back and wait for someone else to take care of it for them.

[MLeake]

Mike Irwin, nice to see you are wearing your sarcasm hat today. It suits you, though there are days when I do miss WildAlaska's hello kitty thong...

But as to FOPA being poorly written, one of my points was that if we want legislative victories, we have to pay attention to details - such as lack of definition of terms, such as en route stops.

Or, for that matter, "sporting purposes."

While politicians can twist words around with the best of them, these are specific examples that we have already seen used against us. We have to be on guard for such.

Please notice also that while I may criticize certain NRA positions, I'm a pro-active member, and I frequently call on TFLers to join, make contact, send advice or opinions. So, while I do not like the Hughes Amendment, and do not think we should look at it as a trade that obtained FOPA (as it wasn't, strictly speaking, it was a small silk purse tacked onto a sow's ear) please don't tie my direct comment in with NRA bashing.

Please note also that I am one of many on TFL who keep trying to cajole others into:

1) Not just assuming we are going to have to give up hard-earned gains, in order to appease or compromise with antis who ultimately do not want compromise;

2) Not throwing other rights under the bus in the attempt to guard RKBA;

and

3) Not just moaning or wringing hands, but actually engaging representatives, antis in their social circles, even the media.

(Edit: I've written my senators and congressman, already, and I regularly engage the public editor of the nearest big city newspaper via email.)

Frankly, I am sick of some of the defeatists around here, but disgusted with the ones who want to toss some other victim in, to distract and divert the frenzy.

Bitching is easy. Taking effective action requires some effort. People have to decide if RKBA justifies their effort. For me, it justifies effort, time, and cash expenditures.

Ok, end of serious post. You can go back to sarcasm mode.

[Alabama Shooter]

They want gunowners to DO, not just sit back and wait for someone else to take care of it for them.

Our guys are pretty solid on the congressional side down here. The executive won't listen and does not care what I think. That brings us to the guys on the fence. The NRA identify those guys freezing up in the door?

[ChasingWhitetail91]

I follow the NRA like I follow squirrel tracks when im deer hunting. I wrote them for an opinion on laws in my state pertaining to the 2A and never heard back. As far as im concerned if they don't have time for me, I don't have time for them.

[Pointshoot]

Just heard an interview with David Keene from the NRA. He was questioned on NPR (National Public Radio) - which is hardcore 'progressive' (that is leftist) in outlook. The interviewer used their usual talking points - raw stats without giving context - and he dealt with them each with great good sense and the facts. The guy also has a great voice for radio - deep and exudes calm authority. Great job !

BTW - I must warn you to limit your exposure to NPR Radio. I can't listen too long without getting ticked off. If I go beyond a certain 'exposure time' I usally get a headache.






- NRA Life Member
- Gun Owners of America Member
- Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership member - I'm not Jewish, but you don't have to be to join

if you don't like one - pick another or some other pro 2A organization, and also be active on your own

"The enemy of my enemy, is my friend."

[Fishing_Cabin]

MLeake,

While I, and others are worried about future legislation coming through in the near future as a result of Biden's Commission. I am not sure, and infact have always been skeptical of the protections afforded by the FOPA.

From my understanding, FOPA is just a another law that was enacted, but should be able to be easily repealed as well if there were a congress and white house that were willing.

[Maxb49]

Yes, yes, you're on to the plot. It was actually a gun dealer who killed those 26 people in Connecticut. And, I have it on the BEST authority that no one actually died -- those kids and adults were spirited away and are being held in the same super secret facility where all of the people from the supposedly hijacked 9-11 jets are being held.

Don't be obtuse. You know, or should have known what I'm getting at. The point is that under the threat of a gun ban, weapons manufacturers and dealers are making money like the treasury is printing it up for them in the back room. Either it is likely that guns will be banned, or it is unlikely guns will be banned. If it is likely that guns will be banned, the NRA has been doing a lousy public relations campaign up to this point, which many here agree with. For all the money they receive, they should have a professional face to the organization who can connect with the general public. Firearms manufacturers have a perverse incentive for their client base to think that popular guns are going to be banned; it leads to hand over fist fire sales at gun dealers. Given this incentive, it's not unreasonable to believe that gun manufacturers want to milk this quasi-(even, artificial?)crisis for everything it's worth. In any event, it's highly unlikely that we're going to lose our individual right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of what President Obama says, the Heller line of cases are settled law and the individual right to keep and bear arms is entrenched to our body of Common Law. In addition, the Republican Congress is going to continue to oppose everything that President Obama proposes. As a consequence, it is clear that we're not going to lose our rights for the foreseeable future.

Now, if our rights were being threatened, I wouldn't feel comfortable with Wayne and the boys on our side given the lousy public relations campaign they've put up so far. On the other hand, if they're just milking the donations for everything their worth and taking advantage of perverse incentives then they aren't worth giving money to in the first place.

Personally, I believe that the best defense of gun rights comes though cultural conditioning; the promotion of healthy, fun and good natured shooting sports like trap, skeet, rifle and pistol shoots. The 2nd Amendment isn't about sports, but the more people get involved with shooting sports, the more entrenched gun rights become. People have to be comfortable with being around guns before they feel comfortable supporting gun rights. The NRA used to get lots of kids involved in shooting sports; they should be doing more of that throughout the country and look to develop new markets for shooting sports. An organization that primarily serves older, white people is going to die out when they do.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Keene was on NPR and did very well. The interviewer was intelligent and asked good questions - not the ranters on the networks.

[Tom Servo]

The point is that under the threat of a gun ban, weapons manufacturers and dealers are making money like the treasury is printing it up for them in the back room.

So, the fact that some folks benefit from a situation proves that they're responsible for the situation? I have trouble buying that.

Let's remember that the public face of the NRA reflects its membership, just as its actions follow the wishes of the membership. If the membership are apathetic on an issue, the NRA isn't likely to push it too much.

Frankly, I'm surprised at the aggressiveness they've shown, since many members I know admit they wouldn't really mind background checks for all transactions and maybe a ban on the AR-15 (as long as theirs is grandfathered).

Then there are the chest-beating "my cold dead Wolverines" types who never even join or contribute. I have to listen to those fools all day long lately. They're going to resist the confiscation orders with the force of arms and run into the hills to drink deer blood and snuggle up with Charlie Sheen by the campfire in a totally not homoerotic way.

Yet, most haven't taken any action. They can't name any of their elected officials, and most don't even vote. Most are resigned to the idea that a ban is imminent, and they can't be convinced that there are still civilized, legal ways to prevent it.

In the fractious and squabbling gun culture, the NRA has to find some sort of balance. They can't be everything to everyone. Of course, actually belonging to the organization gives members something of a voice in its actions.

[Maxb49]

So, the fact that some folks benefit from a situation proves that they're responsible for the situation? I have trouble buying that.

The NRA really laid down on the job here, and given the fact that the biggest (financial) beneficiaries of the gun lobby - the firearms manufacturers - are making enormous amounts of money off of this moral panic against guns, it's clear from a simple game theory perspective that this hysteria is exactly what they want. If this organization is there for the $$$, fine. But they aren't going to get a dime out of me because they're not looking out for my, or your rights. They're there to make money.

[Tom Servo]

But they aren't going to get a dime out of me because they're not looking out for my, or your rights. They're there to make money.

I'd like to see some proof of that assertion, but even if it were true, we stand to benefit from their actions.

By your logic, we should claim some moral purity while watching our rights get trampled.

[Alabama Shooter]

But they aren't going to get a dime out of me because they're not looking out for my, or your rights. They're there to make money.

Based on your posts I would say you write for or closely follow the pro gun control media. You certainly seem to believe and repeat many of their lines, lies and stories.

[sigcurious]

the promotion of healthy, fun and good natured shooting sports like trap, skeet, rifle and pistol shoots. The 2nd Amendment isn't about sports, but the more people get involved with shooting sports, the more entrenched gun rights become.

This logic doesn't really fly. "Sporting use" has already been used to diminish our rights, and the other side is able to parade tons of hunter/trap/skeet types out in the media who are ok with more restrictions because they don't affect the firearms they use. Remember "sporting" is so restrictive that things like 3-gun/IPSC/USPSA/IDPA are not recognized as "sporting". While I agree its good to get more people involved in shooting, doing so with such limited scope does not guarantee that their overall mindset or understanding of the 2A will change. I mean who uses an AR to shoot skeet? Or aside from specialized shotguns how many hold more than 10 rounds? So why would these new shooters whose experience is limited to "sporting use" which is largely unaffected by any of the proposed limits see them as harmful?

Firearms manufacturers have a perverse incentive for their client base to think that popular guns are going to be banned; it leads to hand over fist fire sales at gun dealers. Given this incentive, it's not unreasonable to believe that gun manufacturers want to milk this quasi-(even, artificial?)crisis for everything it's worth.

Some manufacturers were already running behind demand before the post-Sandy Hook buying frenzy. It's not like they can just suddenly add more machines to the line and boost production to meet this huge increase in demand that they know is temporary.

[wingman]

Join the NRA or other firearms group of your choice,rather then argue here write/call your Representatives,and yes IMO purchasing ammo, parts, firearms provides money for companies to remain in business and hire lawyers if needed. Simply put money talks DC loves money and really that is all they care about.

[MLeake]

Maxb49, you like to sling accusations, but unless I missed it you haven't actually offered up any viable, winning strategies. Do you have anything to offer, or are you just trying to be divisive?